Flashman Papers Omnibus

by Fraser George MacDonald

  21. Sepoy Mangal Pandy (? – 1857), of the 34th Native Infantry, ran amok on the parade ground at Barrackpore on March 29, apparently drugged with bhang, trying to rouse a religious revolt and claiming that British troops were coming against the sepoys. He attacked one of his officers, and then tried to kill himself. Pandy was subsequently hanged, along with a native officer whose offence apparently was that he did not try to stop the attack. However, this first of the Indian sepoy rebels gained an appropriate immortality: the British word for any native mutineer thereafter was “pandy”.

  22. For the loading drill, see Forest’s Selections, and J. A. B. Palmer’s The Mutiny Outbreak in Meerut in 1857 referring to the Platoon Exercise Manual. While there is general agreement among historians on what happened at the firing parade, some differ over precise technical details; Flashman’s account is sound on the whole. He states that the cartridges were not greased, but waxed, and since he does not refer to them as ball cartridges, this would seem to confirm that they were ungreased blanks. However, this would not allay the fears of the sepoys, who were apparently suspicious of any cartridge with a shiny appearance. Nor do they seem to have been impressed by the repeated assurances that it was unnecessary to bite the cartridge (which, if it were greased, would be highly polluting); as early as January, 1857, when it was announced that the sepoys could grease their own loads with non-polluting substances, it was also stated that they could tear the cartridges with their fingers (see Hansard, 3rd series 145, May 22, 1857); the response of some sepoys to this was that they might forget, and bite.

  23. The British were, in fact, more considerate and humane towards their native troops than they were to their white ones. Flogging continued in the British Army long after it had been abolished for Indian troops, whose discipline appears to have been much more lax, possibly in consequence – a point significantly noted by Subedar Sita Ram when he discusses in his memoirs the causes of the Mutiny.

  24. Lieutenant (later Lieutenant-General Sir Hugh) Gough was warned by one of the native officers of his troop on May 9 that the sepoys would rise to rescue their comrades from the jail. Carmichael-Smith and Archdale Wilson both rejected the warning.

  25. One of the first casualties of the Meerut mutiny was, in fact, a British soldier murdered in a bazaar lemonade shop.

  26. Hewitt and Archdale Wilson were extraordinarily slow in getting the British regiments on the move after the outbreak; they did not reach the sepoy lines until after the mutineers had set off for Delhi.

  27. Altogether thirty-one Europeans are known to have been murdered in the Meerut massacre, including the Dawson family, and Mrs Courtney and her three children (all mentioned by Flashman). The full list is given in the Records of the Intelligence Department of the N.W. Provinces, 1857, vol. ii, appendix. The circumstances of their deaths are horrifying enough – Surgeon Dawson was shot on his verandah, while Mrs Dawson was burned by thrown torches, and at least one pregnant woman, Mrs Captain Chambers, was murdered – but even so, greatly overstated reports of Meerut atrocities were circulated, including tales of sexual violation. It is worth quoting the statement of Sir William Muir, then head of the N.W. Intelligence Department, in a letter to Lord Canning (Agra, December 30, 1857), that several British witnesses at Meerut were confident that no rapes took place, and they believed that the atrocities, appalling as they were, had been exaggerated. It was alleged, for example, that Riding-Master Langdale’s (not Langley’s, as Flashman says) little daughter was tortured to death; she had, in fact, been killed by a tulwar blow while sleeping on her charpoy (see the Rev. T. C. Smith’s letter, dated Meerut, December 16, 1857). This tendency of many British observers to be strictly fair and impartial, even in the highly emotional atmosphere of the Mutiny and its immediate aftermath, should not be seen as playing down the atrocities; they were merely concerned to correct the wilder stories, and give an honest account.

  28. The mutiny and massacre at Jhansi took place exactly as Ilderim Khan described it. The mass murder of the 66 Britons (30 men, 16 women, and 20 children) was carried out in the Jokan Bagh on June 8, 1857; the only details which Ilderim’s narrative adds to historical record are the quoted remarks of the victims and their killers. It was the second largest massacre in the entire Mutiny, and in some ways the most cruel, although it has been overshadowed in popular infamy by Cawnpore. What is by no means certain is how far Rani Lakshmibai was responsible, if at all: she protested her innocence afterwards and there is considerable doubt what her attitude was to Skene’s three envoys before the Town Fort surrendered. (No record exists of the death of “Murray sahib” as described by Ilderim Khan, and the quotation that the Rani “had no concern with English swine”, which is to be found in at least one other contemporary source, appears to rest on the evidence of a suspect Indian witness). It is possible that Lakshmibai was powerless to prevent either the mutiny or the massacre; on the other hand, there is no evidence that she tried to, and there is no doubt that soon afterwards she was most effectively in control of Jhansi, and capable of dealing with any threat to her sovereignty.

  29. The quotation given by Flashman is the substance of the last letter which Wheeler sent out of Cawnpore after one of the most heroic defences in the history of war. Later events were to overshadow it, but it remains an epic of the Mutiny, for the conditions within the entrenchment, the figures of casualties, and even small details of the siege, were as Flashman describes them: for example, Bella Blair did die, John McKillop of the Civil Service did draw water under constant fire for a week before he was killed, and the reference to shooting horses for food, rather than riders, is authentic.

  30. Azeemoolah Khan had been sent to London in 1854 by Nana Sahib, the adopted son of the Maharatta Peshawa, to petition against the disallowance of Nana’s pension and title after his father’s death. The petition failed, but Azeemoolah, by his own account, had immense success in his pursuit of London society women – a boast which did not endear him to W. H. Russell of The Times when the two met at Missirie’s Hotel, Constantinople, in 1856, and subsequently in the Crimea. Apart from being a nobleman, Azeemoolah is also believed to have worked as a teacher and as a waiter. Nana Sahib, who had joined the rebellion on the outbreak at Cawnpore, was to become the most famous of the Mutiny leaders, but Tantia Tope, whom Flashman barely noticed, was to be a far greater menace in the field.

  31. While Flashman’s account of the council of war is new, it supports the known facts: Wheeler wanted to fight on, and his younger officers supported him; the older men wished to surrender for the sake of the women and children, and Wheeler finally agreed, although he was deeply suspicious of the rebels’ good faith. Nana Sahib’s offer of terms, in the words which Flashman gives, was brought to the entrenchment by Mrs Jacobs, described by one contemporary as an “aged lady”.

  32. Details of the massacre at Suttee Ghat are necessarily confused, but the broad facts are as narrated, and again many of Flashman’s incidental memories are confirmed by other accounts. For example, Ewart was killed on the way to the ghat in a palankeen; Vibart’s kit was carried and his wife escorted by rebels of his regiment; five loyal sepoys were murdered; Moore (“the real defender of Cawnpore”) was killed in the water, shoving off. Some versions say that the thatch in the barges was fired before the shooting began, and one of Wheeler’s servants, a nurse, said the general was killed on the shore, his head being cut off as he leaned from his stretcher; however, the probability is that he died in one of the boats. What appears to be in no doubt is the premeditated treachery of the attack; only one boat (Vibart’s) escaped.

  33. The reptiles which attacked the swimmers can hardly have been gavials, which feed exclusively on fish. True crocodiles have an overlapping fourth tooth.

  34. The account of the escape down-river is true. This is independently confirmed by the narrative of Lieutenant Thomson, which describes the fire-arrows, the boat’s grounding, the temple siege, escape to the shore, the boat’s disappearance, crocodiles, etc. Apart from Flas
hman, there were four survivors – Thomson, Delafosse, Sullivan, and Murphy – who were eventually rescued by Diribijah Singh.

  35. The massacre of women and children at Cawnpore was the most notorious atrocity of the Mutiny, and provoked the most notorious reprisal by General Neill. It has been suggested that Nana was not himself responsible, and that the massacre may have been in retaliation for the indiscriminate punishment which Neill’s troops had visited earlier on Allahabad and on villages during their march to Cawnpore. Without in any way condoning Neill’s behaviour, which has been justly condemned by historians, it is only fair to point out that there had been no element of retaliation in previous massacres by Indians, at Meerut, Jhansi, and Delhi. What is not in dispute is the effect which Cawnpore had on British opinion, or the fury it caused in the army – a curious echo of this even lingered on into the Second World War, when tattooists in Hogg Market, Calcutta, were still offering to imprint the arms of British recruits with the legend “Cawnpore Well”.

