APPENDIX C

AUTHOR’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH DOWNING STREET

The Earl of Dufferin to Mr. Blunt

Private.

Cairo, 16 December ’82.

My dear Blunt,

Many thanks for your letter of December 8th, and especially for having sent me the pamphlet, of which I had heard, and which I have studied with the attention it seems to deserve.

I am quite alive to the importance of the question you refer to of the indebtedness of the peasantry. It is one of those evils which meet us both in India and in Ireland, and you may depend upon my doing my best to discover a remedy if any such there be.

We have induced the Government to let out of prison at once, something like 450 of those who have been shut up in jail.

Yours sincerely,

Dufferin.

Mr. Blunt to the Earl of Dufferin

January 23rd, 1883.

My dear Lord Dufferin,

I have delayed thanking you for your letter of the 16th December informing me of the release of 450 of the political prisoners, until I had seen Napier and learned from him a little more clearly than I could by letter what were the terms of agreement come to with regard to them when the trial was compromised. I had understood from Broadley that the terms would include an amnesty, and I had hoped it would have been a general one, and that the whole of the unfortunate people detained in the prisons on charges rising out of the “rebellion” would have been set free. Now, however, it seems that, though an amnesty has been decreed, many exceptions to it have been made, that while some have been released, others are being arrested, and that the Courts are still trying and executing men on criminal charges connected with the events of June and July. I trust that the interest I take in opposing this particular form of injustice will excuse me with you if I say a few words on the matter. The world, it is true, is full of injustice which we cannot remedy, but here the remedy would seem within our hands, and the injustice is one for which every Englishman who knows the facts is responsible.

First, as regards the exceptions made to the amnesty, it would seem most unfair that the leaders of the “rebellion” having foregone their right of being publicly defended, any of their followers or associates should be punished for rebellion. Arabi’s defence included the defence of every man in Egypt, and with the commutation of his sentence every other sentence should have been commuted. The two strongest cases I have heard of, of persons excepted from the amnesty, are Akkad’s and Awwam’s, men charged with no crime, but who have nevertheless been exiled, the one to Massowah and the other to the White Nile, punishments which Malet has, I think, explained in his despatches to be equivalent to death. These two cases I also recommend to your special attention from the fact that the sufferers are men whose quarrel was originally with English, not Egyptian, officials, and whose exception from the amnesty has consequently a rather compromising appearance for them. Akkad’s original offence lay in his having protested in 1879 against Rivers Wilson’s confiscation of the Moukabalah claims, a thing he was perfectly justified in doing, which, moreover, he had been invited to do by a notice published by Wilson in the papers. For this he was sent by Riaz on a false charge to the White Nile; the details, Napier tells me, he has laid already before you.

Awwam’s case is still stronger, and it affects Colvin. Awwam was an employé under Colvin on the Cadastral survey, and was dismissed for having drawn up a report showing the incapacity of the officers conducting the survey and their waste of public money—all which is now admitted. The wrong done him made a martyr of him with the Nationalists, and when Arabi came into office in February he was appointed his secretary. For this, and presumably at Colvin’s suggestion, he was arrested by the English authorities on their landing at Alexandria in July, and put in irons. He then wrote a letter to the Khedive demanding to know the reason of his arrest, and was transferred, still in irons, to the Borgho prison, where Ninet saw him seventy-four days afterwards. Then, when the disclosures relating to that prison began to be made, Awwam would seem to have been sent without trial to Khartoum, and is probably there at the present moment. These are strong cases, but I have little doubt there are many others quite as strong.

Secondly. It is surely a mockery to decree an amnesty affecting only persons who happen to be actually in prison, and omitting from its operation both men already dealt with and men to be dealt with in the future on charges connected with the past. From all I hear the reign of terror has not been diminished in the provinces by the decree—whatever may be the case at Cairo—the prisons are still full and men are being arrested daily.

Lastly. I cannot understand how it can be the wish of our Government to make scapegoats of the rank and file of those charged with the criminal acts of June and July while the chief offenders enjoy immunity. If one thing has been proved to the satisfaction of the Government more than another, it is that Omar Lutfi was responsible for the murderous character of the riots of the 11th of June. Yet we read still of executions at Alexandria for crimes committed on that day by others, the chief culprit himself being the while at large, in honour, and holding high office under the Khedive. I say nothing of the Khedive himself, though you doubtless know how little his conduct on that day would have borne investigation.

Having thus discharged my conscience of what I consider a duty, let me now allude to the other part of your letter, that relating to the debts of the fellahin. It was the scheme of Arabi and the Nationalists last February to solve the difficulty by making it illegal to lend money on mortgage of land except with the consent of an officer to be appointed for the purpose in the chief town of each district, and then only to an amount small in proportion to land value. Thus the only borrowers would have been persons able and intending to repay. I quite understand that such a regulation might have checked the flow of capital into the country and in consequence have reduced the public revenue, but the object of the Nationalists was to prevent at all costs the passing of the land into the hands of strangers; and I repeat that this must be prevented if there is to be a cessation of the popular discontent in Egypt. This seems to me a far more vital matter than the form of government of the country, or even the reform of the administration. But probably it can only be effected by a reduction of the revenue, and consequently of the rate of interest on the debt. The Nationalists also intended to form a National Bank to make the required advances. But I feel that very likely it is useless my saying anything on this head, for I fear the Government at home has no serious desire to effect anything but a makeshift arrangement agreeable to the European public, and strong enough to last their time. I wish you could have seen Mohammed Abdu or some others of the Nationalist leaders before they left Egypt. They would have told you in an hour more than you could learn from all the English officials at Cairo in a fortnight. Nevertheless I beg you to believe that I still look confidently for a solution compatible with Egyptian aspirations at your hands, and I remain yours truly,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

The Earl of Dufferin to Mr. Blunt

Private and Confidential.

Cairo, 12th Feb. ’83.

My dear Blunt,

I hasten to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd of January. It must have been delayed en route.

You are really under a wrong impression as to what is going on here, as you will see by the enclosed memorandum from Sir Charles Wilson, to whom I referred your letter.

As for el Accad, he is quite unworthy of the interest you take in him. His complicity with Arabi is beyond doubt, and he misappropriated some funds which Halim Pasha entrusted to him for the purpose of bribing Arabi to support his, Halim’s, candidature.

I have sent home a report on the reorganization of Egypt, from which you will see that I am doing what I can to promote the establishment of just principles of Government in this country.

Believe me, my dear Blunt, yours sincerely,

Dufferin.

P.S.—I need not remind you that there is no man who has done more to prevent this Government from exercising undue severity in the case of the rebels than Sir Charles Wilson.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

10, James Street, January 16, 1883.

My dear Eddy,

I think you will admit that the despatches published to-day, taken in connection with Colvin’s reappointment as Controller in Egypt, absolve me from any duty of reticence I may have had toward Mr. Gladstone on the events of the past year. In spite of all that has been said and promised and avowed, annexation stares us in the face as unmistakably as if the word had been written. I am sorry, more than for Egypt, that it should have come to this.

Yours affec.,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Private.

10, Downing Street, 12th March ’83.

My dear Wilfrid,

As Campbell Bannerman has to answer a question this afternoon founded on your letter which will (I understand) amount to what he could tell you, were he to see you, perhaps an interview would be of little good. He tells me that every piece of fresh information they get at the Admiralty (e.g. from Lord Alcester) fully confirms his account in the House of Commons; and therefore it seems to resolve itself into a question of the known intentions of the authorities in Egypt as well as of the Government at home against what Gill and Palmer fancied their mission to have been.

I apologize for having perhaps expressed myself too strongly yesterday. But the Government have nothing in the world to conceal; and the organisers of the Expedition surely ought to know better the objects of it than the unfortunate men charged with the mission.

Yours as always affec.,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Edward Hamilton

Paris, Sep. 14, 1883.

Dear Eddy,

When I saw you on Wednesday I told you that I had thought of taking Sabunji with me, but had given up the idea. Since then, however, I have heard that the man I counted on to help me in Egypt is no longer there, and I have consequently determined to take Sabunji. The fact is I should be very helpless without him, and if it should so happen that I could be of any good it would be as well to have him at hand.

I shall leave him at Port Said or Suez till I have seen Baring, and as I told you, I have no intention of doing anything without Baring’s countenance. If Baring will not listen to anything I have to propose I shall not waste any time in Egypt, but shall go on to Ceylon and India. I shall caution Sabunji to get into no mischief, and he has always acted as far as I am aware squarely in his service with me. We start to-night for Marseilles, and so farewell. I will write to you from Egypt.

Yours affec.,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

Cairo, September 28th, 1883.

