[Footnote 285:  The Duke of Argyll, op. cit. vol. ii. p. 226 (London, 1879).  For the treaty, see Parl.  Papers, Afghanistan, No. 1 (1878), p. 1.]

Moreover, the Viceroy himself was brought by the stern logic of events implicitly to give up his policy.  In one of his last official despatches, written on January 4, 1869, he recognised the gain to Russia that must accrue from our adherence to a merely passive policy in Central Asian affairs.  He suggested that we should come to a “clear understanding with the Court of St. Petersburg as to its projects and designs in Central Asia, and that it might be given to understand in firm but courteous language, that it cannot be permitted to interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan, or in those of any State which lies contiguous to our frontier.”

This sentence tacitly implied a change of front; for any prohibition to Russia to interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan virtually involved Britain’s claim to exercise some degree of suzerainty in that land.  The way therefore seemed open for a new departure, especially as the new Governor-General, Lord Mayo, was thought to favour the more vigorous ideas latterly prevalent at Westminster.  But when Shere Ali met the new Viceroy in a splendid Durbar at Umballa (March 1869) and formulated his requests for effective British support, in case of need, they were, in the main, refused[286].

[Footnote 286:  Sir W.W.  Hunter, The Earl of Mayo, p. 125 (Oxford, 1891); the Duke of Argyll, op. cit. vol. ii, p. 252.]

We may here use the words in which the late Duke of Argyll summed up the wishes of the Ameer and the replies of Lord Mayo:—­

He (the Ameer) wanted to have an unconditional treaty, offensive and defensive.  He wanted to have a fixed subsidy.  He wanted to have a dynastic guarantee.  He would have liked sometimes to get the loan of English officers to drill his troops, or to construct his forts—­provided they retired the moment they had done this work for him.  On the other hand, officers “resident” in his country as political agents of the British Government were his abhorrence.

Lord Mayo’s replies, or pledges, were virtually as follows:—­

The first pledge (says the Duke of Argyll) was that of non-interference in his (the Ameer’s) affairs.  The second pledge was that “we would support his independence.”  The third pledge was “that we would not force European officers, or residents, upon him against his wish[287].”

[Footnote 287:  Argyll, op. cit. vol. i.  Preface, pp. xxiii.-xxvi.]

There seems to have been no hopeless contrariety between the views of the Ameer and the Viceroy save in one matter that will be noted presently.  It is also of interest to learn from the Duke’s narrative, which claims to be official in substance, however partisan it may be in form, that there was no difference of opinion on this important subject between Lord Mayo and the Gladstone Ministry, which came to power shortly after his departure for India.  The new Viceroy summed up his views in the following sentence, written to the Duke of Argyll:  “The safe course lies in watchfulness, and friendly intercourse with neighbouring tribes.”