On the eve of the receipt of the next monthly ,
mail from India, a letter from Colonel FANS, the Aide-de-Camp to the late Commander-
in-Chief, has renewed the anxiety respecting the female prisoners, and has, of course, again drawn forth the noble editor's wrath,— making an agreeable variety to the treaty articles, now becoming
unreadably tiresome ; and it has brought on a press contest upon a new point. Colonel Fess's letter is to show, that while blame 'has been bestowed because the British forces do not advance on Cabul, an advance would be fatal to the women ; and, with a view to prevent that embarrassment to action, Sir HENRY Fess, while he had the command, forbade the presence of all "ladies" in Cahill. His order was afterwards annulled by the political func- tionaries. Does that statement, and the Italic type of the word "ladies," point at the Envoy, the unfortunate husband Of Lady MACNAGHTEN ? Colonel FAME, whose views are adopted by the Standard, seems to consider that the captivity of the women con- stitutes a positive bar to all movement. Here the occupant of the Chronicle comes in with two positions,— first, that the Standard is inconsistent with itself, since it formerly denounced the very idea of ransoming the prisoners by any conces- sion, though it now recommends a " pacific arrangement "; and secondly, that to entertain Colonel Flats's arguments is tantamount to allowing MESAS KHAN to dictate his own terms. The incon- sistency of the Standard were a small matter, even if made out : none so crow over the expressiou of incompatible opinions as your political weathercocks, who, not having performed their own veerings on logical compulsion, forget that difference of circum- stances or even maturer consideration must make reasonable and honest men say at a later time what is " inconsistent " with an earlier opinion. But there is a show of force in the objection that we are to be placed at the mercy of an insolent barbarian, which appeals cunningly to the popular prejudice of dogged John Bull. The Times now joins the discussion, with the remark that "each party urges the fearful consequences of his opponent's argu- ment; neither seems willing to accept, or able to avoid, the al- leged leged conclusions front his own." The Euglish officer shrinks, and no wonder, from broadly announcing that a savage chieftain while possessing the persons of the English women, must be allowed for the future to dictate our policy : nor is the journalist more anxious to adopt the very unpopular sentiment which he boldly attempts to throw off upon Colonel FANE, that the prisoners must take the consequences ' ; yet neither attempts to show how his own dilemma is to be escaped." And the Times points out the "false and inconsistent humanity" of stopping the great ma- chine of war, for which thousands of lives are unhesitatingly risked, out of consideration for a few individuals. Besides Eng- land must show the savage that she is not to be "trifled ;nth"; and we must not only release the prisoners, but "release them in such a way as shall hold no temptation to future evil-doers." This, with more to the same effect, does not seem to advance the question at all. From Colonel PANE'S letter it is clear, that so long as the women remain in the hands of the Afghans, they will be considered as effec- tual hostages for our good behaviour. The spirit of a Junius Brutus might say, give them up to death, rather than give up the glory of the country : but Colonel FANS tells us that we give them up to "a hundred times worse than death itself" : will any English ne- gotiator or general agree to that ? On the other hand, is this very plain and fatal difficulty in our position as respects military matters a political misfortune ? If the paramount necessity of saving the women obliged us to withdraw our troops, perhaps we should not only realize the positive good of sooner relinquishing a false po- sition, but might even do so upon an excuse intelligible to the bar- barian, without confessing to a political mistake, and, in his sight, crying " peccavimus" on account of' the war itself.
Another suggestion. Ransom has already been talked of, and
Scouted; but then it was some sort of ransom to be negotiated by slave-dealers—a sort of slave-price, in fact. Ransom has again
been alluded to, by a kind of figure, meaning some general conces- sion. The plain laying down, however, of a ransom properly so called—a distinct sum of money—is an ancient custom which pre- vailed at one time or other all the world over, in the East as well as the West. Obsolete as it is, it might seem to meet the present very exceptional case in modern warfare : it leaves the general ques-
tion of the war and its merits in statu quo ; the sight of so much money down would probably be a stronger appeal to the needy and plundering barbarians than all the negotiation in the world; and it
might, after all, be the cheapest way of removing a fatal obstruc- tion to fighting and treating, going forward or backward. The next Indian mail may tell us that these speculations are out of date ; or it may tell us that every suggestion is a service.
Previous page