My dear Eddy,

I promised to write to you, and I will keep my promise, but you must not expect me to say anything pleasant or flattering. I found Baring extremely amiable and willing to listen to all I had to say, and I believe he told me his own views frankly. Our ideas on many of the reforms wanted in Egypt were the same. His scheme for relieving the debts of the peasantry seemed a sound one—and he struck me generally as being a man of sympathy and courage. But when I have said this I have said all. On the main point of giving Egypt back her liberty we are worlds apart. He neither wishes it, nor has the least idea of attempting it. “What Egypt wants,” he told me, “is peace and order, not another revolution; we have restored the Khedive and the Circassians to power, and I shall do my best to keep them there.”

With regard to Dufferin’s famous Charter I find neither he nor any one else look upon it as in the least serious or in the least important—and they are right. The elections are not serious, nor were ever intended to be by those who drafted the Charter. The electoral lists are drawn up by the Government, the voting takes place under the eye of the Governor and in the Prefecture of Police—and in most instances the Governor or the Prefect of Police are the candidates chosen. It could not have been otherwise. The Circassians have been encouraged to re-establish their rule by a reign of terror. There is no protection of any kind against arbitrary arrest, arbitrary confiscation of property, and imprisonment without trial. The prisons in the country districts are still full of untried men. There is no liberty of speech, or of the press—and at Alexandria they began the elections by hanging two more men charged with instigating the riots of last year. How should any one but the Prefect of Police be chosen? Mr. Gladstone, who knows everything, doubtless knows that in India, where the people have been crushed for ages, they worship Siva the god of destruction. Here they worship the Prefect of Police. Yet less than two years ago there were both freedom of speech and of the press, elections fairly representative, and the beginning of a real Constitution. It may have been necessary for Imperial or international reasons to destroy this and to revert to a system of “peace and order” as Baring calls it, but it cannot be necessary to talk of having given the Egyptians liberty!

Baring himself is too honest to pretend that his system is anything but “Egypt for the Turks.” But he fancies he can manage Tewfik and the half dozen men who form his party, and give Egypt a mitigated and not altogether inhuman despotism. If he succeeds in this he will have accomplished something, but I cannot believe that he will at all succeed. Tewfik and Sherif have no following in this country beyond the palace walls, and, even supposing them to be the absolutely supple tools Baring believes them to be, they have no kind of moral influence and very little energy. The minor English officials tell me they are unable to redress the least wrong or introduce the simplest reform in the departments in which they serve; and that Baring and Maxwell should be able, through the weak medium of Tewfik, and Sherif, and Fakri, to do more than obtain a shadow of justice and compassion for the people I cannot understand. You know how different this is from my own idea of reforming the people through men of their own race whom they respect, and are ready to work with, and you may imagine my disappointment at getting from Baring nothing better than poor Malet’s stale idea of Egypt for the Turks.

I spoke to Sir Benson Maxwell, who is a really good man, about getting some kind of protection for the people from arbitrary arrest, and he has promised to do so. But he is going away on leave and nothing will be even begun before Christmas. On the whole it seems to me that no fate could possibly have been devised for Egypt more sad or more hopeless than what I see before me, and it would have been far more merciful to have put the Egyptians at once out of their misery by annexing their country last year than to play at giving them “native rule,” under conditions which through much suffering will lead to exactly the same result a year or two years hence. I consequently leave Egypt a sadder and a wiser man than I came. I shall publish my poem—and make my protest and set out “to-morrow for fresh fields and pastures new.”

Yours, etc.,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

PS.—I wonder whether Mr. Gladstone knows that there are still twelve Bedouins in prison at Suez arrested for the Palmer murder and untried. Among them a woman and two or three children kept as hostages!!

Mr. Blunt to Sir Evelyn Baring

Cairo, Oct. 1, 1883.

My dear Sir Evelyn,

I have received a letter from Abd el Razak Bey, F.R.G.S., ex-director of the Naval College, who with some four others has been in prison here for the last three months on a charge originally of connection with a political plot. He was, however, ordered to be dismissed by the Commission appointed to inquire into the matter, but was nevertheless retained by Osman Pasha Ghaleb through superior orders “on suspicion,” and is still in the Zaptieh prison. He now asks me to come and see him, and as I am leaving Cairo to-morrow I shall be much obliged to you if you can kindly obtain me an order to enter the prison.

Since seeing you on Wednesday I have had opportunities of ascertaining the feelings of the people here, and I am convinced that unless something is speedily done to relieve their sufferings you will have trouble.

I am, dear Sir Evelyn, yours truly,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Sir Evelyn Baring to Mr. Blunt

Cairo, Oct. 1, 1883.

Dear Mr. Blunt,

I regret that I am unable to accede to the request contained in your letter. The decision as to permission being given to prisoners to receive visits lies entirely within the competence of the Egyptian Government. I must decline to interfere in the manner in which they exercise their discretion in dealing with the subject.

Very truly yours,

E. Baring.

Mr. Blunt to Sir Evelyn Baring

Private.

Suez, October 3rd, 1883.

My dear Sir Evelyn,

Your note by some accident was posted by your cavass instead of being sent by hand, and so did not reach me till just as I was leaving Cairo yesterday morning, and I think it is right you should know that receiving no answer I had already gone to the prison, and seen Abd el Razak Bey and the others. I found them comfortably lodged and in good health, with the exception of Mustapha Bey Sidki, who seemed seriously ill, and I received from them all the same account, that their release had been ordered by the Commission (which included two of the Belgians who came here as judges) more than three months ago, since which time no further inquiries had been made into their case. Abd el Razak had written to the Khedive, but without reply, and they believe themselves to be detained by the order of Osman Pasha Ghaleb. No English inspector had been to see them, and no inquiry had been made into their case. Now, however, that I have got your letter I fear that, should my visit become known to the Prefect of Police, or the fact that they wrote to me, the prisoners might be made to suffer from their and my imprudence. They believe themselves likely to be sent without further trial to the Soudan, and, as so many have suffered that fate during the past year, I trust that you will give them your protection. They were arrested on a charge which would seem to have been false, for their release was ordered by the court which examined it, and in any other country in the world they would be now at liberty.

As far as I can learn, Lord Dufferin interfered with these matters as long as he was here, for he had promised a political amnesty at the time of Arabi’s trial, but after his departure arrests were again made, and I understand on very high authority that there are at the present moment several thousand untried prisoners in the various towns of the Delta and Upper Egypt. I can speak from experience of the terror in which respectable people, in no way connected with the army, but known to have sympathized with the Liberal party, are now living in Cairo, and, as I said before, the excessive tyranny of the police and the Mudirs is goading men to new disquiet. Trusting that you will forgive me for not having waited for your answer, and that as far as the prisoners are concerned the fact of their having written to me and of my having seen them may be kept a secret, I remain, dear Sir Evelyn,

Yours very truly,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

Suez, October 3rd, 1883.

My dear Eddy,

You will have perceived that when I wrote the other day I was very angry, and I think that I had cause. But that is no reason why I should not write again. When I saw Baring I had not had any conversation with my own political friends, and I could not guess the condition of affairs. Now I have seen and talked to a great number of them, and I can speak with certainty as to their feelings and, I believe, with equal certainty as to the general feeling of the country.

The first and only obstacle that I see to a peaceable settlement of the country is the present Khedive. It is absolutely impossible he should remain, unless it is intended to occupy the country permanently with our troops—and I doubt if even that would altogether protect him. I have asked people of every class about him and I have not found one that did not despise him. The Circassians and the rest of the fanatical class look upon him as a traitor to his religion, and the liberals as a traitor to his country. You know that till the bombardment I supported him with the National party as against Halim or Ismaïl or other pretenders, but I am certain that no reconciliation is possible. You do not believe in his culpability in the matter of the riots of June, but all the Egyptians here do, and within the last three days I have had very important evidence on that head offered me. Now, I don’t wish to make too much of this—it was a stroke of party politics. But what the Nationalists will never forgive is that he has had innocent men as well as men who acted at his instigation hanged for these very acts. I have now the evidence of two men of the highest respectability, one of whom is Ahmed Bey Minshawi, the Sheykh who is so honourably mentioned in the Blue Books as having saved the lives of several hundred Christians at Tantah, to the effect that the riots there were equally the work of the Khedive’s friends, and that Yusuf Abu Diab, who was hanged for the affair, was not only innocent but did his best to save lives. Innocent men have everywhere been arrested and imprisoned on charges connected with these things to gratify the spite of the Khedive and his few partisans. You will say perhaps that these tales are not true, but they are certainly believed in—and in the belief lies all the difficulty of reconciliation. For myself I believe so strongly in the Khedive’s treachery that I would certainly not advise Arabi to return to Egypt, were the option given him, under Tewfik’s rule.

