“H. Milne.”
—[MS. Records.]
[90] It does not appear that the conduct of Lieutenant Crawford was, in any way, open to censure. He was the bearer, as has been shown, of written instructions, authorising him to destroy the prisoners if they attempted to escape, but there seems to have been no connivance between them and the party who attacked the escort. Crawford himself says, in a narrative which he drew up, and which was subsequently published in a Bombay paper: “One prisoner was cut down by a horseman of the enemy (plainly showing there was no collusion between them), two others rolled over in a ditch, where, with their horse a top of them, and their legs chained under his belly, I left them; indeed, I now found it was impossible I could ever get my charge into Ghuznee alive, and I had only to decide on putting them to death or setting them at liberty. My instructions would have justified my pursuing the former course, but the poor wretches had clearly made no attempt to escape; they were in no way answerable for the attack made on my party, as was evident from one of their number falling by the sword of our adversaries; and I conceived then, and do now conceive, that in letting these men go with their lives, I was not only acting according to the strict letter of my instructions, but that justice and humanity required I should not slay them in cold blood. Had I put them to death, then Shumshoodeen or Mahomed Akbar would have been equally justified in taking our lives (the lives of all their prisoners) on the advance of Pollock and Nott on Caubul. I may add that the Court of Inquiry, which I called for, after investigating all the circumstances, decided that I had acted perfectly right.” These escaped prisoners, however, subsequently became the most active of our enemies.
[91] He died, after much suffering, in March.
[92] Major Rawlinson’s MS. Journal.
[93] “The mutineers moved down to the Barukzye villages in apparent expectation of being joined by the Ooloos, but wherever they went they received neither support nor encouragement, notwithstanding that they gave out our troops were on the march to destroy the Douranee villages. The Janbaz at last took up a position at Chuplanee, a village about twelve miles off, where our cavalry came up with them; Captain Leeson had to file his men across a difficult canal, and had only just formed line when the enemy charged in a body. Our men charged at the same time in line, and the flanks swept round the Janbaz horse, who were probably not above 150 strong—numbers having left the rebel standard before reaching Chuplanee. For about five minutes a splendid fight took place, hand-to-hand, when the Janbaz broke and fled, pursued by our cavalry. Of the enemy, about thirty were killed and fifty wounded in the flight and pursuit. Our loss was trifling.”—[Major Rawlinson’s MS. Journal.]
[94] Major Rawlinson to Major-General Nott: January 7th, 1842. MS. Correspondence. as end ref
[95] General Nott to Major Rawlinson: January 8th, 1842. MS. Correspondence. There is a characteristic passage in this letter which is worthy of quotation. “I have no right to interfere with the affairs of the government of this country, and I never do—but in reference to that part of your note where you speak of political influence, I will candidly tell you that these are not times for mere ceremony, and that under present circumstances, and at a distance of 2000 miles from the seat of the Supreme Government, I throw responsibility to the winds, and tell you that, in my opinion, you have not had for some time past, nor have you at present, one particle of political influence in this country.”
[96] Her Majesty’s 40th Regiment; the 2nd, 16th, 38th, and a wing of the 42nd Native Infantry; the Shah’s 5th Infantry; Anderson’s two troops of Horse Artillery (Shah’s); Blood’s Battery (Bombay Artillery); Leeson’s and Haldane’s Horse.
[97] The number of the enemy has been variously stated at all sorts of amounts, from 5000 to 20,000. General Nott, in his official despatch addressed to the Military Secretary, says: “After a march of four hours over a very difficult country, I came in sight of the rebel army, from fifteen to twenty thousand men, drawn up in a strong position on the right bank of the Urghundab.” Major Rawlinson says: “From what I myself saw, as well as from information I have received from parties in the enemy’s camp, I should estimate their entire force at 5000-3000 of which accompanied the chiefs from Sir-a-bund, whilst the other 2000 joined from the Alekozye villages.”—[MS. Journal.] There is nothing of which the historian ought to speak with less confidence than the “number of the enemy.” There is nothing more difficult to determine than the fact; and nothing more likely to draw upon him a large amount of acrimonious criticism, than his manner of stating it. As a general proposition, I think it may be laid down that military commanders seldom under-state the number of the enemy they have beaten.