Chapter XXXV: Egypt (1)

1884

I.

At the close of 1883 the destruction of Hicks's army had made clear to all that the Soudan was, for the time at least, lost to Egypt; and close upon this disaster in the central region had followed defeats on the Red Sea coast. But Egyptian garrisons were holding out at Sinkat, some fifty miles from the port of Suakim, and at Tokar, only twenty miles from the coast. In October, 1883, a small force sent to relieve Sinkat was cut up by the Dervishes under Osman Digna; in November, a larger column of 500, accompanied by the British Consul, was utterly routed in an attempt to reach Tokar. General Baker, with his newly formed gendarmerie, was then ordered to Suakim. He desired to enlist the services of Zebehr Pasha, a famous leader of men, but a former dealer in slaves. To this the British authorities objected, and Zebehr was not sent. Baker went, attempted with 3,500 troops to reach Tokar, and on February 2nd, 1884, lost 2,000 of them near the wells of El Teb. Both Tokar and Sinkat soon after fell into the hands of the Dervishes.

Long before this event, the evacuation of the Soudan had been decreed. A peremptory mandate from the British Government was sent to Cherif Pasha, the Egyptian Prime Minister, who, as he had intimated that he would do, resigned rather than be responsible for giving up so vast a possession. On January 8th, Nubar took office to carry out the prescribed policy. But the problem was how to get away the garrisons, and, since England had ordered evacuation, the Egyptian Government looked to England for assistance.

'On January 16th I noted: "Baring wants to make us send a British
officer to conduct the retreat from Khartoum. I have written to Lord
Granville to protest." Baring had been pressing for an answer to his
suggestion named above. I had all along fought against the "Hicks
Expedition," and this seemed a consequence. The Egyptian Government
had resigned, and the sole supporter of the abandonment policy among
the Egyptians in Egypt was the Khedive himself; but Nubar was sent
for, and accepted office (with a number of cyphers) to carry it into
effect. On January 10th Lord Granville had telegraphed to Baring,
without my knowledge, "Would Gordon or Wilson be of use?" [Footnote:
Colonel Sir Charles Wilson. See his _Life_, by Sir Charles Watson,
p. 244.] On the 11th Baring replied, "I do not think that the
services of Gordon or Wilson can be utilized at present"; and after
a reply had been received I saw the telegrams. The earlier Gordon
suggestions by Granville, now revealed by E. Fitzmaurice from the
Granville Papers, and expounded in Cromer's (1908) book, were never
before the Cabinet. [Footnote: Life of Lord Granville, vol. ii., pp.
381, 382.]

'On the 14th Lord Granville telegraphed to Baring: "Can you give
further information as to prospects of retreat from (? for) army and
residents at Khartoum, and measures taken? Can anything more be
done?" Power, our Consular Agent at Khartoum, had also been told
that he might leave. On January 16th Baring telegraphed: "The
Egyptian Government would feel obliged if Her Majesty's Government
would send out at once a qualified British officer to go to Khartoum
with full powers, civil and military, to conduct the retreat." Lord
Granville then telegraphed for Gordon, and on the 18th I was
summoned suddenly to a meeting at the War Office in Hartington's
room, at which were present, before I arrived, Hartington, Lord
Granville and Lord Northbrook, and Colonel Gordon. Gordon said that
he believed that the danger at Khartoum had been "grossly
exaggerated," and that the two Englishmen there had "lost their
heads"; he would be able to bring away the garrisons without
difficulty. We decided that he should go to Suakim to collect
information and report on the situation in the Soudan. This was the
sole decision taken, but it was understood that if he found he could
get across he should go on to Berber. Gordon started at night on the
same day.