The Circassians of course do not quarrel with him on this account (for they look on the fellahin as their proper scapegoats), but for his conduct during the war and his feebleness of character. As you know, they are very few in numbers in the country, only a few thousand, and they say they want a man not a woman to protect them against Europe and against another rising of the fellahin. I believe there is a strong party among them for Ismaïl Pasha, a few for Husseyn on account of his extreme bigotry, and a few for Hassan, his brother. Among the more liberal-minded Halim is a favourite, as he is among many of the Egyptians through Abu Nadara’s advocacy, though very few people know him. His enemies say he is not a politician and cares only for cats and birds. Nobody will hear at all of Ibrahim on account of his letter to the Duke of Cambridge. The Khedive of course has a party, though he has no friends. This consists first of the Ministers who have come into power through his restoration—though all these cannot be counted on—secondly of Butros Pasha and other rich Copts, and I believe the Coptic money-lenders of the Said. The Patriarch and the mass of the Coptic clergy belong to the “Hesbu el Horiye,” the party of liberty, which now occupies the place of the National party of two years ago. Also, thirdly, of the financiers, bankers, and rich Syrian and Greek merchants of Alexandria. It is, however, safe to say that there is nobody of the Khedive’s party, except the Ministers, who do not support him as a natural stepping-stone to annexation.

The fellahin of the Delta, as far as I can gather, are divided in opinion, those of the remoter districts caring nothing for politics, and having still a traditional respect for Effendina—whoever he may be—the other part believing that Arabi will return. Of this there has grown up within the last few months a very strong belief in Cairo and the towns—and there is no doubt in the world that he is popular in spite of his misfortunes. I have heard people complain of him for his conduct in the war, for his neglect of blocking the Suez Canal, for his praying when he ought to have been fighting, and for his running away at Tel-el-Kebir. But they talk kindly of him and are proud of him as the first fellah who ever held supreme power in Egypt, and I had abundant proofs of their goodwill to myself as his friend. Except the Khedive I see no obstacle to his recall. Sherif might, I believe, work with him again as far as the Nationalists are concerned, and Ismaïl Eyoub certainly could. But Ali Mubarak Pasha, Khairi Pasha, Omar Lutfi Pasha, and Osman Ghaleb, the Prefect of Police, and Sultan Pasha would have to retire from power. I cannot conceive their being any loss—and there are certain Mudirs, too, in the provinces, who have been exceptionally bloodthirsty and tyrannical, whose position would be incompatible with a return of the liberal party to office. I am of opinion that the only prince of the family of Mehemet Ali who could unite parties is Halim. But I think you would do far better to make Arabi himself the chief of the state—Halim after all is a Turk and the people only look to him as the alternative to the present regime.

The more I have seen of the people the more convinced I have become that the present reign of terror cannot continue. If you withdraw the troops without establishing something and somebody that the people like, you must have trouble. The army may be as fond of Sir Evelyn Wood as he is said to think, but that will not prevent them owning the first resolute man who proposes to dethrone the Khedive—he is too unpopular with the people to be popular with the army—and, if the Nationalists are too crushed to turn on him yet awhile, the Circassians certainly will. You will then find yourselves with some really unscrupulous adventurer at the head of a revolution, and you or your successors will annex the country. I am writing in the belief that you do not intend or wish for such a result, but to persist in thrusting Tewfik on the Egyptians is to invite annexation.

I had intended to write this to the “Times,” but I write it instead to you, hoping that you may show it to Mr. Gladstone. I would rather you did not show it to the F. O., for they would only use it to my friends’ disadvantage. The whole thing depends now on Mr. Gladstone. If he insists on restoring liberty to Egypt nothing is easier—but not on the present lines.

Yours affectionately,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Haddo House, Aberdeen,

21st October, 1883.

My dear Wilfrid,

Your two interesting letters written from Egypt, for which many thanks, have both reached me while I am holiday making in Scotland; but I have taken steps to secure their being seen by Mr. Gladstone. Your account of affairs in Egypt is, to say the least of it, depressing. I won’t make any comments on what you say. I will content myself with being the receptacle of bad news and the conduit pipe of it to headquarters. I will only say that I can’t conceive how it would be possible, without the grossest breach of faith, for the English Government to countenance the ousting of Tewfik, whatever sort of fellow he may be.

Holiday making is neither conducive to letter writing, I find, nor to the catering of news, so I am afraid I shall, as far as being a correspondent is concerned, make a poor return for your budgets. Good luck to you and a pleasant trip to India.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. Hamilton.

Sir Evelyn Baring to Mr. Blunt

Cairo, December 31, 1883.

Sir,

I have received a letter from Chérif Pasha informing me that the Egyptian Government intends to forbid your disembarkation in Egypt on your return journey from India—His Excellency adds: “Par courtoisie, et en vue d’empêcher tout incident facheux de se produire dans le cas où il entrerait dans les intentions de Monsieur Blunt de s’arrêter en Egypte, à son retour des Indes, je crois devoir vous demander Monsieur le Ministre, de vouloir bien informer d’avance votre compatriote de cette interdiction.”

In compliance, therefore, with the request of the Egyptian Government, I beg to communicate their decision to you.

I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

E. Baring.

Mr. Blunt to Sir Evelyn Baring

Delhi, January 26, 1884.

My dear Sir Evelyn,

I have to acknowledge the receipt, under flying seal from Mr. Primrose, of your letter of the 31st December, which reached me yesterday. I confess that the contents surprised me, not merely on account of the nature of the message your letter contained for me from the Khedive’s late Prime Minister, but still more from the fact that you should have transmitted it in an official form without comment, explanation, or expression of disapproval.

That the Government of which Sherif Pasha was the head should have disliked my presence in Egypt I can well understand, for I have been more than once, as you know, instrumental in bringing their abuse of power to official ears; but I am ignorant of having offended against any law which should authorize my exclusion, as the subject of a friendly Power, from Egypt; and still less am I conscious of having done what should forfeit me my right to your diplomatic protection. Indeed, the circumstances of my recent visit to Egypt would seem to entitle me to this last in an especial manner; for you will not have forgotten that I came there last September with special recommendation to you from the highest official quarter, and that my renewed interest in Egyptian politics was authorized by suggestions emanating from the same high source. But for this, I believe I may say with truth that I should not have stopped in Egypt at all on my way eastwards, and most certainly that I should not have encouraged hopes there which the sequel might fail to justify.

With equal truth I can assure you that, had you informed me in a less formal manner that the interests of Egypt would be best served by my not returning to Cairo this spring, I would have willingly consented inasmuch as at the moment of my receiving your letter I had all but abandoned my intention of so doing, partly on account of quarantine difficulties, partly because I recognized in Nubar Pasha’s accession to office an adjournment by our Government of the special hopes which interested me.

Now, however, in face of your official communication, I feel myself obliged to do something towards asserting the right, which is mine as a British subject, of residing where I will abroad under British protection, and especially, because I hold property there, in Egypt. Nubar Pasha is an enlightened man, with whom I have the pleasure of being personally acquainted, and he is not likely of his own motion to renew his predecessor’s threat of excluding me from the country, but I fear I must ask you, as I do most formally ask you, to be good enough to give me your written assurance either that the prohibition forwarded by you has ended with Sherif Pasha’s dismissal, or that you are prepared, should I be so disposed as to wish to land in Egypt, to take all necessary measures to protect me from annoyance. Less than this would be equivalent to my abandoning a right which, as a matter of principle as well as of convenience, I am not prepared to forego.

I will only add that letters from you in this sense will reach me, if addressed to the Rubattino Steamer “China,” at Aden on the 8th of March or at Suez on the 12th, and will prevent further misunderstanding.

I am, my dear Sir Evelyn, yours faithfully,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Private.

Bombay, January 30, 1884.

My dear Eddy,

What, in the name of all that is blunder-headed, does Baring mean by sending me in official form and without explanation a threat of the late Sherif Pasha’s that he would prevent my landing in Egypt? You surely explained to him the meaning of my last visit and the encouragement which had been given me (I don’t mean merely through yourself) to make a move in Egyptian politics. Or what is the history of it? Of course I have been obliged to answer, but as yet have done so semi-officially only, and without putting all the dots upon the I’s, and have left him a door of retreat from what you must see is quite a false position. Please don’t let him force me to go any further.

