One would suppose that such a document would have elicited some
inquiry.But Haji Wali was a Persian protege, and proceedings between
the Consulates had commenced before the petition was presented. The
pseudo-British subject, having been acknowledged as a real one, must be
supported. Consuls, like kings, may err, but must not own to error. No
notice was taken of the Indian petition; worse still, no inquiry into
the slave-affair was set on foot[FN#7]; and it was discovered that the
passport having been granted by a Consul-General could not with
official etiquette be resumed by a Consul.[FN#8]
[p.50]Thus matters were destined to proceed as they began. Mohammed
Shafi'a had offered 5,000 piastres to the Persian Consul's interpreter;
this of course was refused, but still somehow or other all the Haji's
affairs seemed to go wrong. His statements were mistranslated, his
accounts were misunderstood, and the suit was allowed to drag on to a
suspicious length. When I left Cairo in July, Haji Wali had been kept
away nearly two months from his business and family, though both
parties-for the plaintiff's purse was rapidly thinning-appeared eager
to settle the difference by arbitration: when I returned from Arabia in
October, matters were almost in statu quo ante, and when I started for
India in January, the proceedings had not closed.
Such is a brief history, but too common, of a case in which the subject
of an Eastern state has to contend against British influence. It is
doubtless a point of honour to defend our proteges from injustice, but
the higher principle should rest upon the base of common honesty. The
worst part of such a case is, that the injured party has no redress.
"Fiat injustitia, ruat coelum,"