The Principal Medical Officers are bores and croakers, and want all sorts of attention. A man is a fool or a physician at forty years of age. All in this country you want is to keep the communication open, and Cockle will do that. As for wounds, there will be none, for Arabs give no quarter; neither will we, I expect, if we go over one hundred miles of desert.
At Halfeyeh to-day, going round the Fort, a tallow-faced Egyptian dashed out with the most fearful whine. I tried to calm him, no good, so Cassim el Mousse, the Shaggyeh Meleh, interfered; no use! the man (?) threw himself on the ground, and deluged himself and me with dust, so Cassim gave him a wipe over the head with his Hippo whip, and I ordered him to be taken out of the ranks and brought to Kartoum; en route my cavasses came and remonstrated, saying he ought to be secured, for he was the most notorious thief of Alexandria; so, justly or not, I have put him in prison.
It would be a great mistake to think the troops are down in the mouth. We have certainly lost a lot; but the men are as determined as ever, and only think it their due if they are aided. Stewart talks of their cowardice, but it is a cowardice of calculation, and it would be a great mistake if the expeditionary force for the extrication of the garrisons comes up here, and thinks the men are going to say they are in extremis. (I leave out Cairo troops and the Bashi Bazouks.) The black soldiers do not think they have been beaten. There are not many armies which would bear with the equanimity these troops do, the loss of say one-fifth of their numbers killed, which was the case in one defeat (only twenty days ago) of Mahomet Ali Pasha.
The steamers from Sennaar will I think be in to-morrow.
The question to-day at Halfeyeh was this. Certain heads of families had gone over to the Arabs with Saleh Pasha (we put a sponge over that affair), and their adherents, being in Kartoum, had not gone over (not their fault); those who had gone over with Saleh Pasha, afterwards came over to me, and asked for their adherents to be given back to them. To this the chiefs of families, who had been in Kartoum and who had kept these adherents under them, objected, so it became a question what to do. I decided to ask each man his desire. “Will you go with A. or B.?” The men came in at the door, and after having elected, they went out of the window, for there were not two doors; they elected as they wished, and went out of the window. Some came in and thought that all that was required of them was to come in at the door, and go out of the window as quickly as possible without answering! I do love to study mankind; he is far better than any landscape. These fellows knew well enough I was going to put their decision on them, and tried to avoid giving any, as to with whom they would go. It was somewhat of a gymnastic process for them to go out of the window, and they made a good mess of it; but if I had let them go out of the door by which they had entered, inextricable confusion would have occurred. As it was, we had resurrections at the door of those who had departed by the window, which caused some bother. The two rival chiefs were present, and one’s object was to prevent the elector looking at either while he elected; sometimes it was necessary to secure that the pug-face was fairly on the clerk, the electing officer, who asked the question A. or B. I will back the eye for knowledge more than any other organ. A man who does not look you in the face in answering is 99 times in 100 a liar.
September 26.—There is one great question, and if you know a person, say, K. is faithless and is seeking his own, ought one to be down on him? We have an example in our Lord. He knew Judas was going to betray Him, yet He did not denounce him; from which I infer, if we know even that K. is going to rat, or be faithless, unless he, K., gives positive proof of such intention, we ought to treat K. as J., of whom we have no suspicion of treachery. I am inclined (satanically I own) to distrust every one, i.e., I trust every one. I believe that circumstances may arise when self-interest will almost compel your nearest relative to betray you to some extent. Man is an essentially treacherous animal; and although the psalmist said in his haste “all men are liars,” I think he might have said the same at his leisure.
“You may depend upon it, I will do my best for you”—to chief clerk W.O. “Why, if you give it to him we must give it to more than forty. It is out of the question.” What is the result? Why the him will go to his club and say, “Why I was promised it and did not get it.” Whereas if he had weighed the words, he would have seen he was promised only “the best he could do.” This is a breach of confidence, but it is an example. A man long ago dead —— was asked by a lady to recommend her son for an appointment —— (who was most honest), wrote saying so-and-so wants such and such a thing, but that he did not think the young man for whom the appointment was solicited was worth much. —— wrote to the lady to say he had done his best. Unfortunately he placed the letters into wrong envelopes. The lady never looked on —— again. Well, I suppose —— was treacherous to the lady. He might have refused to write, but he did more—he did the young man harm by saying he was not worth much.
I like to take things in a light-hearted way. I like the tacit contract, “that if you are useful to me I will use you”; and “that” (with full belief) “if I cease to be useful to you you will leave me.” I try and act, “do to others as they wish you to do to them.” I would never put a man in any position I would not put myself.
Although man is the essence of treachery, I believe every man wishes to be honest; his interests prevent him.
The five men went out to Arab lines with their Arab flags, on which a church parade, which was going on, dispersed.