'On January 22nd the first subject mentioned was that of Egyptian
finance, a Rothschild loan for six months being suggested, but
nothing settled. The Cabinet approved our action in sending Gordon.
But they had before them a great deal more than what we had
done--namely, what he had done himself. On his road between London
and Brindisi he had prepared a series of decrees which he
telegraphed to us and which we telegraphed to Baring. In these he
announced the restoration to the various Sultans of the Soudan of
their independence, and he made the Khedive say: "I have
commissioned General Gordon, late Governor-General of the Soudan, to
proceed there as my representative, and to arrange with you" (the
peoples of the Soudan) "for the evacuation of the country and the
withdrawal of my troops." He then made the Khedive appoint him
"Governor-General for the time necessary to accomplish the
evacuation." He also telegraphed to the Hadendowa and Bishareen
Arabs of the desert between Suakim and Berber, directing them to
meet him at Suakim, and saying that he should be there in fourteen
days. In sending these we told Baring: "Suggestions made by Gordon.
We have no local knowledge sufficient to judge. You may settle
terms, and act upon them at once, as time presses, or after
consultation with him." Mr. Gladstone did not object, although
strongly opposed to our undertaking responsibility in the Soudan,
because Gordon still spoke in every sentence of conducting the
evacuation; but reading his proclamations in the light of his
subsequent change of mind, and desire to stay in Khartoum and be
supported by force, it seems clear that he had deceived us and did
not really mean evacuation. This, however, could not yet be seen
from the words he used. I wrote to Lord Granville on January 22nd,
to point out that in addition to the danger in the Soudan, which had
been foreseen, there was a risk that Gordon might get himself
carried off alive into the desert by some of the Arab chiefs that he
was to meet, and that in that case we should have to send an
expedition after him.

'On January 31st there was a meeting at the War Office about Egypt
between Hartington, Lord Granville, Edmond Fitzmaurice and myself.
As the facts about Gordon were beginning to be misrepresented in the
Press, Lord Granville set them down in writing. [Footnote: See _Life
of Gladstone_, vol. iii., pp. 152-155; Life of Granville, vol. ii.,
pp. 381-385 and 512, where a letter from Lord Cromer on General
Gordon's instructions is printed; and chap. xvi. ('Gordon, and the
Soudan') in _The Development of the European Nations, 1870-1900_, by
Dr. J. Holland Rose.] It had been stated, and was afterwards
repeated by Justin McCarthy in his history, that the mission on
which we sent Gordon "was in direct opposition to his own ideas. He
was not in favour of the abandonment of the Soudan or the evacuation
of Khartoum." It had also been said that the whole mission had been
forced upon us by the Press--i.e., by Stead, in the _Pall Mall
Gazette_. Lord Granville gave me a memorandum saying that Gordon had
acknowledged that the statements in the _Pall Mall_ were "not
accurate." Lord Granville went on to say that he did not think that
Gordon could be said to have "changed his mind. It appeared in his
conversation with Wolseley on the Tuesday that he (Gordon) was not
decided in his opinion, and that he was as likely to recommend one
course as another.... I told him that we would not send him out to
re-open the whole question, and he then declared himself ready to go
out merely to help in the evacuation of the interior of the Soudan.
He is not remarkably precise in conversation, though I found him
much more so than Wolseley had led me to expect."

'Lord Granville had previously written to me on this point: "The
papers seem to think that Gordon is a new discovery by the
Government under pressure of the Press. It happens that I consulted
Malet on the subject months ago. But after communicating with Cherif
he sent me an unfavourable reply. I subsequently consulted Baring,
who agreed with Cherif that it was best not to do so. I consulted
him again after the change of Ministry, with the same result. On the
other hand Gordon was in Syria, having declared before leaving
England that he would not enter the Egyptian service. It was only on
his return to England that I heard indirectly that, although he had
no wish to go, he would willingly obey the orders of Her Majesty's
Government and act under the instructions of Sir Evelyn Baring and
the orders of General Stephenson. Having got the full concurrence of
Sir E. Baring by telegraph, the matter was arranged."

'The fact was that it was Wolseley, Gordon's friend, who suggested
that he should be sent and who induced him to go; but Wolseley's
account of the matter could not, I fear, be trusted, as he is more
inclined to attack Gladstone than to let out anything which in the
light of subsequent events might be unpleasant to himself.

'Edmond Fitzmaurice had drawn up an elaborate memorandum for our
meeting at the War Office, which I have, with my own corrections. He
thought that the public was hostile to us on four grounds: our
non-interference to stop Hicks; [Footnote: General Hicks advanced
west of the Nile, contrary to the views of Lord Dufferin, who wished
him to limit his advance to the province lying between the
bifurcation of the Blue and White Nile. See the _Life of Dufferin_,
by Alfred Lyall, vol. ii., pp. 56, 57.] our failure to withdraw the
garrisons of Khartoum and of the Equatorial Provinces in time to
avoid disaster; our failure to relieve Sinkat; and, on the other
hand, our decision to force the Egyptians to evacuate the Soudan in
the face of defeat, a decision which had overturned Cherif Pasha.
With regard to Hicks, we could only tell the truth, which was that
our policy was to limit, not extend, the sphere of our
responsibilities in Egypt; that we followed the advice we got, which
was either for doing exactly what we did, or for a moderate support
of Hicks, which latter we declined. Our opponents were prophesying
after the event. We should have taken a great responsibility had we
absolutely forbidden the Egyptian Government to make use of their
own troops (not including any portion of the army officered by
English officers under Sir Evelyn Wood for the defence of Lower
Egypt) to crush the Mahdi. Hicks had at first defeated the Mahdi in
every encounter and cleared him out of the whole country east of the
Nile. [Footnote: Hicks Pasha complained that directly Lord Dufferin
had left Cairo for Constantinople, he ceased to received adequate
support from the Egyptian Government (_Life of Dufferin_. vol. ii.,
p. 55).] The main point, however, and that of present importance,
was our forcing upon the Egyptians the policy of evacuating the
Soudan after Hicks's defeat. Fitzmaurice wrote: "The Soudan could
not be held without the assistance of England, and it is not a
British interest to hold the Soudan.... The cost of the Soudan is
one of the causes which ruin the Egyptian Treasury." Edmond
Fitzmaurice then went on to explain in his memorandum the reasons
which had forced us to wait until January 4th before we had told the
Egyptian Government as to withdrawal from the interior of the
Soudan, including Khartoum--"that the Ministers must carry out the
advice offered them, or forfeit their places."

'On January 9th we had been told from Khartoum that, if a retreat
was ordered at once, it could be safely effected; and it was on the
next day, the 10th, that we offered the services of Colonels Gordon
and Sir Charles Wilson, which were declined. It was not till January
16th that we were able to induce the Egyptians, even under their new
withdrawal Government, to ask for a British officer, and on the 18th
Gordon was sent. Gordon, however--who had left us to go to Suakim,
and for whom we had drawn up a route from Suakim to Berber, in case
he should go forward, and negotiated with the tribes for his free
passage, and of whom we had telegraphed to Baring, "He does not wish
to go to Cairo"--went to Cairo, "at Baring's" suggestion. He did not
even land at Alexandria, but he was stopped by Baring at Port Said
when on his way to Suakim, Baring sending Sir Evelyn Wood to meet
him. Baring had already given orders, through Nubar, to commence the
evacuation. Gordon had telegraphed to us requesting us to send
Zebehr Pasha to Cyprus--that is, arbitrarily to arrest him and
deport him. Yet, when he reached Cairo, at his own wish he had had
an interview with this very man, and shortly afterwards he
telegraphed to us, asking leave to take him to Khartoum and to make
him virtually Governor of the Soudan, which, indeed, would have been
entirely outside our power; for Forster, supported by the Anti-
Slavery Society and the Conservatives, would at once have upset us
in the House of Commons and reversed the policy. Wolseley had
already begun to press as early as the 23rd for the sending of an
expedition via Suakim and Berber.

'On January 26th Gordon had left for Khartoum without any
communication with us upon the question whether he should go, and
the last thing we had from him before he started was a memorandum in
which, among other things, he said of the Soudan: "Few men can stand
its fearful monotony and deadly climate." He insisted on absolute
authority, and Stewart, who was with him, did the same for him, and,
backing up his chief's arguments at this moment against Zebehr, said
that Zebehr's return would undoubtedly be a misfortune to the
Soudanese, and also a direct encouragement to the slave trade.

'On February 1st we received a telegram from Baring, telling us that
Gordon had taken with him proclamations of evacuation, and other
proclamations less direct, with authority to issue those which he
thought best; but "he fully understands that he is to carry out the
policy of evacuation, in which he expressed to me his entire
agreement. I have sent home by last mail my instructions to him,
which leave no doubt on this point, and which were drafted at his
request and with his full approval.... There is no sort of
difference between his views and those entertained by Nubar Pasha
and myself." Here ended our responsibility, because it must be
remembered that Gordon at Khartoum was entirely outside our reach,
and openly told us that he should not obey our orders when he did
not choose to do so. From this moment we had only to please
ourselves as to whether we should disavow him and say that he was
acting in defiance of instructions, and must be left to his fate, or
whether we should send an expedition to get him out.