  36. Flashman does T. Henry Kavanaugh considerably less than justice. The big Irishman was undeniably eccentric – one Mutiny historian, Rice Holmes, has called him vain and self-important to the point of insanity – but his night journey to Campbell, in his ludicrous disguise, was an act of the most calculated courage. Possibly Flashman was nettled by the fact that other accounts of the exploit describe Kavanaugh’s companion as an Indian; he may also have been unfavourably impressed by the somewhat immodest title of the book in which Kavanaugh described his adventure: How I Won the V.C. It tallies fairly closely, in general facts if not in spirit and interpretation, with Flashman’s version. An excellent map of the scene of the journey is in Forrest, vol. ii.

  37. Campbell has been much criticised by some military theoreticians for his caution, and for his (and Mansfield’s) reluctance to shed lives – British and mutineer; Fortescue thinks this policy may even have helped to lengthen the Mutiny. It is not a view which Flashman could be expected to share. (See Fortescue, vol. xiii.)

  38. The painting to which Flashman refers, of Havelock and Outram greeting Campbell at Lucknow, is by a celebrated Victorian painter of military scenes, T.J. Barker. The mounted figure shown raising a hand in acclamation may indeed be intended to be Flashman; it bears some resemblance to the only other identifiable picture of him as a comparatively young man – in a group of Union staff officers with President Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War.

  39. Flashman’s old friend, William Howard Russell, The Times correspondent, makes an obvious reference to this incident in My Diary in India (p. 188, vol. 1).

  40. Flashman’s description of the looting is borne out by Russell, who described his attempt to buy the jewelled chain from an Irish soldier in his Diary; their accounts are almost word for word, and Russell even confirms that the chain subsequently fetched £7,500, as Flashman says.

  41. Griff, or griffin – a greenhorn, a young officer. Hardly a fair description of Roberts who, although still young, was to win his Victoria Cross only a few weeks later. But Flashman plainly had little liking for the legendary “Bobs”, who was to become Field-Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar; no doubt he was jealous of him.

  42. Roberts apart, it seems to have been a distinguished gathering round the fire that night. William Stephen Raikes Hodson (1821–58) was already renowned as an irregular cavalry leader and the founder of Hodson’s Horse. He was a year older than Flashman and since they were at Rugby together it seems quite feasible that Flashman had been his fag. Hodson has left a mixed reputation; a brilliant soldier, he was capable of cold-blooded cruelty, as when he murdered the Delhi princes while they were his prisoners. He was shot at Lucknow on March 11th, 1858, and there was a rumour (repeated by Flashman) that he was in the act of looting at the time. Roberts firmly denied this, with convincing evidence (see note, page 404, Forty-one Years in India, vol. 1). Sam Browne, inventor of the belt which bears his name, was another celebrated cavalry leader, who became a general and won the V.C. He lost his left arm in a skirmish some months after Lucknow. “Macdonald the Peeler” was probably Macdonald who had been provost-marshal in the Crimea.

  43. As one of the Jhansi besiegers later put it: “The Ranee, young, unwedded, jealous of power, sat watching the puny figures below … we watched and wondered what she said and did to those best-favoured among a band of chieftains, and imagination ran wild in the fervid heat.” (See J. H. Sylvester, Cavalry Surgeon, ed. A. McKenzie Annand, 1971.)

  44. Until the discovery of The Flashman Papers, Lyster (later General Sir Harry Hamon Lyster, V.C.) was the only authority for the plan to capture the Rani of Jhansi alive. No other contemporary writer on the Mutiny mentions the scheme, and it was not until 1913, when the Rev. H. H. Lyster Denny published a little-known work, Memorials of an Ancient House, containing some of General Lyster’s recollections, that the story came out. According to Lyster, Rose confided the plan to him in strict confidence, and Lyster himself did not reveal it until many years after Rose’s death. The plan was substantially as Flashman recounts it, and involved luring the Rani into attempting an escape by withdrawing a British picket from its position covering one of the Jhansi gates.