Seriously, would it not be better to work with me frankly at last by telling me exactly what it is you want in Egypt. Unless you really mean annexation, you will need every honest man’s help to get you out of your difficulties, and the day will come when you will not despise mine. It is only two years ago if I remember rightly that you told me Gordon was mad. But you must not drive me too far. I have a serious work to do in the East, a work of which the establishment of good government in Egypt is only a small part, and one way or other, with God’s help, I mean to do it. It is a good work and you could further it greatly in Downing Street if you chose to trust me, but I am sure you cannot hinder it, certainly not by shutting me out of Egypt. I had nearly given up the idea of going back there this spring, for my thoughts were in another direction, when I got Baring’s letter. But I shall most certainly fight the matter out if he insists. Only I beg of you think it carefully over and if possible let Baring be advised to send me a sensible reply.

We leave Bombay on the 1st of March.

Yours affectionately,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Sir Evelyn Baring to Mr. Blunt

Cairo, Feb. 26, 1884.

Dear Mr. Blunt,

On receipt of your letter of January 26th I placed myself in communication with Nubar Pasha. I enclose for your information a copy of my letter and of Nubar Pasha’s reply.

You will observe that Nubar Pasha’s views are identical with those entertained by Cherif Pasha.

Very truly yours,

E. Baring.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, 28 Feb., 1884.

My dear Wilfrid,

Thanks for writing to me. I know nothing whatever of the steps which the Egyptian Government have taken with regard to yourself; and I am certainly not aware that they were taken at the instance of the English Government or of its representative at Cairo.

I am afraid—and my fears are confirmed by what you say in your last letter—that you have considered the fact of your corresponding with the Prime Minister’s Private Secretary on Egyptian matters as an encouragement, however intentionally guarded the correspondence may have been on my side. This may lead to misunderstanding; and I feel bound to consider not so much myself (for that matters little) as my master. Moreover it is difficult for me in writing to show exactly how far I write on my own account—a difficulty which is enhanced by the impossibility of my devoting the time and care necessary for corresponding on important subjects.

Having regard then to these considerations I think it my duty not to attempt to write about such subjects, and that it will be better for you and me if we drop writing to one another on public questions. I daresay I am to blame in this matter, as it has always been an interest and pleasure to me to hear your views which you have the power of expressing so well, and I have been tempted to egg you on. I hope you will not misunderstand what I have said. I don’t think I need have any fear on this account, for I am sure our friendship is strong enough not to be affected by anything I may do from a sense of public and official duty. I have been awfully busy of late, busier than ever. Whenever not wholly absorbed in work, my thoughts have of late been mainly occupied by the long and very serious illness of poor Pembroke. . . . I wish I had time to send more news; but that is not possible.

For the sake of your friends, if not for your own sake, I hope you won’t act in the matter of the order of the Egyptian Government in such a way as to bring yourself into trouble. I hope I have said nothing which will annoy you, and you will make due allowance for the difficulties and delicacy of my position.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, April 4, 1884.

My dear Wilfrid,

Welcome back. I am truly glad to hear of your and Lady Anne’s safe return. I shall like of all things to arrange an early meeting, etc. Thanks for taking my remarks in such good grace.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Blunt to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.

Crabbet Park, April 23, 1884.

My dear Sir,

A few days ago some gentlemen of the many interested in the fate of General Gordon called on me to ask my advice as to the best means of extricating him from the imminent peril in which he lies, and they suggested the formation of a band of volunteers which should endeavour to run the gauntlet of their besiegers and having forced their way to Khartoum should bring him back with them in safety by the same road. The idea seemed to me a generous but wholly impracticable one, and I told them so, frankly adding that much as I should wish to join in any reasonable attempt to save General Gordon’s life, I could not with the principles I hold, be a party to an armed attempt against the Arabs whom I hold to be in the right as I hold General Gordon to be in the wrong. I promised however that should anything in the shape of peaceful negotiation be proposed I would willingly aid them to the full extent of my power.

Since then I have most opportunely received information which leads me to feel certain that if properly approached not only could terms be obtained from the besiegers of Khartoum which should include General Gordon’s safe return with such of his companions as might choose to accompany him, but that a general pacification of the Upper Nile might at the same time and by the same means be effected. In view therefore of the urgency of the situation (for believe me, Sir, it is urgent), I deem it a duty to offer through you my services to H. M.’s Government as mediator in this matter. I say to H. M. Government, because it is clear that no merely private negotiations could be effectual in a case where such large public interests are involved. But I do not apprehend that any absolute departure from the general principles of policy announced by the Government would be required in conducting them to a successful termination.

With regard to my own part in the matter I will only add that, although I believe it would not be necessary for me to go myself to the Soudan, I should be ready to do so if the circumstances of the case should absolutely require it.

I am, my dear Sir, yours faithfully,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Private.

10, Downing Street, Whitehall.

24th April, 1884.

My dear Wilfrid,

Mr. Gladstone is obliged for your letter. He must to-day confine himself to saying that he is communicating its contents to his colleagues in the Cabinet.

Yours,

E. W. Hamilton.

Private.

Same date.

My dear Wilfrid,

I add a private line. Considering all that has gone before, I can’t help thinking you would do well to approach the Government by other means than those in Downing Street. Could you not take Harry Brand into confidence with a view to your viewings sifting through him to Lord Hartington?

Yours aff.

E. W. H.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

10, James Street, Buckingham Gate,

April 24, 1884. 7 o’clock p.m.

My dear Eddy,

If it was a matter concerning my own wishes or one of small importance I would willingly consult Harry Brand, who would do all he could I know to serve me. But this is the most serious step I have taken in my life and one which involves consequences not to me only but to this country and to many besides, and I dare not treat it except with those wholly responsible. If Mr. Gladstone cannot see me now, perhaps he may be willing to do so later. I was in the House this afternoon and listened attentively to his declarations, and I gathered from them that he has not yet closed the door to negotiations by any absolute decision of an immediately warlike nature. So that I will wait his time, confident that if I can be of use he will not scruple, on a point of formality in connection with past events, to give me timely notice. Only I fear that perhaps the time given us all may be shorter than he thinks, for already according to my latest advices the tribes are gathering from every side in arms, and though I still think it not too late it may well be so soon. I shall be in London till Saturday when I go back to Crabbet but shall be always within reach if required.

Yours affectionately,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Horace Seymour to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, 30 April 1884.

My dear Blunt,

Mr. Gladstone desires me to thank you for your offer to act as mediator in the Soudan, of which, however, Her Majesty’s Government are not able to make use, inasmuch as it must already be known throughout that region that they, in common with the Government of Egypt, have no other desire than to promote the evacuation of the country and the restoration of its liberties.

Believe me, yours truly,

Horace Seymour.

Sir Philip Currie to Mr. Blunt

Foreign Office, May 17, 1884.

Sir,

I am directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant in which you complain of the refusal of the Egyptian Government to allow you to land in Egypt on your return from India, which refusal was communicated to you through Her Majesty’s Agent and Consul-General at Cairo.

I am to inform you that the decision not to permit you to visit Egypt is one with which Her Majesty’s Government are not prepared to interfere.

I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

Philip W. Currie.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Private.

10, Downing Street, 21st May 1884.

My dear Wilfrid,

Rumours have reached me that you are about to found your complaint against the Government for being excluded from Egypt partly on the ground of certain “interviews” which you had with me last autumn.

I feel bound to notice these rumours by writing you a line; but I may say at the outset, knowing you as I do, that I wholly and entirely discredit them for more than one reason.

In the first place, I unfortunately saw so little of you before you left England that I know we had no “interviews” with the solitary exception of your coming to say good-bye to me, when I recollect that our conversation was limited to wishing you “bon voyage,” adding as I believe I did that letters from you abroad would continue to interest me as they always had.

In the second place, I studiously avoid ever attempting to quote Mr. Gladstone’s views—(and his views alone have weight)—which I have no title whatever to represent.

In the third place, had I committed any indiscretions—as to which my conscience is absolutely clear—any use of them by yourself could only have one result; and that would be, to show that I was quite unfit for my present post of confidence. Of doing this I am sure you have not the smallest intention.

You will I know excuse my bothering you on this matter. All that I want is the shortest authority from yourself to deny the truth of the rumours. For this purpose only do I ask for such an assurance, and not for my own satisfaction, because I am convinced that you would be the last person in the world to take at a disadvantage one of your oldest and sincerest friends, who occupies a place of great trust and delicacy.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. Hamilton.

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

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

Crabbet Park, May 22 1884.