'Doubtless "we" wavered between these two opinions. Mr. Gladstone
from the first moment that Gordon broke his orders was for the
former view. Lord Hartington from the first moment was for the
latter. Chamberlain and I supported Hartington, although we fully
recognized Gordon's violations of his orders in much of his action
at Khartoum, where he changed the policy agreed upon with Baring and
with us to that expressed by him in the words, "Smash the Mahdi."
Many members of the Cabinet went backwards and forwards in their
opinion, but the circumstances were of incredible difficulty, and it
must be remembered that we were not sure of being allowed to carry
out either policy; and not only was it difficult to decide which of
the two was right, but it was also difficult to decide whether
either policy was possible--that is to say, whether the one adopted
would not be immediately upset by a Parliamentary vote. The Liberal
party in the House of Commons was divided on the matter, the Whigs
generally wishing for an expedition, and the Radicals being hot for
immediate abandonment of the Soudan, which meant abandonment of
Gordon. The Conservatives were divided; most of them probably wished
for an expedition, but they were afraid to say so; and Randolph
Churchill, whose strength at this time was immense, was in full
agreement with Labouchere and Wilfrid Lawson, and was denouncing the
retention of the Soudan as a violation of the principles of freedom.

'Gordon on his way up and on his arrival at Khartoum issued
extraordinary proclamations. Arriving there alone, but with
incredible prestige, he was hailed as father of the people; he
burned the taxation books and the whips upon the public place; he
released the prisoners from the gaol; he sent away the commander of
the garrison with the words, "Rest assured you leave this place as
safe as Kensington Park." He declared the Mahdi "Sultan of
Kordofan." Gordon, of all men in the world, sanctioned slavery by
another written document; and he then asked us to send the arch
slave-driver Zebehr to his help, which we thought on Baring's
truthful opinion of the moment that we ought not to do, and which we
certainly could not have done. I thought and still think that Gordon
had lost his senses, as he had done on former critical occasions in
his life; but the romantic element in his nature appealed to me,
and, while I could not but admit that he had defied every
instruction which had been given to him, I should have sent an
expedition to bring him out, although thinking it probable that when
Wolseley reached him he would have refused to come.'

While Gordon was on his way to Khartoum, which he reached on February 18th, the defeat at El Teb had occurred, and the question arose as to what should be done in the Eastern Soudan.

'On February 6th the Cabinet met twice, and at our second meeting it
was decided to send marines to Suakim.

'On Thursday, February 7th, I visited the Admiralty with Pauncefote
in order to take in hand the defence of the Red Sea coast against
the Arabs, and then I went to the War Office, where I met
Hartington, Northbrook, Wolseley, and Cooper Key, in order to
concert steps. When I passed through the Secretary's room after the
meeting, and stayed for a moment to talk with Hobart and Fleetwood
Wilson, the Duke of Cambridge (whose room opened into theirs, and
who had evidently been lying in wait for me) rushed out and carried
me off into his room, and made much of me, with an enthusiastic
desire to help an expedition. At night, Hartington, Chamberlain, and
I met in Hartington's room and decided to press for relief of
Gordon.

'On February 8th Chamberlain wrote to me, "I should like to
telegraph to Baring, 'If you think that employment of British troops
could relieve beleaguered garrisons in Soudan without danger, you
are authorized to concert measures with Evelyn Wood.'" A Cabinet was
called at the wish of Hartington, Chamberlain, and myself, for this
day upon this point. Hartington, Harcourt, Northbrook, Carlingford,
Chamberlain, and I, were for asking Gordon if a demonstration at
Suakim would help him. Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville, very strong
the other way, broke up the meeting sooner than agree.'

'Gordon had acted as Governor-General of the Soudan without having
told us that he had accepted this appointment, and we had had to ask
on February 4th a question which had been answered by Baring on the
5th, to the effect that Gordon had "at his own request" been
appointed Governor-General. On February 6th Baring had telegraphed
stating that Gordon had said that it was possible he might go to the
Mahdi and not be heard of for two months, as the Mahdi might keep
him as a hostage for Zebehr. On the same day we telegraphed to
Baring approving his having told Gordon that there would be the
strongest objections to his placing himself in the Mahdi's power. On
February 7th we received a despatch by post from Baring in which he
informed us that, while Gordon would probably ask for Zebehr, "it
would certainly not be desirable to send him ... for he is
manifestly animated by a feeling of deep resentment against General
Gordon." At the same time Baring forwarded a shorthand report of the
meeting between Gordon, Zebehr, Baring, Stewart, Colonel Watson, Sir
Evelyn Wood, and Nubar, at which Zebehr had told Gordon that he had
entrusted his son to him, "and told you he was thenceforth your son.
He was only sixteen years of age.... I entrusted my son to you....
But you killed my son whom I entrusted to you. He was as your own
son." _Gordon_: "Well, well, I killed my own son. There is an end of
it." _Zebehr_: "And then you brought my wives and women and children
in chains to Khartoum, a thing which for my name in the Soudan was
most degrading."