  45. The battle on the Betwa (April 1, 1858) is one of the forgotten actions, but it is a striking illustration of Rose’s coolness and tactical brilliance. Caught at an apparent disadvantage, he turned from Jhansi and attacked the new rebel force, which outnumbered him ten to one; Rose led the cavalry charge in person, and Tantia’s army was routed with the loss of 1,500 dead and 28 guns captured. (See Fortescue, History of the British Army, vol. xiii.)

  46. This incident took place about twenty miles from Jhansi, following the Rani’s escape, when a party of British cavalry under Lieutenant Dowker caught up with her. According to popular tradition (now confirmed by Flashman’s account) the rebel horseman who wounded Dowker was the Rani herself. Incidentally, Flashman is probably in error when he says the Rani left Jhansi through the Orcha Gate; other authorities specify the Bandhari Gate, and say that the Rani herself had the child Damodar on her saddle.

  47. There are differing accounts of Lakshmibai’s death, but Flashman’s accords with the generally accepted version. This is that she was killed in the action of Kota-ki-serai, before Gwalior, when the 8th Hussars charged the rebel camp at Phool Bagh. She was seen in the mêlée, with her horse’s reins in her mouth, and was struck in the body, probably by a carbine bullet: she swayed in the saddle, crossed swords with a trooper, and was cut down. According to tradition, she was wearing the priceless necklace of Scindia, which she gave away to an attendant as she lay dying. Her tent on the battlefield was later found to contain a full-length mirror, books, pictures, and her swing.

  48. Captain Clement Heneage took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, and also charged with the 8th Hussars in the action of June 17, 1858, in which the Rani of Jhansi was killed. Flashman’s misspelling may have arisen through his never having seen the name written.

  49. Deplorable though Flashman’s attitude to women was, there were obviously some for whom he felt a genuine attachment, and even respect – Lola Montez and the Rani of Jhansi among them. Lakshmibai obviously captivated him, but how far she returned his affection is debatable. He would turn in his grave at the suggestion, but it seems highly questionable that she spent the night with him in the Jhansi pavilion(see here). It may be significant that he never saw her face clearly on that occasion, and his description of the encounter might seem to suggest that the lady who entertained him was a professional nautch-dancer or courtesan, rather than the Rani. It is unfortunately true that in the climate created by the Mutiny, Lakshmibai was credited with every vice (“ardent” and “licentious” were two of the adjectives employed) but there is no evidence that her private life and behaviour were not entirely respectable.

  That is not to say that she would not use her feminine power (or any other weapon) for political ends; in this may be found a logical explanation of the pavilion incident. It is possible, on the
basis of Flashman’s account, that at that time the Rani was already deep in mutinous conspiracy, perhaps with agitators like Ignatieff, and either at their prompting or on her own initiative, decided to destroy Flashman, a potentially dangerous British agent. To lead him on, to lure him to the pavilion, and to arrange for an attack on him by professional assassins, was simple; that something of the sort actually happened is indicated by the confession which Ilderim Khan extracted from the captured Thug.

  As to the Rani’s display of affection for Flashman on his last visit to Jhansi, it may well have been entirely (and not partially, as he complacently assumed) prompted by her need to extract every scrap of information from him. Or – perhaps she was not entirely indifferent to him, after all; he seemed to think so, and he was not inexperienced.

  Copyright

  This novel is entirely a work of fiction. The names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are the work of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or localities is entirely coincidental.

  Harper

  An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers

  77–85 Fulham Palace Road

  Hammersmith, London W6 8JB

  www.harpercollins.co.uk

  First published in Great Britain by Barrie & Jenkins Ltd 1975

  Copyright © George MacDonald Fraser 1975

  George MacDonald Fraser asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work

  A catalogue copy of this book is available from the British Library

  All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the nonexclusive, nontransferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins e-books.