My dear Eddy,

I have no wish to make a scandal of this or any other matter, unless absolutely forced into it, and still less to do you an injury; and so I have decided, before going further, to lay the whole facts privately before Mr. Gladstone. He will then be able to decide whether I have or have not cause to complain. You may rely upon me to be scrupulous in not exaggerating anything that passed between us, but I have a memorandum of the circumstances written at the time, imperfect indeed but sufficient to prove to me, if I had any doubt of the accuracy of my recollection, that our conversation in Downing Street the day I saw you there before I went abroad was by no means limited, as you suppose, to “wishing me bon voyage.” I do not however rely wholly upon this for what I have all along asserted, namely that I was encouraged to stop in Egypt on my way Eastwards. Unless I was altogether deceived by another person, whom you probably know, Mr. Gladstone was at that time desirous of a reasonable excuse for restoring the Exiled Nationalists, and I went to Egypt and called on Baring distinctly under this impression. You will say that I have been the subject of a mystification, but I find this very difficult to believe, and at any rate the doubt should be cleared up. I repeat, I have no wish to have it done in public, if I can have it done in private. I do not wish to make a scandal. I look upon Mr. Gladstone as in reality a friend to most of my ideas, and I would far rather not be driven into a position of antagonism to him. But the withdrawal of my right of protection in Egypt is a violent proceeding and one that I cannot accept without protest. The notice was served on me formally, publicly and I may say brutally, and Lord Granville has refused me even a reason. This is not fair, and my only resource is to force an answer through Parliament, when the whole matter will be sifted. I have fortunately made it a rule to have no political secrets as regards my own acts, and so am prepared to argue it out. But I quite understand that others are not in my free position; and, if you can assure me that Mr. Gladstone will give the matter his serious private attention and not merely put me off with an official reply I will write to him on the subject. With regard to my really going to Egypt I have no wish in the present position of affairs to do so. I could do no good there politically nor could I even if I wished it make matters worse; and I am far from well and want rest and not a new campaign. But my right to protection is a matter of principle and I have certain real, if not very large, material interests in Egypt which I may at any time require to see to. Indeed Baring’s action in withdrawing his protection and preventing my landing has already cost me perhaps a couple of hundred pounds. This is exactly how things stand, and I await your answer, before taking further steps.

Yours ever,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Private.

10, Downing Street, 24th May 1884.

My dear Wilfrid,

Thanks for your letter.

I am very sorry that your recollection of what took place last autumn should be so entirely at variance with my own recollection of it. But I cannot conceive that any private conversation between friends, whatever complexion you may put upon it, can be construed into what you call “a scandal”; and I recognize the kindness of your desire not to cause me bother.

Mr. Gladstone never fails to give his personal attention to every communication made to him; so I need hardly assure you that a statement coming from you will be fully considered by him.

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

Yours as always,

E. W. H.

Mr. Blunt to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.

Crabbet Park, May 31, 1884.

My dear Sir,

The privilege you have, at various times during the last three years, accorded me of addressing you on public matters must be my excuse if I now appeal to you on a matter mainly personal, namely my recent exclusion from Egypt on my return from India, and the still more recent refusal of H. M.’s Government to afford me protection there invariably given to British subjects. The circumstances of my case are briefly as follows:

Towards the close of last session I received a visit from a gentleman well known to yourself but not otherwise connected with political life or at all with Egypt, during which he urged upon me the desirability of my “making a new move” in Egyptian politics. His idea was that public opinion in England had sufficiently changed during the previous twelve months for it to be possible to propose with some chance of success a restoration of the National party before the British troops were withdrawn from Egypt; and he furthermore suggested that the matter might best be brought forward if a popular demonstration should occur on the occasion of the Elections under Lord Dufferin’s Charter. He thought that the leaders of the liberal party if such there still were at Cairo might be advised to propose Arabi as their Candidate and, if his election were secured, that there would afterwards be no difficulty in bringing about his recall from exile. The idea was a new one to me, and I confess that at first it seemed to me a quite impracticable one; and I did not encourage it, especially as at the time I had abandoned all immediate thoughts of again taking an active part in Egyptian politics. It seemed to me that, without the concurrence of H. M.’s Government, it would only result in failure, and I knew how little real liberty of choice the Electors would have and how certain would be the punishment imposed upon the leaders in any such movement. I nevertheless on this suggestion wrote to an intelligent friend at Cairo, on whom I believed I could rely, to inform me what chance of success the plan would offer, and I received his answer towards the end of August. He informed me that “though there was no party in favour of Arabi’s return, it was because it was not thought of as possible. Many regretted him, but the punishment inflicted on him and the spite wreaked on all who were mixed up with his revolution, which continued daily to be exercised, prevented any one from attempting to follow his example. There was a big party which thought of him with regret, but until quite lately my correspondent had hardly heard a word about his return at Cairo. Lord Dufferin’s parliament had always been a mere toy and a thing to laugh at by all who knew Egypt. With the existing system of Palace and Ministerial supremacy, where no man dared do right because he instantly made himself a marked man, the Parliament would be a convenient tool for the Government. The bare idea of its showing independence under the existing regime would be ridiculous. At the same time if Arabi returned to Egypt, any constituency would return him, unless pressure were put on the Electors. If the elections were left alone, pressure would certainly be put on any constituency for which Arabi might present himself as Candidate. But, if Englishmen watched the ballot, he might get returned, although that constituency would most certainly be made to suffer in a hundred ways for its temerity. . . . If the people thought that a new era was dawning and they might vote fearlessly, of course Arabi would be returned by any constituency in Egypt, but they had had a severe lesson and ‘a burnt child dreads the fire.’”

This letter, dated the 20th of August 1883, reached me if I am not mistaken on the 29th; and on the same day, I again called, by his invitation, on the gentleman already referred to, and he then told me that since his last talk with me he had seen you and that he could now assure me that it was your personal wish to find an excuse for restoring the exiles, and he advised me strongly to go to Cairo, where I should be well received by Sir Evelyn Baring and where I could talk the matter over with him. “Sir Evelyn Baring,” he said, “will arrive in a few days at Cairo and he had carte blanche to begin a new policy in place of Sir Edward Malet’s which had failed.” This put the matter in a more hopeful light, and I at once determined to stop in Egypt on my way to India, and, if I found Sir Evelyn Baring in reality favourable to the idea, to propose Arabi’s Election to the Liberals of Cairo. Although I will not say that the communication was delivered to me in terms as a message from you, I certainly accepted it as in some sort such, and I find it difficult to believe that it was wholly unauthorised by you or at least that you were unaware that it would be made. Nor can I doubt that a restoration of the National Party was a most natural and wise resolve, for it was only by such a course that the promised evacuation of Egypt could with any prudence have been effected, or the Charter of Egyptian liberty been made a reality.

I therefore began to prepare my plans of action, as well as it was possible to do so beforehand, and arranged to leave England on the 12th of September, for Suez, whence I could visit Cairo and learn how matters really lay and whether my stay there could with any advantage be prolonged.

Moreover on the day of my departure I received a note from Mr. Hamilton, your private secretary, asking to see me before I left, and I went to call on him in Downing Street and talked the matter of my visit to Egypt over with him. I told him of my plan with regard to the Cairo Elections, and he approved of it or seemed to approve, and assured me of Sir Evelyn Baring’s readiness to confer with me, and we discussed certain details regarding my visit and he gave me advice on other political matters. Although Mr. Hamilton and I are old friends, I had not seen him for some time previously to this visit and we did not talk, as far as I am aware, at all on private matters; nor had I been to Downing Street for nearly a year, and, notwithstanding his reserve which I noticed as to yourself, I remained distinctly under the impression that his language on the occasion was authorised by you. You had left England some days before for Norway; and Mr. Hamilton, if anyone, was there to represent you. Thus I was and still am convinced that my journey was made with your sanction, and that on that account I had special claims on Sir Evelyn Baring for his protection in case my visit should give rise to annoyance.

As a matter of fact I only stayed ten days in Egypt, and meddled in no way at Cairo with the Elections. I found them half over when I arrived; and on calling on Sir Evelyn Baring found him with quite other views from what I had been led to expect. He received me indeed most amiably and discussed with me the whole situation; but when I talked of a Nationalist restoration we no longer agreed. I spoke my mind perhaps rather too freely to him about his policy which I felt certain must end, as it has ended, in failure; but I have nothing else to reproach myself with in my communications with him, and beyond giving some advice and a very qualified encouragement to the friends and relations of the Exiles as to their eventual return and ascertaining some valuable facts with regard to the history of the previous two years, I did little while there that had a political significance. It was therefore with real surprise that I received Sir Evelyn’s notice delivered officially and without explanation excuse or remark four months later that I was not to disembark in Egypt on my return from India.

This, Sir, is the principal point in the case which I would lay before you. A second is that the decision to exclude me from Egypt seems to have been come to simultaneously with a determination to inflict certain petty annoyances on me in regard to a small property I have in Egypt, annoyances which, reckoned only in money value, will represent a loss to me of perhaps a couple of hundred pounds. It is equally difficult to understand that these should have been entered on with or without Sir Evelyn Baring’s knowledge, with, because they are an act unworthy of a public servant towards a political opponent, without, because they occurred precisely at the extreme plenitude of Sir Evelyn’s power, when hardly a sparrow fell to the ground in Egypt without his knowledge.

A third point is the refusal of the F.O. to assign me any reason for declining to support my demand of admission as a British Subject into Egypt. Although I am advised that the Egyptian Government has a technical right to refuse entrance into Egypt, as far as I have been able to ascertain, it is a right which has never before been enforced there against a British Subject; and the British Government have never before refused protection without assigning reason. It seems to me therefore that it is a public duty with me not to let this pass without protest, for if it be admitted in my case that it depends upon the arbitrary goodwill and pleasure of the Foreign Minister of the day to decide who among British Subjects shall and shall not be protected abroad, it surely establishes a dangerous precedent, limiting criticism on foreign affairs to agreement with the Government. I have ventured to disagree with Lord Granville on his policy in Egypt. Without assigning reason he excludes me from Egypt, the inference seems clear that I am subjected to pains and penalties for my free speaking, a thing altogether out of accordance with English political practice. Nor can I think that the immediate convenience of excluding me from Egypt, which I presume is the unavowed motive, can be worth so very new and questionable a departure.

Under all these circumstances I am induced to believe that by a personal appeal to you I shall be best consulting the general interests as well as my own. I have been advised that my remedy lies with Parliament and the publicity which should oblige the Foreign Office to give me a fair answer; but I have no wish, in the presence of such large public questions as are at the present moment being debated with regard to Egypt, to bring a personal grievance of my own in connection with that country unnecessarily before the public; and I feel sure that you will admit the soundness of my reasoning, and will so far favour me as to place before Lord Granville my unofficial request that he will reconsider his decision with regard to my recent application.

I am, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

P.S.—I may add that should you feel any doubt as to the accuracy of my recollection of the two conversations here recorded, I possess reasonable proof of it in the shape of memorandums written at the time. These I should be happy if you required them to show you privately.

[N.B.—Sir Evelyn Baring subsequently, 1891, assured me that the annoyances complained of in this letter in regard to my property were none of his instigation, and I accepted and accept his assurance implicitly.

My correspondent in Egypt quoted in the letter was Mr. Ardern Beaman, late official interpreter to the British Agency, and one well qualified to give the opinion quoted. The friend of Mr. Gladstone referred to was of course Sir James Knowles.]

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

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

Dear Eddy,

I send you my letter to Mr. Gladstone, which I have very carefully drawn up, so as to be within the limit of things which I am quite sure of, and which I could, if necessary, support by reasonable evidence. With regard especially to my conversation with you, I have kept myself well within the limit of things written. I am convinced that the little I quote will remind you of much more that was said. As to the main fact of Mr. Gladstone’s having last year the thought of restoring the Nationalist party and of allowing it to be helped through my instrumentality, the more I think it over the less I doubt it. Please then forward my letter to him without delay, and let me have his answer before Parliament meets again so that I may lose no further time, which in the present critical position of affairs is becoming valuable. I am sure you cannot say that I have shewn impatience.

Yours affectionately,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Horace Seymour to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, 10 June 1884.

Dear Blunt,

Mr. Gladstone has received and considered your letter of the 31st ult., and he desires me to say in reply that it is, in his opinion, impossible that any friend of his could, without the grossest error of judgment, have given you any ground for the suppositions that he was favourable (a) to the restoration of the exiles to Egypt, and the election of Arabi under Lord Dufferin’s scheme; or (b) to your stopping in Egypt on your way to India for the purpose of promoting Arabi’s candidature.

With regard to your account of your interview with Hamilton on the day you started for Egypt, Mr. Gladstone is convinced that you entirely mistook Hamilton.

Without, however, questioning in any way your intentions or your honour, Mr. Gladstone has deplored your proceedings in Egypt as alike injurious to Egyptian and British interests, and he has entirely concurred in the course which has been taken by the Foreign Office in reference to yourself.

I am, yours truly,

Horace Seymour.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Seymour

James Street, June 11, 1884.

Dear Seymour,

I beg you to thank Mr. Gladstone for me for the courteous form of his answer to my letter, and to say that I do not propose bringing the matter of my exclusion from Egypt before Parliament until after the present crisis.

Yours truly,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, 5 Aug. 1884.

My dear Wilfrid,

Thanks for your friendly note. I did not, however, need to be assured that, so far as you were yourself concerned, any allusion to our conversation last September had no unfriendly intent towards me. I am only sorry that our memories should not be more in accord; but I can honestly say two things. One that my asking you to come and say good-bye was merely the impulse of a friend who values the friendship of another. The other, that I have no recollection whatever of any announcement of your intentions in Egypt, and that the strictly private nature of our goodbye meeting is confirmed by my own diary, and by my not having reported any part of it to Mr. Gladstone.

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

I am going off to Scotland almost immediately; and whatever your movements may be, pray be assured that they will always carry with them the best wishes of

Yours affectionately,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Blunt to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.

Crabbet, Novr. 18, 1884.

My dear Sir,

I venture once again to address you on a matter of very large importance connected with past events in Egypt, and which is still exercising a powerful influence for evil on the prospects of Government in that country and our own good name throughout the East.

You will not have forgotten the charges brought by Lord Randolph Churchill last year against the Khedive of complicity in organizing the riots of Alexandria, or the opinion which I have more than once expressed that they were well founded. My original knowledge of the matter came through my connection with Arabi’s trial, and when I found that in spite of the promised amnesty men were still being tried and executed on accusations connected with that affair I did not hesitate to put in Lord Randolph’s hands the few facts then at my command. At the same time I took no leading part myself in bringing the matter before the public. Since that time, however, a variety of accidents have put me into possession of a complete chain of new evidence, giving me the right to speak at last with absolute certainty on all the great events of that time. I am able now not only to trace the history of the Alexandrian riots with a sure hand, but to produce full evidence of the Khedive’s orders having been given for the riots of Tantah, Dumanhour, and other towns of the Delta a month later. Moreover (and this I consider the most important feature of the case) I have ascertained and am prepared to prove that there was a total miscarriage of justice under the Commission instituted to try cases connected with these massacres after the war. The chief offenders were not punished; in many instances innocent men were put forward by the Khedive’s officers to suffer for the guilty; and in others those condemned were not only innocent, but had taken an active part in saving Christian life. In the case of Lord Randolph Churchill’s indictment, the written statements it was objected were unsigned. But the witnesses I can now bring forward are men of acknowledged character, and much of their evidence was officially acquired, while they are ready to appear in person either publicly or in private in support of their assertions.

Such being the case I feel that I cannot do better than lay the facts privately before you, and request that you will personally examine the value of my new evidence. I have as yet communicated it to none of my political friends; and I can assure you that I had far rather keep it remote from public dispute. It is a question of justice to be done and reparation made; for there are innocent men still in prison, and the families of others who have suffered death are in distress; and it is you alone who can adequately repair the wrong or restore the honour of English justice where it has been compromised.

At the same time I am aware of the many calls upon your time, and should you consent to an inquiry I should be satisfied if you would allow yourself to be represented by deputy in all the details, begging you only to retain the responsibility in your own hands, and not to refer me to the Foreign Office, which has been throughout deaf to my representations, also as it is a question of evidence and witnesses I would suggest that persons of judicial training would best discharge the duty of representing you in an inquiry. I should ask no better than that the case should be referred for decision to ordinary English judges.

Having said this, I need hardly add that I am myself absolutely certain of all the main facts of which I propose to produce evidence, as certain as I am of any in history; nor need I assure you that I have a perfect confidence that when you too shall have been convinced of the deceptions practised upon our agents in Egypt, you will hasten to do justice. It is not too much to affirm that this initial failure of justice after the war has been the cause of all subsequent failures, and that there is little prospect of renewing honest life in Egypt through our intervention as long as so great and notorious a treachery remains unpunished.

I am, my dear sir, yours very faithfully,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, 21st Nov. 1884.

My dear Wilfrid,

Your note was most welcome as it gave me tidings of your whereabouts, as to which in spite of many inquiries of friends I could ascertain nothing. I send this half line in anticipation of any reply Mr. Gladstone may send you when he has been able to read your letter—which was not feasible for him to do to-day.

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

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

Mr. Horace Seymour to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, 25 November, 1884.