'By the same mail we received a despatch from Baring in which he
made it clear that Gordon's instructions had Gordon's full approval.
"He expressed to me his entire concurrence in the instructions. The
only suggestion he made was in connection with the passage in which,
speaking of the policy of abandoning the Soudan, I had said, 'I
understand also that you entirely concur in the desirability of
adopting this policy.' General Gordon wished that I should add the
words 'and that you think it should on no account be changed.' These
words were accordingly added."

'Between this Cabinet and the next we received, on February 9th, a
telegram from Baring to the effect that he was sending home a letter
from Gordon to the King of the Belgians in which he urged the king
to appoint him Governor of the Equatorial Provinces, Gordon's idea
being to go there from Khartoum; and Baring stated his own view that
we should forbid Gordon to go south of Khartoum. In his letter,
which was dated February 1st, Gordon said that the King of the
Belgians had told him that he would take over the Provinces with the
troops in them, when Gordon had been at Brussels immediately before
we sent him out; but not one word had Gordon ever breathed of this;
and when we first heard of it he was virtually beyond our reach,
seated, when our answer arrived, at Khartoum, and little disposed to
listen to us, although on some points, for a few days, he pretended
to listen.

'On February 12th Baring telegraphed that he hoped that "H.M.G. will
not change any of the main points of their policy"; but, as will be
seen a little later, Baring soon changed his own, adopting the new
policy of Gordon, and pressing it upon us.

'On February 12th it was decided, against Mr. Gladstone, to send an
expedition to the Red Sea Coast.

'On February 13th we had before us a statement which had been made
the previous day by Randolph Churchill, to the effect that in the
summer of 1883 General Gordon had offered to go to the Soudan, and
that the Government had telegraphed to him accepting his offer, and
then written to him declining it. Lord Granville instructed me to
say that the whole story was one gigantic concoction. I then asked
Hartington if he knew anything about it; and Lord Wolseley
ultimately discovered that Randolph Churchill had confused the Congo
with the Nile, an amusing example of his harum-scarum recklessness.
Gordon had telegraphed from Syria in October for leave to accept
service under the King of the Belgians on the Congo, and the
Commander-in-Chief had replied by telegraph that the Secretary of
State declined to sanction his employment. In transmission the word
"declines" was changed into "decides," which exactly reversed its
sense, so that Gordon had received a confirming letter consistent
with the telegram as sent, but exactly reversing the sense of the
telegram as received. He had told the story which Churchill had
heard, but altered from one side of Africa to the other.'

On February 14th Sir Charles made effective use of this blunder in the debate upon the vote of censure concerning Egypt. It was a debating speech which, he himself notes, 'had extraordinary success.' Lord Randolph Churchill had been more than usually aggressive, and Sir Charles hammered him with detailed facts. [Footnote: He comments on the 20th on the opinions expressed to him as to his powers of debate: 'This is a curious position for a man who has no natural gift of speech. I can remember when I was the worst speaker that ever spoke at all.'] The debate on this vote of censure, occasioned by the fall of Sinkat, occupied the House for five days. The motion was defeated by forty-nine.

'On February 14th I found that Lord Granville had not answered an
important question from Baring about Wood's Egyptians which had been
received by us on the 13th, and that because he had not seen it. We
had started a red label as a danger-signal for pressing notes; but
Lord Granville's room was full of red-labelled notes not touched.'

He records his remonstrances with Lord Granville as to the non- employment of Sir Evelyn Wood's Egyptians. On February 18th there was a Cabinet 'partly upon this subject. It was decided to send reinforcements to Egypt.'

'On February 21st there was another Cabinet which again discussed
the Egyptian question and decided to send Wood's Egyptians to
Assouan. On the 15th Gordon had reassured us by telling us that all
communication between Cairo and the Soudan would be finally at an
end within three months' (that is, that evacuation would be easily
carried out). 'On February 18th we had heard that on the 17th Gordon
had issued a proclamation saying that the Government would not
interfere with the buying and selling of slaves; and this telegram,
having got out from Cairo, produced a storm in England. On the 19th
there occurred another matter which was considered by the Cabinet at
the same time--the absolute refusal of Admiral Hewett, and very
proper refusal, to issue a proclamation calling on the chiefs from
Suakim to go peacefully to meet Gordon at Khartoum, inasmuch as the
Admiral knew "that English troops are about to be sent against the
people in question." The issue of this proclamation had been
recommended by Wolseley, who thinks that Governments exist for the
purpose of deceiving enemies in war for the benefit of generals.

