[162] Mr. Maddock to General Pollock: February 24, 1842. Published Papers.
[163] “The information received with respect to the conduct of Shah Soojah during the late transactions is necessarily imperfect, and, moreover, of a somewhat contradictory character. It is not probable that the insurrection against our troops should have originated with him. It is most probable, and it is almost proved, that he has adopted it, and, powerless in himself, is prepared to side with either party, by which he may hope to be maintained upon his precarious throne.”—[Governor-General in Council to Sir Jasper Nicholls: March 15, 1842. Published Papers.]
[164] Mr. Maddock to General Nott: April 19, 1842. Published Papers.
[165] This is not only a remarkable letter in itself. It is remarkable for its misadventures. Its outer history is somewhat curious. It never found its way into the published volume of correspondence, and its existence was only to be inferred from the fact of a reference to it in another letter. It was at last brought to light by the inquiries in Parliament of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Palmerston. It was to be found nowhere in England; but a copy was at last elicited from India. The Governor-General then declared that “the original despatch of the 13th of May never reached the office, and must have been lost in transit. The duplicate was received and acknowledged on the 11th of July. It is the practice of the Secretary’s office to keep the unreported papers on all important subjects for each month together, and to forward copies of them to the Secret Committee by the monthly Overland Mail. The despatch in question was inadvertently put up in its proper place in the May bundle of reported papers, instead of being left for a time, as it should have been, among the unreported papers of July. Hence, when the July papers were copied for transmission to the Secret Committee, this despatch was omitted.” Nothing less explanatory than this was ever offered in the way of explanation. It does not appear whether the original letter miscarried altogether on its way to Lord Ellenborough, or whether it miscarried only on its way to the office. There is an equal obscurity about the history of the duplicate which was “received and acknowledged on the 11th of July.” It might be inferred from this that it was received on the 11th of July, and acknowledged on the same day. But it happens that the duplicate was despatched on the 30th of May—and ought surely to have come not among the July, but among the June papers. In this letter of the 11th of July the Secretary says: “I am directed to state that the original letter has never reached me, and that the duplicate has only lately been received and laid before the Governor-General, whose previous instructions to you appeared to render any special reply to this communication unnecessary.”—[MS. Records.] In the face of so distinct a denial as this, little can be said, except that in a letter from Pollock of May 20th, which was duly acknowledged, reference is made to the letter of the 13th. If that letter had not been received, some allusion certainly ought to have been made by Government to its non-receipt.
[166] There was no scarcity of provisions at Jellalabad at this time. But, to secure a continued supply, Pollock was sensible of the necessity of encouraging a belief throughout the country that the intentions of the British Government inclined towards a forward movement. “We are all quiet here,” he wrote on the 6th of May to Mr. Clerk, “grain coming in in abundance; at least, in as great quantities as we could expect after the dreadful alarm into which this force seems to have put the whole country. Every village was deserted. I did my utmost to protect them from plunder, and in most cases succeeded; and the consequence is that we, in a measure, command the resources of the country.” And on the 11th of the same month, writing again to Mr. Clerk, he said: “While I remain here I can command supplies, and I have no doubt that I shall be able to do so as long as the natives suppose that we intend remaining in the country; but if they thought otherwise, our supplies would be stopped.”—[MS. Correspondence.]
[167] Published Correspondence relating to Military Operations in Afghanistan.
[168] MS. Correspondence. In his journal, too, Rawlinson wrote: “The order to retire came upon us like a thunderbolt. We had not, from Lord Ellenborough’s former letter, thought such a measure possible until Caubul should be retaken. As there is no discretionary power, however, vested in General Nott by the late letter, he has only had to consider the best way of carrying the order into effect.”—[MS. Journal.]
[169] The 2nd, 16th, and 38th.
[170] “In a late letter to government,” he wrote to the Commander-in-Chief on the 24th of May, “you will have seen how anxious I was that any proposed movement towards Peshawur should be communicated to no one from whom it could be withheld. The moment such a thing is known, it is probable supplies will cease to come in; we should be in difficulty about forage; all who are now friendly would be ready to oppose us; and if I had not time to secure the pass, the consequences might be serious indeed.”—[Published Papers relating to Military Operations in Afghanistan.]
[171] In this letter of the 20th of May, Pollock says: “I have already, in my letter dated the 13th inst., entered on the subject (of withdrawing to Peshawur), and must receive a reply before I shall be able to move.” If that letter of the 13th had not been received and read, surely this allusion to it would have called forth a remark to that effect.