My dear Blunt,

Mr. Gladstone desires me to say in reply to your letter of the 18th of this month, that under your inhibition to communicate with the Foreign Office, he cannot do more than acknowledge its receipt.

Yours faithfully,

Horace Seymour.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Gladstone

(Précis.)

London, March 12, 1885.

A letter saying that since the fall of Khartoum he has put himself once more in correspondence with those in Europe who are in correspondence with the Mahdi, with the result that he has ascertained that the road to peaceful negotiation is open. He is authorized by them to say that a preliminary discussion might be opened in Egypt, but not through the ordinary diplomatic or military channels—the basis of negotiation to be: 1. Release of captives. 2. Immunity for the tribes involved in the war. 3. Retirement of British or Egyptian forces to Wady Halfa and Souakin. 4. Evacuation of Souakin and Massowah in favour of the Sultan. 5. Recognition of the Mahdi as sovereign within these limits. 6. Establishment of diplomatic relations with England. 7. Freedom of commercial intercourse. 8. Possibly a convention limiting the Slave Trade. He is further authorized, in order to save further bloodshed, to offer the services of an Arab gentleman to convey an immediate message explaining the attitude of the English Government towards the Soudan.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Confidential.

10, Downing Street, March 14, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Mr. Gladstone is obliged to you for your letter, which he wishes me to acknowledge on his behalf.

You imply that the Mahdi would not deal with Lord Wolseley and Sir E. Baring, our accredited representatives in Egypt. But why then does not the Mahdi send either some representative of his own with his views ready to be presented to the Government here, or some communication of those views, which might come to head-quarters at once? One may almost say that anything short of this is paltering with the case.

Yours always,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

(Précis.)

London, March 16, 1885.

Explains the difficulty in the way of a representative being sent, the road not being open and the Mahdi being unaware whether his representative would be well received. Suggests sending an Arab gentleman under a safe conduct to Khartoum. Will Mr. Gladstone be disposed to facilitate the journey of such a gentleman, giving him a sufficient knowledge of the disposition and ideas of the British Government to enable him to arrange a formal embassy on the part of the Mahdi?

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Private.

10, Downing Street, March 19, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Many thanks for your note. It did not occur to me to connect Drummond Wolff’s Question with your letters. It is not my fault that you have not had a further letter from me on the subject of your last communication. All I can for the moment say is that it is the subject of consideration. I am aware of what you consider the urgency of the matter to be.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Confidential.

21 March, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Your letter to me of the 16th has been taken into consideration. I am to remind you that Lord Wolseley has been instructed to forward any overtures which may be made by the Mahdi, for the immediate consideration of the Government. If it is thought that the Mahdi is not aware of these instructions, it might possibly be arranged that the Arab gentleman should convey the information through the British lines. But the Government would require to be satisfied as to the gentleman’s character and intentions.

Yours always,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Gladstone

(Précis.)

March 24, 1885.

Thanking for message received through Mr. Hamilton, which, however, is not sufficiently definite to be acted on, but holds himself in readiness to give any further explanations, and suggests doing it by word of mouth.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Confidential.

10, Downing Street, March 28, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Mr. Gladstone cannot perceive that the last letter I wrote to you by his direction was really indefinite. It practically conveyed to you an intimation that, if the Government could be assured of the Arab gentleman’s character and intentions, a passage through the British lines might be arranged for him. Mr. Gladstone is afraid that he cannot suggest any other mode of proceeding.

Yours always,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Private.

10, Downing Street, March 28, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

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

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, March 30, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Mr. Gladstone went out of town on Saturday night; and according to present arrangements he will not return to London before the 9th of April. Under these circumstances I am afraid any interview is out of all question.

All I can do for the moment is to communicate on the subject of your letter received this morning with Lord Hartington, who is not only Mr. Gladstone’s locum tenens, but who is now more directly concerned as War Minister than any other member of the Cabinet in matters affecting the Soudan.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

March 30.

Saying it would not be worth while sending a special messenger to say that Lord Wolseley would forward communications. What is required is an explanation of what the terms might be if a mission was sent. While Mr. Gladstone says there is no intention of restoring Egyptian rule in the Soudan, Wolseley is appointing Prince Hassan Governor-General, Graham is pounding the “rebels” at Souakin, and Baring is arresting Zebehr at Cairo. Mr. Blunt is going abroad and will see those in communication with the Mahdi, and will ascertain their further views.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Confidential.

10, Downing Street, Whitehall,

April 2nd, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

All that I am at liberty further to say to you, before you go abroad, is to remind you that H.M. Government have again and again declared their objects to be the security of Egypt and the freedom of the Soudan; and to point out to you that the Mahdi has indicated to them nothing whatever. If it is thought that the objects of the British Government are not known to the Mahdi, why cannot steps be taken to communicate them to him? If they are known to him, surely it is for him then to make some declaration upon them in return?

Yours always,

E. W. Hamilton.

Bon voyage and au revoir.

Mr. Blunt to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.

Paris, April 8, 1885.

My dear Sir,

Yesterday the Mahdi’s principal agent in Europe met me here, and I went through the whole subject of our recent correspondence carefully with him, and especially the draft of terms suggested in my first communication, and read to him Mr. Hamilton’s last letter containing the declaration that the Government policy is that of freedom for the Soudan and security for Egypt. Of the draft of terms I am glad to say he fully approves, as a possible basis of negotiation with the Mahdi, and he is willing to accept the declaration of policy as generally compatible with that basis. Also he is prepared to send the Arab gentleman as bearer of a communication stating that England’s policy is one of “freedom for the Soudan and security for Egypt,” and he assures me that the Mahdi will in turn despatch a mission of peace to England, which may be expected to arrive not later than September. The Arab gentleman will, moreover, if the Government is willing, arrange in the interval for an armistice, for the better treatment of captives, and for immunity for such tribes as may have joined the English arms.

The Mahdi’s agent also begged me to say that he trusted the Government would not be deceived by the reports recently circulated of defection from the Mahdi’s standard, and so delay despatching the messenger to Khartoum. There was no truth at all in these reports, but on the contrary, there was every certainty that as soon as the agricultural season was over on the Upper Nile, hostilities would be resumed, nor would these permanently cease as long as a British or Egyptian army remained in the Soudan. With regard, however, to an advance upon Egypt proper, he made the remark that the Mahdi was a reformer, not a conqueror; that he had no quarrel with the Egyptians either there or elsewhere, many thousands of them being actually gathered under his flag; and that the establishment of a just and legal Egyptian Government at Cairo would at once end any danger of such an advance by depriving it of excuse in popular sympathy. The Mahdi was popular with the fellahin of Egypt, because he had rid their brethren, the Soudanese, of an intolerable tyranny, and they would continue to look on him as a possible deliverer as long as their wrongs remained unredressed. If through the means now placed at the Government’s disposal a truce of two or three years was concluded, England would have time to do justice, and it would be her fault if at the end of it the war was renewed. The Mahdi had no mission of conquest in Egypt.

Finally he requested me to explain that Ministerial declarations made in England are not understood in the Soudan, and that there is a great mistrust of all military communications. If the Mahdi had understood General Gordon as having a really friendly mission towards the Soudanese he would certainly have entered into friendly communications with him. But, up to the present moment, it has been the universal belief in the Soudan that England has no other object than to conquer and retain the country. For this reason it is essential that the communication of a contrary policy should be made through some one known to them and promising credit with the people.

From all I heard yesterday I am satisfied that it depends wholly now upon the Government to prolong the Mahdi’s hostility, or change it into friendship; and I therefore await with much hope your answer to this letter.

Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Confidential.

10, Downing Street, April 11, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Mr. Gladstone is obliged for your letter, written from Paris on the 8th, which I duly delivered to him.

He does not well see how he can add anything material to the letter which I wrote to you on the 2nd, and of which he himself was cognisant, though he was away from London. In that letter there were reiterated the declared objects of the British Government in the Soudan, objects which they are as desirous as ever of securing, and which hardly need to be enlarged upon.

Let me add a word on my own account. I cannot help thinking you must understand the delicacy and difficulty which the Government must feel about holding communications with you, on matters relating to Egypt, directly or indirectly, when it is believed that you mistrust and are opposed to the Ruler of that country whom they are bound and likewise intend to support.

Yours always,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Blunt to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.

10, James Street, April 14, 1885.

