[42] MS. Correspondence of Sir John Malcolm.
[43] In one of these letters, written in February, 1809, it is said: “I cannot venture to omit acquainting you that, in the event of your not complying, without further reference or delay, with the instructions conveyed in this letter, by closing your mission and retiring from Persia, it has been determined, and measures have been taken accordingly, to disavow your public character in that country subsequent to your receipt of my letter of 31st of October.”—[MS. Records.]
[44] MS. Correspondence of Sir John Malcolm—December 24, 1808.
[45] Mr. Lumsden wrote a minute (July 10, 1809), in which he says: “We must either continue to employ at the Court of Persia an agent in whom we have no confidence, who has studiously endeavoured to degrade the authority of the Government of India, under whose orders he was placed; or by deputing an agent of our own to Teheran, whilst he continues there acknowledged by the Persian Government as the representative of his Britannic Majesty, we may expose the public interest to danger from the presence in Persia of two distinct authorities, who cannot act in concert, but will, it is to be feared, necessarily counteract each other, and occasion great perplexity to the Persian minister.” At the same time, Mr. Colebrooke wrote: “Our situation as regards Sir H. Jones is certainly difficult and embarrassing in the extreme. We are desirous of fulfilling the engagements he has contracted, and of maintaining the alliance concluded by him. And we are glad that he should continue at the Court of Persia to watch the wavering counsels of that Court, and to oppose the revival of French influence at it, until he can be replaced by our own envoy; but by either re-accrediting him with the Court, or silently executing his engagements, we acquiesce in the continued degradation of this government.”—[MS. Records.]
[46] On the details of Malcolm’s supplementary mission it is unnecessary to dwell. Its political results are compressible into the smallest possible space. It was, indeed, a mere pageant; and a very costly, but not wholly a profitless one. It yielded a considerable harvest of literary and scientific results, among the most important of which may be mentioned Malcolm’s elaborate and valuable “History of Persia” and the present Sir Henry Pottinger’s admirable “Account of Beluchistan;” works which, it has been well said, “not only filled up an important blank in our knowledge of the East, but which materially helped to fix the literary character of the Indian services.”
[47] It is just to Sir John Malcolm that his views of this question of bribery, with reference to his proceedings and those of Sir H. Jones, should be given in his own words: “Everything then,” he wrote, “with Jones is a question of money. By cash alone all political questions are decided—one article of a treaty he values at so much, another has its price also. Is a French agent to be removed? the price of his dismissal is as regularly settled as the price of a horse. The dismissal of one (Monsieur Jouanin) has been purchased four times—three times by advances of subsidy, and once with 50,000 piastres to monsieur himself; and I suspect the convenient instrument of extortion is not yet far from Tabruz. This is a country in which one cannot go on without a large expenditure of money; but it should never form the basis of our connection, as it now does; and if we add to our large annual bribe (for a pecuniary subsidy over the application or which we have no control, must be considered such) disbursements on every occasion where Persia shows an inclination towards our enemies, we shall lose both our money and our reputation.”—[Brigadier Malcolm to Mr. Manesty, Feb. 23, 1810. MS.]
[48] From 1826 to 1835, however, the nomination of the Persian envoy was again vested in the Indian Government; but the diplomatic control was not relinquished by the Foreign-office.
[49] “I doubt,” wrote Lord Minto, “whether his jealousy would permit him to admit, by treaty, our troops freely into his country, and to consent that we should establish such posts both in front against the enemy and elsewhere for the purpose of communication, as should render us independent of his fidelity. If he does not accede to this, we shall derive little benefit from his alliance.”—[Minute of Lord Minto: MS. Records.]
[50] A remarkably able paper, on the disposal of the subsidiary force which, under the provisions of the defensive alliance with Scindiah, that prince had agreed to receive, drawn up by Mr. Metcalfe, in 1804, conduced more, perhaps, than anything else to confirm Lord Wellesley’s high opinion of the young civilian’s talents. On a copy of it now before me is the following marginal note, written in the Governor-General’s fine, bold, characteristic hand:-“This paper is highly creditable to Mr. Metcalfe’s character and talents. It may become very useful. A copy of it should be sent to the Commander-in-Chief, and another to Major Malcolm.—W.”
[51] “The Rajah coupled his acquiescence in the proposed arrangements of defence against an invading European army with the condition of being permitted to extend his dominions over all the Sikh territories between the Sutlej and the Jumna. He also provisionally demanded that the British Government should not interfere in favour of the King of Caubul in his aggressions against that monarch’s dominions—at the same time shackling the advance of the British troops into his country, and the establishment of the necessary depôts, with conditions which would render any engagements with him for that purpose entirely inefficient and nugatory. Even during the reference he made to government on these demands, he crossed the Sutlej to attack the Sikh territories. The extreme jealousy and suspicion of us evinced by the Rajah, together with his own conduct and ambitious character, rendered it indispensably necessary to resist his pretensions to sovereignty over the territories on this side of the Sutlej, and the Rajah was required to withdraw his army.”—[Statement in Instructions to Mr Elphinstone: MS. Records.]