It is pleasant to turn from these episodes to other features in Lyall’s career and character, in respect to which unstinted eulogy, without the qualification of a shade of criticism, may be recorded.  It was more especially in dealing with the larger and more general aspects of Eastern affairs that Lyall’s genius shone most brightly.  He had what the French call a flair in dealing with the main issues of Oriental politics such as, so far as my experience goes, is possessed by few.  It was very similar to the qualities displayed by the late Lord Salisbury in dealing with foreign affairs generally.  I give an instance in point.

In 1884, almost every newspaper in England was declaiming loudly about the dangers to be apprehended if the rebellion excited by the Mahdi in the Soudan was not promptly crushed.  It was thought that this rebellion was but the precursor of a general and formidable offensive movement throughout the Islamic world.  “What,” General Gordon, whose opinion at the time carried great weight, had asked, “is to prevent the Mahdi’s adherents gaining Mecca?  Once at Mecca we may look out for squalls in Turkey,” etc.  He, as also Lord Wolseley, insisted on the absolute necessity of “smashing the Mahdi.”  We now know that these fears were exaggerated, and that the Mahdist movement was of purely local importance.  Lyall had no special acquaintance with Egyptian or Soudanese affairs, but his general knowledge of the East and of Easterns enabled him at once to gauge correctly the true nature of the danger.  Undisturbed by the clamour which prevailed around him, he wrote to Mr. Henry Reeve on March 21, 1884:  “The Mahdi’s fortunes do not interest India.  The talk in some of the papers about the necessity of smashing him, in order to avert the risk of some general Mahomedan uprising, is futile and imaginative."[50]

I need say no more.  I am glad, for the sake of Lyall’s own reputation, that the offer of the Viceroyalty was never made to him.  Apart from the question of his age, which, in 1894, was somewhat too advanced to admit of his undertaking such onerous duties, I doubt if he possessed sufficient experience of English public life—­a qualification which is yearly becoming of greater importance—­to enable him to fill the post in a satisfactory manner.  In spite, moreover, of his splendid intellectual gifts and moral elevation of thought, it is very questionable whether on the whole he would have been the right man in the right place.

Lyall’s name will not, like those of some other Indian notabilities, go down to posterity as having been specially connected with any one episode or event of supreme historical importance; but, when those of the present generation who regarded him with esteem and affection have passed away, he will still deserve an important niche in the Temple of Fame as a thinker who thoroughly understood the East, and who probably did more than any of his contemporaries or predecessors to make his countrymen understand and sympathise with the views held by the many millions in India whose destinies are committed to their charge.  His experience and special mental equipment eminently fitted him to perform the task he took in hand.  England, albeit a prolific mother of great men in every department of thought and action, has not produced many Lyalls.