My dear Sir,

I returned yesterday from Paris, and hasten to answer your last letter. The Mahdi’s agent is ready now to send the messenger whenever it suits you to give him the necessary facilities. But he has impressed very strongly and repeatedly upon me the necessity there is of his having a written message in Arabic to deliver. This need not go beyond the sense of the words Mr. Hamilton has already used in writing to me, but it must be in a form intelligible to the Mahdi and others whom it concerns. Without this, he says, it will be impossible to convince the Mahdi that the message is quite sincere on the Government’s part, or at any rate that his followers should be so convinced. My knowledge of Arab ideas leads me to feel sure that in this he is only reasonable, nor do I conceive that the Government, which has already sent written communications through their Generals to Osman Digna and other chiefs, would now find a difficulty in writing this message to their supreme chief Mohammed Ahmed. It will not be necessary that the title “el Mahdi” should be employed towards him in the letter, and I could, if desired, suggest a form of address which would be considered friendly without acknowledging this special pretension. The strictest secrecy would be maintained by the messenger until his delivery of the letter at the Mahdi’s camp.

Thus the suggestion made in Mr. Hamilton’s first letter to me, that the Mahdi should send a mission to England, can be conveyed to him in a way he will understand as being sincerely offered; and all that need further be done will be to instruct the military authorities to receive with scrupulous courtesy the Envoys on their arrival at the British lines.

I am, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Blunt to Mr. Hamilton

St. James Street, April 15, 1885.

My dear Eddy,

I have replied to the first part of your letter in the enclosed to Mr. Gladstone, and I add a few words in answer to your own remarks, as I should be sorry there should be additional difficulty through misunderstanding. For reasons which you know, and for others which you do not know, I have of course, as you say, “mistrust” of the Khedive, but the extent of my “opposition” to him you probably exaggerate. I have had very little correspondence with Egypt since my last visit there under circumstances which you will remember, and the failure of Baring’s policy since has been due to its inherent weakness far more than to the action of his opponents, certainly than to mine. I believe still what I have always believed, that there is no course open to the Government, if it would keep its pledges and have peace in Egypt, but to restore the National party; and, if that is impossible, then annexation by Europe, if not by England, is the only end. Tewfik has seemed to me up to the present to stand in the way of such a possible arrangement, and on this ground especially I have from time to time opposed him; but, if it could be shown to me that the peace and happiness of Egypt was compatible with his rule, I should not surely out of obstinacy refuse to be reconciled.

The questions, however, of the Soudan and Egypt may for the immediate present perfectly well be kept apart; and I see no reason why the Government should hesitate to communicate with me on the former if not on the latter. They have publicly declared the Soudan to be independent of Egypt, and Mr. Gladstone has recently assured me through you that he earnestly desires to maintain its freedom.

Yours affectionately,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Confidential.

10, Downing Street, April 16, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Mr. Gladstone is afraid that he cannot draw a distinction for present purposes between Egypt and the Soudan; and so I am obliged again to point out the difficulty of his holding communications with yourself on the subject of your correspondence with him.

It is to be observed that H.M. Government has received no application from any agent of the Mahdi to be allowed a pass through the British lines to enable him to deliver a message. I cannot say with what response such an application might meet.

Yours always,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

Private.

10, Downing Street, 25 April, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

My last note was not intended to invite further remarks. It aimed rather at hinting that under altered circumstances the correspondence should close. I am afraid this must be the case. I have no authority to communicate further with you on the matter.

Yours always,

E. W. H.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, 12 May, 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Mr. Gladstone is much pleased by your kind gift. The little volume will much interest him; and he hopes you will accept his best thanks. He says it will be a pleasure to him to turn from the Soudan to Proteus.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Blunt

10, Downing Street, Whitehall, 11 June 1885.

My dear Wilfrid,

Many thanks for your kind note. I hope we have never met but as friends; and that the only difference which pending changes will make will be that I may see more of you in relations of “greater freedom and less responsibility.” I am afraid for some little time to come I shall be awfully pressed by the ordeal of packing. I have to turn out not only of office, but of home.

In haste.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

Mr. Blunt to the Right Hon. Robert Bourke, M.P.

10, James St., July 3, 1885.

My dear Bourke,

As you are doubtless considering the Soudan question just now at the F.O. I think it may be of assistance to you to know briefly what has passed between me and the late Government in regard to possible negociation with the Mahdi.

It began in April, 1884, when I wrote to Mr. Gladstone in connection with schemes then on foot for rescuing Gordon, and offering my services as mediator. Mr. Gladstone seems himself to have had some inclination to accept, but on reference to the rest of the Cabinet my offer was declined.

Secondly I made an attempt in December, through one of the Peace Societies, to gain a hearing. I had ascertained that the Mahdi would be accessible to offers of withdrawal for Gordon and the garrison from Khartoum; and I went to Hawarden with the hope of seeing Mr. Gladstone and explaining the position to him. But I was not received.

Thirdly, after the fall of Khartoum, I again wrote to Mr. Gladstone delivering a message I had received from a religio-political personage in correspondence with the Mahdi proposing to open negociations for peace or truce. It was just before Graham’s second campaign in March; and this time Mr. Gladstone responded, and a correspondence followed which led to my being authorised to give certain messages to the personage in question, and I went abroad at Easter to deliver them. It was then proposed to send a messenger through the British Lines to explain the pacific views of the Government, and arrange for the opening of more formal negociations, and it seemed as if the matter would be arranged; when for some reason which I do not exactly know the thing collapsed. I fancy it was on account of the news spread just at that time of a rival Mahdi having sprung up in Kordofan and the idea that Mohammed Ahmed was no longer in full power at Khartoum, but I am not sure. In any case the correspondence suddenly came to an end.

Although all this was more or less confidential as between myself and Downing Street, there is no reason I think now that I should make any mystery about it to you, especially as it would probably be open still to Lord Salisbury if he liked to take the negociation up at the point where Mr. Gladstone dropped it—and I should be glad if you would show this letter to Lord Salisbury and offer him the confidential perusal of the papers I have relating to it. I will not say more at present than that I still think it would be possible as it would certainly be most desirable to come to terms with the Mahdi.

Yours very truly,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

[N.B.—I cannot find any answer to this letter, nor do I remember its purport. It led to nothing, the Mahdi’s death being shortly after announced. But for this it is probable that Lord Salisbury would have negotiated.]

Mr. Blunt to the Marquess of Salisbury

September, 1885.

My Lord,

I have the honour to lay before your Lordship the fact that I have received a summons through the Lords of H. M. Treasury to present myself before the Tribunal of First Instance at Cairo on the 19th of October next on a matter connected with a property I hold in Egypt, and to beg your Lordship to inform me whether I shall receive there the protection usually accorded to British subjects. I make this request in consequence of a notification served on me two years ago by Sir Evelyn Baring with Earl Granville’s approval to the effect that I should not then be allowed to land at Suez on my passage from India.

For further particulars regarding the case of my exclusion from Egypt by the late Government I beg to refer your Lordship to Blue Book, Egypt, No. 27, of 1884, containing my correspondence with the Foreign Office; to the report of a debate in the House of Commons of the 4th August of the same year; and to the enclosed memorandum.

Your Lordship will observe that Sir Evelyn Baring’s action against me seems to have been based originally upon a misstatement of Sherif Pasha regarding a visit paid to Egypt in 1883, and afterwards to a fear entertained by the late Government that my influence there would be prejudicial to their policy. But I venture to hope that your Lordship will not regard me with the same apprehension, and that, having inquired into the facts, you will restore to me the protection generally accorded to British subjects abroad. I may mention that my prolonged absence from Egypt has occasioned and is occasioning me considerable money losses.

I am, my Lord, your obedient humble servant,

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Mr. Blunt

Foreign Office, Oct. 5, ’85.

My dear Mr. Blunt,

We have applied to the Egyptian Government to obtain permission for you to return—but we have received the most decided negative. Of course it is in our power to apply pressure to the Egyptian Government. But if we do so, we shall make ourselves responsible for the consequences. It is therefore a matter of duty to us, first to ask you, whether you will undertake not to meddle in any sense with political questions or projects while you are there? If you will give us this undertaking we will telegraph to Egerton to do his best.

Yours very truly,

Salisbury.

Mr. Blunt to the Marquess of Salisbury

10, James St., Oct. 6, 1885.

My dear Lord Salisbury,

I most readily undertake not to meddle with political questions or projects while in Egypt, my object in going there being first to look after my property and secondly to assert the right I possess as an Englishman of claiming the protection of my Government while travelling abroad.

Nor do I wish, if it can be arranged that the case I am cited to appear on can be postponed so long as till December or January, to complicate Sir Henry Drummond Wolff’s diplomacy by appearing at Cairo during his special mission. I quite understand that my arriving there with him on whatever errand might cause embarrassment. But, if I do not now insist upon my right, I run the risk of being perpetually excluded from a country where I have property and where I may one day desire to reside.