Note 223 — Chapter III

I should not have thought that the drift of this passage could be misunderstood. And yet it has been said with reference to it [Hume’s Memoir of Henry Torrens] that although I have “emphatically denounced the disgraceful act of mutilating official papers,” I have “no single word of censure for diplomatic falsehoods,” but have declared that “diplomacy should not be subjected to the test of truth.” I said that it “is not intended to be,” not that “it should not be,” subjected to such a test. Every writer must be permitted to choose his own weapons of attack. At one time he may employ invective; at another, sarcasm; and the latter may express as strong a detestation of falsehood and baseness as the former. Both in a previous and a subsequent chapter I have expressed my opinion of the manner in which Lord Auckland and his ministers misrepresented the conduct of Dost Mahomed; and in the present passage I do not seek to exculpate Macnaghten, by insinuating my belief that diplomacy is, in its general intent and practice, shamefully destitute of honesty and truth.