The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-12-11
THE AFGHAN DISCLOSURES.
ANSWER OF THE DUKE OF ARGYLL TO THE LET
TER OF LORD CRANBROoK
from the London Times1

TER OF LORD CRANBRooK.
from the London Times.l
The Duke OF Argyll has written long letter treating
the diplomatic history of the Afghan question. This
letter nothing less than direct reply Lord
brooks despatch by the Secretary State for India in
the government of Mr.. Gladstone. The Duke Of Argyll
regards the publication of the Ministerial docu-
ment as having removed from him any
obligation to retcence. and he makes public
several important pieces of information which
could only be known to who held his
former position. similar has been taken by
another member Of MIR. Gladstone's late Cabinet
Mr. Childers yesterday addressed his constituents ut
Pontfract. and he challenged in very vigorous
the accuracy OF one Of the principal statements in
Lord Cranbrook's despatch. He denounces that de-
spatch as incomplete incorrect misleading and dis
ingenious" and he adds that if he were in command
of the Prime Minister'S vocabulary he should en-
ploy still stronger epithet. A good deal Of irr
tation is excusablc in political affairs. but. the
credit OF English public life. we hope 1t may be
sdered at least out Of place to indulge in indignation
ut Minister'S ''disingenuousness. Not a week
passes without columns aordng evidence of the
possibility of the most conflicting interpretations
ing placed in good faith upon the transactions
and the same documents; and. in order to explain
these tempestuous collisions OF opinion, nothing
Is necessary than to suppose all persons but
Ministers out of Office do, that Minister'S whether in
out of Office, fallible. But putting aside these
rccrininatons. the Duke Of Argylls letter presents
view OF the course OF recent relations with the
Ameer which is very different from that put forward
by the government, and readers may safely pre-
sumo that in Lord Cranbrook's despatch and the
Dukes letter they have before them the main lines Of
the discussion which is next week to be opened in
Parliament respecting the conduct which has led TO
the present war.
THE PRESENT SITUATION.
We may summarize the present state of the
troversy by saying that there before the
public three distinct accounts Of the OF affairs
The first IL that of Lord Cranbrook, in which the
Ameers hostility to is traced to the hesitation of
the British government at various times, but espe-
cally in 1873 to give sufficiently definite guarantee
that we would rcpcl Russian aggression upon
Afghanistan. This view Of the pcrvades Lord
Cranbrook's despatch and the establishment of a firm
alliance with the Anccr in face of Russia may bo
regarded the key to the policy of the present gov
ernmcnt. The second view is that adopted by the
Duke of Argyll who agrees that the existing difficulty
has arisen from our reluctance to give the Amcera
sufficient guarantee against the disturbance of his
throne. but who considers that the disturbance
against which he coveted protection was not that
which might have been apprehendcd from Russia.
but that which might arise from domestic dis
sension in fghanistan itself. There Is, how
ever third view OF the case-that, namely,
OF which yesterday gave an account.
having been put forward by Sir Henry Rawlinson
Sir Henry. a member OF the Indian Council, speaks
with q knowledge of facts which is not far short of
that of the two rival Secretaries of State and his ac
count has thus much in its favor. that it affords
reconciliation of the two other views He is disposed
10 think that Shere Ali WAS in the first instance
In 1873 between his position as de facto and do
jure ruler. He was keenly disappointed at not
ceiving our moral support against his rivals and he
conceived from that time deep rooted suspicion Of
RUssIA's WORK.
But this suspicion. in Sir Henry Rawlinson's view.
would any have been harmless had ii not been
given substance and point by the advance of Russia.
Il is indeed, the weak point in the Duke of Argyls
statement OF the that he makes allowance for
the influence which must have been excrted the
Arnccrs mind not merely by the conquests of Russia.
but by her undoubte1 intrigues In Afghanistan. He
passes scarcely affecting the the that
the Russians In Turkcstan had since 1871 opened
correspondence with Cabul; and he fails to that IT,
he himself states, the Ameer most reluctant to
receive Russian mission, the intrigues which at
length induced him TO receive II must have been very
persistent. In fact Sir Henry Hawlnsons state
nient appears OPPORTUNITY to afford a working hy-
pothess for explaining the fact that two successive
Secretaries OF State should regard each other pur
blind. One approaches the matter from side and
other from tho reverse and the truth will proba
bly, DO found ia a combination Of the two views.