'On the same day, February 19th, we had received a telegram which
had been sent off from Khartoum by Gordon on the 18th, asking that
Zebehr should be sent to the Soudan, "be made K.C.M.G., and given
presents." This was backed by Stewart, so far as that he said that
someone should be sent, adding that he was not sure whether Zebehr
was the best man. It was clear from Gordon's proposed conditions
that Zebehr was to be free to prosecute the slave trade. In another
memorandum on the same day Gordon said that we must "give a
commission to some man and promise him the moral support of
H.M.G.... It may be argued that H.M.G. would thus be giving ...
moral support to a man who will rule over a slave state.... This
nomination of my successor must ... be direct from Her Majesty's
Government.... As for the man, H.M.G. should select one above all
others, namely Zebehr." Baring now backed this opinion up, so that
we were face to face with an absolute change of front on the part of
Gordon and Baring, and a partial change of front on the part of
Stewart. On the other hand, Baring, at the same time when he told us
to appoint Zebehr, added: "I am quite certain that Zebehr hates
Gordon bitterly, and that he is very vindictive. I would not on any
account risk putting Gordon in his power.... He is, to my personal
knowledge, exceedingly untruthful.... I cannot recommend his being
promised the moral support of Her Majesty's Government. He would
scarcely understand the phrase, and, moreover, I do not think he
would attach importance to any support which was not material.... I
doubt the utility of making conditions. Zebehr would probably not
observe them long." Baring further proposed that Zebehr should be
given money, and he left us to judge of the effect of the whole
scheme on public opinion in England. Colonel Watson, who had been
present at the meeting between Zebehr and Gordon, informed us that
to let Gordon and Zebehr be together in the Soudan "would entail the
death of either one or other of them." On the 21st Gordon
telegraphed to the newspapers explaining away his slave trade
proclamation, but its terms were even worse than could have been
gathered from the first summary, which was all that we had received.

'On February 21st we received the text of Gordon's proclamation,
which contained the words, "I confer upon you these rights, that
henceforth none shall interfere with your property," and spoke with
apparent regret of "severe measures taken by Government for the
suppression of slave traffic, and seizure and punishment of all
concerned."

'On February 26th there was a meeting of Mr. Gladstone, Hartington,
Childers, Chamberlain, Dodson, and myself, to approve a telegram
from Hartington to General Graham; [Footnote: General Graham was in
command of the expedition to Suakim.] and on the next day again, the
27th, a meeting of Lord Granville, Hartington, Northbrook, and
myself, which decided to invite the Turk to show himself at the Red
Sea ports. On the 29th there was a Cabinet at which it was decided
that the Turk must approve our future ruler of the Soudan, and that
British troops were to go as far as Assouan if Baring thought it
necessary.

'On February 27th Gordon had frightened us out of our senses by
telegraphing that, having put out his programme of peace, and
allowed time to elapse, he was now sending out his troops to show
his force; and another telegram from him said: "Expedition starts at
once to attack rebels." On the same day he telegraphed that he had
issued a proclamation "that British troops are now on their way, and
in a few days will reach Khartoum." It was very difficult to know
what to do with this amazing lie: solemnly to point out to him by
telegraph that it was a lie was hardly of much use with a man of
Gordon's stamp; and what was done was to send a strong private
telegram to Baring to communicate with him about it, but the result
was not encouraging, for it was the first ground for the desperate
quarrel which Gordon afterwards picked with Baring, and for his
charge against Baring of inciting the Government to drive him to his
death.

'On the next day, February 28th, Gordon, having heard that Zebehr
was refused, telegraphed his policy of smashing up the Mahdi, which,
however, he seemed inclined to attempt with a most inadequate force.
"Mahdi must be smashed up. Mahdi is most unpopular, and with care
and time could be smashed.... If you decide on smashing Mahdi, then
send another hundred thousand pounds, and send 200 Indian troops to
Wady Haifa, and an officer to Dongola under pretence to look out
quarters for troops.... At present it would be comparatively easy to
destroy Mahdi." Gordon had also telegraphed to Baring to recommend
that 3,000 black Egyptian troops should be kept in the Soudan, and
completely throwing over the evacuation policy. Baring added for
himself: "There are obviously many contradictions in General
Gordon's different proposals"; but he went on to express his
agreement in Gordon's new policy, strongly supported the selection
of Zebehr, and sneered at us for having regard to uninstructed
opinion in England. On the same day Gordon telegraphed: "If a
hundred British troops were sent to Assouan or Wady Halfa, they
would run no more risk than Nile tourists, and would have the best
effect." At the same time Baring said: "I certainly would not risk
sending so small a body as 100 men." It will be seen in how great a
difficulty the Government were placed; but Baring's position was, in
fact, as difficult as our own. We were evidently dealing with a wild
man under the influence of that climate of Central Africa which acts
even upon the sanest men like strong drink.

