I turn to another point.  All who were brought in contact with Lyall speedily recognised his social charm and high intellectual gifts, but was he a man of action?  Did he possess the qualifications necessary to those who take part in the government of the outlying dominions of the Empire?  I have often been asked that question.  It is one to which Sir Mortimer Durand frequently reverts, his general conclusion being that Lyall was “a man of action with literary tastes.”  I will endeavour briefly to express my own opinion on this subject.

There have been many cases of notable men of action who were also students.  Napier said that no example can be shown in history of a great general who was not also a well-read man.  But Lyall was more than a mere student.  He was a thinker, and a very deep thinker, not merely on political but also on social and religious subjects.  There may be some parallel in the history of our own or of other countries to the peculiar combination of thought and action which characterised Lyall’s career, but for the moment none which meets all the necessary requirements occurs to me.  The case is, I think, almost if not quite unique.  That Lyall had a warm admiration for men of action is abundantly clear.  His enthusiasm on their behalf comes out in every stanza of his poetry, and, when any suitable occasion offered, in every line of his prose.  He eulogised the strong man who ruled and acted, and he reserved a very special note of sympathy for those who sacrificed their lives for their country.  Shortly before his own death he spoke in terms of warm admiration of Mr. Newbolt’s fine lines: 

    Qui procul hinc—­the legend’s writ,
      The frontier grave is far away—­
    Qui ante diem periit
      Sed miles, sed pro patria.

But he shared these views with many thinkers who, like Carlyle, have formed their opinions in their studies.  The fact that he entertained them does not help us to answer the question whether he can or cannot be himself classed in the category of men of action.

As a young man he took a distinguished part in the suppression of the Mutiny, and showed courage and decision of character in all his acts.  He was a good, though not perhaps an exceptionally good administrator.  His horror of disorder in any form led him to approve without hesitation the adoption of strong measures for its suppression.  On the occasion of the punishment administered to those guilty of the Manipur massacres in 1891, he wrote to Sir Mortimer Durand, “I do most heartily admire the justice and firmness of purpose displayed in executing the Senapati.  I hope there will be no interference, in my absence, from the India Office.”  On the whole, the verdict passed by Lord George Hamilton is, I believe, eminently correct, and is entirely in accordance with my own experience.  Lord George, who had excellent opportunities for forming a sound opinion on the subject, wrote: