190 The British Campaign in the Soudan.

‘*On the 12th of May the Right Hon. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Conservative member for East Gloucestershire, moved in the House of Commons his motion of May 2d, that the House regrets that the course of the government has not tended to promote the success of Gen. Gordon’s mission, and that steps to secure his personal safety have been delayed. The honorable gentleman, in making the motion, said he did not mean to question the wisdom of the government’s policy in demanding the evacuation of the Soudan by Egypt. What he called in question was the present conduct of the government toward that country. He called in review the circumstances which led to the departure of Gen. Gordon to the Soudan.

‘The object of his going,’ Sir Michael said, ‘was to bring about the peaceful evacuation of the country. A more heroic offer than that made by Gen. Gordon was never made by living man. Yet when he arrived at Khartoum the government, instead of seconding his proposals, negatived them. With strange inconsistency the government insisted upon a pacific policy in one part of the Soudan and went to war in another part, thereby destroying any chance which Gen. Gordon might have had for carrying out his mission. The government was worthy of blame for not having sent assistance from Suakim. They have practically deserted the brave soldier, the Christian hero, in his hour of peril. This is the general feeling of the entire country. England now demands that Gen. Gordon and those who trusted him shall be rescued.’

‘“ Mr. Gladstone, on rising to speak in defence of the government’s course, was greeted with hearty and long-continued applause. He congratulated Sir Michael Hicks-Beach on his forcible speech,’ but strenuously denied that the government had deserted Gen. Gordon. Continuing, the Prime-Minister denied that the government had failed to do one single act that was for the safety and success of Gen. Gordon. ‘The charges which the honorable gentleman has just preferred against the government are absurd. They can only be accounted for by his lack of knowl-— edge of the true facts.’ Mr. Gladstone thereupon referred to official dispatches to prove Gen. Gordon’s security, and to justify the action which the government had taken. He contended that the charges failed to note the fact that Gen. Gordon had orders to resort to military force if peaceful measures should not prove successful. ‘The demand of the honorable gentleman,’ he insisted, ‘amounted toa war of conquest against a people struggling to be free. The war which the Mahdi is waging is a war for freedom. Is it that which the honorable gentleman wishes England to put down ?’”

’ It is fortunate for Mr. Gladstone that his fame does not rest upon the course of his Cabinet in the Soudan question. ‘To err is human, and great as he undoubtedly is as a statesman, it cannot be denied that he erred grievously in this matter, probably led into mistakes by the representations of military men on whose judgment of