'On the same day Gordon telegraphed to us completely changing his
ground about Suakim. He had previously prevented our doing anything
except trying to relieve the towns blockaded, but on March 1st told
us to do something to draw the Hadendowa down to Suakim. On the 2nd,
General Graham having beaten the Arabs at Teb, the Admiral asked us
to send more troops and to threaten Osman Digna's main force, a
suggestion which concurred with Gordon's. And on March 5th the
Cabinet met and decided that, while it was impossible to send Zebehr
to the Soudan, General Graham was to be allowed to attack Osman
Digna's main force.... Chamberlain then suggested that I should go
to Egypt: Hartington evidently thought that somebody should go, and
thought he had better go himself. Lord Granville would not have
either, as might have been expected.... I suggested a way out of the
Zebehr difficulty, and wrote to Chamberlain: "If I were sent out to
do this, I believe I should get away the forces from the interior
and have Zebehr elected, entirely without our action, by the
Notables at Khartoum. On the whole, this would do if we did not do
it. This would, in my opinion, be improved by Turkish approval under
Turkish suzerainty, but that you do not like." Chamberlain answered:
"Perhaps we cannot help having Zebehr, but surely we ought not to
promote him, directly or indirectly; not only because he is a slave-
hunter, but also because he will probably attack Egypt sooner or
later, and very likely with the help of our subsidy." I replied: "I
am quite clear that we must not set up Zebehr, but if we retire we
cannot prevent his election by the Notables; and they would elect
him." In the meantime Gordon had completely thrown over Baring's
suggestion that Zebehr should be sent (but so sent that he and
Gordon should not be in the Soudan together) by telegraphing that
the combination at Khartoum of Zebehr and himself was "an absolute
necessity," and that it would be "absolutely necessary" for him to
stay at Khartoum with Zebehr for four months; and Stewart had now
completely come over to Gordon's policy about Zebehr personally. On
the other hand, Baring and the military authorities in Egypt were
unanimously opposed to the idea of sending a small British force to
Wady Halfa.

'On March 7th it was decided to give an inland district to the
Abyssinians, but not to offer them a port (which was what they
wanted), on account of its not being ours to give away from the
Turks. The Cabinet would not hear of receiving a Turkish
Commissioner at Cairo.

'On March 11th we further considered pressing demands from Gordon
and Baring for Zebehr. Mr. Gladstone had taken to his bed, but was
known to be strongly in favour of sending Zebehr. The Cabinet were
unanimous the other way, and Hartington was sent to see Mr.
Gladstone, we waiting till he returned. When he came back, he
laconically stated what had passed as follows: "He thinks it very
likely that we cannot make the House swallow Zebehr, but he thinks
he could." Morley has told this, but the words which he took
verbally from me are less good. [Footnote: _Life of Gladstone_, vol.
iii., p. 159.] Baring on the 6th had recommended a further attack on
Osman Digna, which he thought might open the Berber route. On the
9th we received Gordon's replies to our telegrams of the 5th,
showing that he had done nothing towards the evacuation of Khartoum
except by sending away the sick. He admitted that it was possible
that "Zebehr, who hates the tribes, did stir up the fires of revolt,
in hopes that he would be sent to quell it. It is the irony of fate
that he will get his wish if sent up." On the same day Baring
informed us that it was clear that Gordon now had no influence
outside Khartoum, and that he contemplated the despatch of British
troops. The Anti-Slavery Society had strongly protested against the
employment of Zebehr, and they pointed out to us the records of
murders "in which this man has stood the foremost and the principal
actor.... Countenance ... of such an individual by the British
Government would be a degradation for England and a scandal to
Europe." W. E. Forster, amid loud cheers from the Conservatives,
protested in advance in the House of Commons against the policy of
sending Zebehr. On March 11th we had received in the morning from
Baring twelve telegrams from Gordon, of the most extraordinary
nature, which Baring had answered: "I am most anxious to help and
support you in every way, but I find it very difficult to understand
exactly what it is you want." Besides deciding that Zebehr could not
be sent, the Cabinet changed its mind about the employment of Turks
in the Red Sea, and decided that they could not be allowed to go
there at present.

