Even if it did, so far from acting without her husband's
consent in this matter (and she really did very little), she did nothing
without his approval, for he actively sympathized in the case of the
Shazlis. His letters to the missionaries and to Sir Henry Elliot form
proof of this; and in face of this documentary evidence the "Shakers'
dance" theory does not hold good. Miss Stisted, however, makes her
assertion without any evidence, and says that Lord Granville evaded the
main question when sounded on the subject of Burton's recall. How she
became aware of the inner mind of Lord Granville is not apparent, and
under the circumstances dispassionate readers will prefer the testimony
of the Blue Book to her cool assumption of superior knowledge. Something
more than mere assertion is needed to support a charge like this.
Equally baseless too is the insinuation against Isabel contained in the
following passage:
"Significant enough it is to any unprejudiced reader that the next
appointment [i.e. of Burton's] was to a Roman Catholic country.[12]
The "unprejudiced reader" would probably see the significance in another
light--the significance of refusing to appoint Burton again to a
Mohammedan country, and of repeatedly refusing him the post he coveted
at Morocco.
None of these accusations or innuendoes against Isabel can be entertained
when confronted with sober facts; they are in short nothing but the
outcome of a jealous imagination.
Pages:
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164