rference, in my absence, from the India
Office." On the whole, the verdict passed by Lord George Hamilton is, I
believe, eminently correct, and is entirely in accordance with my own
experience. Lord George, who had excellent opportunities for forming a
sound opinion on the subject, wrote:

Great as were Lyall's literary attributes and powers of initiation
and construction, his critical faculties were even more fully
developed. This made him at times somewhat difficult to deal with,
for he was very critical and cautious in the tendering of advice as
regards any new policy or any suggested change. When once he could
see his way through difficulties, or came to the conclusion that
those difficulties must be faced, then his caution and critical
instincts disappeared, and he was prepared to be as bold in the
prosecution of what he advocated as he had previously been
reluctant to start.

The mental attitude which Lord George Hamilton thus describes is by no
means uncommon in the case of very conscientious and brilliantly
intellectual men, such, for instance, as the late Lord Goschen, who
possessed many characteristics in common with Lyall. They can cite, in
justification of their procedure, the authority of one who was probably
the greatest man of action that the world has ever produced. Roederer
relates in his journal that on one occasion Napoleon said to him:

Il n'y a pas un homme plus pusillanime que moi quand je fais un
plan militaire; je me grossis tous les dangers et tous les maux
possibles dans les circonstances; je suis dans une agitation tout a
fait penible; je suis comme une fille qui accouche. Et quand ma
resolution est prise, tout est oublie, hors ce qui peut la faire
reussir.

Within reasonable limits, caution is, indeed, altogether commendable. On
the other hand, it cannot be doubted that, carried to excess, it is at
times apt to paralyse all effective and timely action, to disqualify
those who exercise it from being pilots possessed of sufficient daring
to steer the ship of state in troublous times, and to exclude them from
the category of men of action in the sense in which that term is
generally used. In spite of my great affection for Alfred Lyall, I am
forced to admit that, in his case, caution was, I think, at times
carried to excess. He never appeared to me to realise sufficiently that
the conduct of public affairs, notab