CANDAHAR.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 83, 7 April 1881, Page 2

CANDAHAR.

To the Editoh oi? tile " Evening Mail.'' Sib,— May I trouble you again by requesting tbe insertion of the following letter, iv reply to one which appeared in last Tuesday's Colonist :— I Bin accused of accepting in a false light! a passage in the Colonist relative to the policy of Earl Beacousfield, and on thia ground my crilib Considers " it is Heedless to diseuaa * QoneervativeV views as to the origin of the war, especially as you (your contem porary) did not luucn on this part of the subject." After briefly referring to the war and tbe circumstances which led up to it, I remarked in my former letter " Now, I think we shall be somewhat better prepared to give judgment ujion the ((uestiHn of retaining Candahar than if the tilany and' various elements which compose the Afghan question had not been touched tipon." That i 3 (he reason Mr Editor, I gave for distiussing the occurrences which dictated our action iv 1878. Now, I think " Radical " will admit that the article in the Colonist was strougly, condemnatory of tho policy of the Earl of Lytton, and 1 presume that, because that journal chose to discuss a moat important question on the basis of judging the. effect without considering tbo cause, I am not bound to proceed on the same priuciple ot argument, and, furthermore, if the Colonist can record tbe result of the late Viceroy's action " as the complete failure of his magnificent schemes " it must expect to have tho facts which produced that action considered. The next point referred to by " Radical ", is Sir Lewis Pellew's mission to Cabul in 1877. That mission was organised by Lord Lytton for the purpose of improving our relations with the Ameer, for they had considerably suffered at the bauds of the Liberal' Administration in 1869 and 1873; Shere AH, however, preferred llussian interests to our», and would not accept our proffered subsidy, on condition of which we were always to be consulted on foreign affairs. The darkest feature in Afghan politics is the treachery of the native character; sdd to thii, political imbecility, with an assumed frankness of manner, and the virtues of tbe Ameer Shere Ali are all recorded. Russia could promise abundantly, because sho never intended to! fulfil; India would have loyally carried out her engagements, and consequently they were, far less attractive; the Ameer, v»ho had entertained a dislike to us for a considerable, period, therefore judged accordingly, and in the manner that his intellect and disposition dictated. Now, because I maintain that it is' our duty to provide for the safety of the Candaharis and the neighboring tribes, my critic accuses me of arguing that it is " England's duty to act as the world's policeman, and to 'run in' every wrong doer." I never mentioned anything about "tbe world." but confined myself exclusively to the Cand»- : haris and the tribes which would come under our jurisdiction if we annexed the province. We are in military occupation of Candahar,; and we hold it under unusual circumstances. We are not in military possession of the world, and the contents of the paragraph; which " Radical " terms an idea, but which I call a policy, cannot be construed as applying to any part of the globe other than the Candahar district. I think I may aay, with all respect to my opponent's opinions, that on this point he is exceedingly amusing. " Radical " also declares that "as evidence . that Candahar is easily reached from Northern Afghanistan and with great difficulty from Quettah, Lord Northbrook pointed out that Sir Fred. Roberts relieved Candabar long before General Phayre was able to move." I must decidedly dispute that Candabar was easily reached from Cabul ; it was a march of the utmost difficulty, successfully performed by an able General whose scheme was daring but whose plans were perfect. As a matter of fact General Pbayre was marching on j Candahsr long before Sir Frederick reached the city; the latter officer arrived on the afternoon of the 31st August and Phayre was in on the 6th of September. I think " Radical " must have become rather confuted over the dates. , I must now defend my r«ply to that paragraph in the Colonist's article where it quotes language uttered by Mr Gladstone in denunciation of the Earl of Beaconefleld'a policy. You will be careful to note that I said it « appears to assume," and although, j strictly speaking, your contomporary only stateß that such an opinion was delivered by Mr Gladstone, yet the whole Bpirit of the leader iv the Colonist in fiercly attacking Lord Lytton is in strict accordance with the idea conveyed by Mr Gladstone's words. The attack on the House of Lords is veiled to a certain extent, but the tenor of the latter portion of your contemporary's article, and especially the closing sentence, fully justified me in taking up tho position I did. I maintain that the language of the Colonist was in direct hostility to the Upper House and the Earl of Lyttou for daring to discuss the question of Candahar, and thereby impeding the coming legislation of the Right Hon Mr Gladstone on the subject of Irish Land Reform. To conceive the House of Lords, terrified by tho proposals of the Prime Minister, hastening to record an overwhelming majority on a motion which does not bear the slightest relation to tbe proposed remedial laws, for the purpose of overawing the Lower House on the subject of £he said

proposed. laws, is ludicrous in the last degree. As for the majority obtained by the Government in the'Uouse of Commons against Sir Stafford Northcote's motion, being a sufficient answer to my argument, I would merely point out. that the House sanctioned the Afghan war by an immense majority, a large proportion of the Liberal members voting with the Ministry, whereas the division recenily taken only records a party victory. I am, &c. ; Conservative. April G, 188 L.