FL4618315

(34)
The other ministers who defended in the House of Commons
their abandonment of Gordon, may be briefly dismisssed.

Sir Charles Dilke, who had boasted in 1884 that he had con-
curred in authorising Gordon to "draft his own instructions,"
made a speech which was one long shuffle. He had no plea to
make for the refusal of Zebehr, but he pointed out "that only one
hon. gentleman (Sir F. Milner) attacked us for not sending Zebehr."
His morality seemed to be such as might make promise-breaking a
virtue if no one objected to it.

Sir W. Harcourt declared (26th February) that he "would not
have been a party to sending out Zebehr," and he had the un-
speakable meaness (which even Gladstone had not exhibited) of
pretending that considerations for Gordon's safety made the. refusal
necessary. Privileged to say anything, however inhuman, he de-
clared, "If Gordon had been able to hold out a week or ten days
longer it is quite certain that Sir H. Stewart's force would have
been in Khartoum. I say we were not too late, and I am entitled
to say so."

Sir Robert Peel replied that Harcourt had been "good enough
to admit that the Government had experienced failures and made
some mistakes. Made some mistakes! Why, good Good; their
hands were deep in blood. They were ankle deep in it."

The patriotic enthusiasm which despatched the New South
Wales contingent to the Soudan, and wafted offers from other
Colonies, was acknowledged with effusion by Mr. Gladstone in
Parliament on the 20th February. If he had known how largely
indignation at his own treachery had actuated many colonists, and
that he himself was more. than once burned in effigy in Australia at
the time, by lovers of their country and admirers of Gordon, it would
have required all his power of dissimulation to appear sincere.

A feeble member of the Cabinet, unwarned by the abstinence of
his more astute colleagues from disparagement of Gordon, ven-tured to sneer at the victim of Khartoum.

Lord Kimberley told his brother peers (27th February), "General
Gordon was not infallible. ... He was of the opinion that his influence
in the Soudan was such that he might be able to accomplish the
pacification of the country by his name and by his influence
with the tribes. ...General Gordon, it is impossible not to say, was
mistaken* in his calculations. ...I was never more clear in my
life upon any subject than that it was the absolute duty of Her
Majesty's Government to refuse to send Zebehr." One would think

*If Gordon presumed confidently that the Gladstone Ministry woud keep faith with
him, no doubt he was mistaken. But such was his sense of duty to his country, that
if anyone had warned him that the Ministry would not keep faith and would betray
him, it is possible he would have replied, "If the Ministry be false, what is that
to me? They apply to me in the name of my country and I must do my best for its
honour." This , at any rate, is what he did, when they betrayed him.