But of all the officers connected with the British Mission, John Conolly was the one who enjoyed the best opportunities of arriving at a correct estimate of the conduct of the Shah. During the insurrection he was in attendance on the king at the Balla Hissar, and he was at Caubul up to the time of his death. Conolly’s opinions are on record. He seems at one time to have entertained the strongest possible conviction that the Shah was true to his British allies. “I believe,” he wrote on the 17th of January, “that he is heart and soul in our interest; and it is contrary to all reason to suppose otherwise.” But by the 15th of February his belief in the fidelity of the Shah seems to have been shaken; for he wrote to Macgregor: “It is generally believed and asserted throughout the town that his Majesty instigated the late rebellion. I have never been able to prove the accusation, though I cannot but think that he was, directly or indirectly, the cause of the revolution.” A month afterwards, writing still more distinctly to General Pollock, he cast further doubts on the fidelity of the Shah. “I would suggest,” he said, “that some direct understanding be come to with his Majesty. It is generally believed that he caused the late rebellion; and his conduct lately has been strange, to say the least of it. He tried to raise a popular tumult against us, hoping thereby to ruin the Newab. He did not interest himself in any way about our sick when their wretched, helpless condition was formally represented to him in a petition from me—added to the circumstance alluded to of his telling our host to send us to Ameen-oollah, who is our most bitter enemy. He is, moreover, surrounded by the Populzye leaders of the late insurrection, whose persons, I presume, our government will demand. I have not received a letter from him for a month; but the fear of being suspected of being in communication with us may be the cause of his disregard of us.” And again, at the end of the month, writing to Major Rawlinson, he said: “The king is generally abused, and reported as the instigator of the late rebellion. He has proved himself, I think, unworthy of our friendship. If we are not able to prove his villany, his cunning will, no doubt, prompt him to side with us on the near approach of our troops, for he is well aware that his subjects would seize him if he ventured out of the Balla Hissar. He is, as the Afghans say, like grain between two mill-stones.”[86]