'On March 13th the matter was again considered by a Cabinet, which
was not called a Cabinet as Mr. Gladstone was in bed and Chamberlain
was at Birmingham, and on the 14th we met again, still retaining our
opinion; and on Sunday, the 16th, Mr. Gladstone at last unwillingly
gave up Zebehr as impossible. [Footnote: _Life of Granville_, vol.
ii., p. 388.]

'I had been at this time working out the facts connected with the
two routes to Khartoum in case an expedition should be sent, and had
made up my own mind in favour of the Nile route; Wolseley still
being the other way.

'On March 17th, I wrote to Lord Northbrook to protest against a
proclamation which had been issued by the Admiral and General at
Suakim offering a reward for Osman Digna, and I wrote also to
Hartington upon the same subject, stating that I would not defend
it, and that if it were "not disapproved, and the disapproval made
public, I cannot remain a member of the Government." Northbrook
would not admit that he had disapproved it, but Hartington did, and
also informed me that Northbrook had telegraphed. Lord Granville
agreed with me that the proclamation was not defensible, and it was
as a fact withdrawn, although the Admiral was very angry.

'Mr. Gladstone had gone down to Coombe, near Wimbledon. On March
22nd we held a Cabinet without him.... Harcourt was now writing to
me in favour of the view "that we must get out of Egypt as soon as
possible at any price. The idea of our administering it or of the
Egyptian army defending it is equally out of the question." On the
25th we had another Cabinet without Mr. Gladstone. Turning to
Gordon, we decided that a force was not to be sent to Berber; but I
noted in my diary: "It will _have_ to be sent next autumn, I
believe"; but when I said to Berber, it must be remembered, of
course, that there were two ways of reaching Berber, and Lord
Hartington, Brett, and I, now turned steadily to the consideration
of which of those two ways should be taken. It will be remembered
that we already had a report in print as to the Suakim-Berber route.
[Footnote: See p. 33; 'We had drawn up a route from Suakim to
Berber.'] We now obtained from Wolseley a general report, which was
afterwards printed and circulated to the Cabinet on April 8th. Lord
Wolseley, preparing for the sending of a military force to Khartoum
this autumn, stated that his force must be exclusively British, for
he doubted whether the very best of our Indian regiments could stand
the charges of the Arabs, besides which our natives took the field
encumbered with followers. Lord Roberts, who was not given to
boasting, told me, long afterwards, that he, on the other hand, was
sure that he could have marched from Suakim to the Nile and Khartoum
with an exclusively Indian force. It is the case that our best
Gurkha troops have sometimes stood when white troops have run.
Wolseley had now come round to a boat expedition, which I had been
for a long time urging, upon information which I had obtained for
myself from the Admiralty, and which was afterwards printed by the
Foreign Intelligence Committee at the Admiralty, and circulated to
the Cabinet in April, a further document upon the subject being
circulated to the Cabinet in May. It must be remembered that the
date of passing the cataracts was settled for us by the high Nile,
and that there was only one time of year at which the expedition
could be safely sent.

'The Cabinet of March 25th further decided that Graham must soon be
brought away from Suakim.

'On the next evening, March 26th, when the Ministers were dining
with the Speaker, we received a very unpleasant telegram from
Baring, pointing, we thought, to a possible resignation unless it
was promised to send an expedition to Khartoum. I suggested the
following answer: "We adhere to our instructions of the 25th, 160
Secret. We cannot send an expedition now, and entertain the gravest
objection to contemplating an expedition in the autumn." This answer
was rejected in favour of one suggested by Mr. Gladstone and Lord
Granville. Our telegram 160 Secret had been an absolute refusal, and
my additional words had been intended by me slightly to open the
door, which was as much as I could hope that the Cabinet would do.
But the telegram actually sent on March 28th (165 Secret, extended
in 191) was to the effect that we were unable to alter the
instructions, and it was accompanied by two long despatches,
virtually written by Harcourt, and afterwards laid before
Parliament, explaining our reasons for not sending Zebehr and for
not sending an expedition. Gordon had been communicating with us
with difficulty, as the telegraph was broken from time to time, but
he had told us that if he was to evacuate Khartoum he wished to
resign his commission and to take all his steam vessels and stores
to the equatorial provinces, "which he would consider under the King
of the Belgians." This Baring had told him he must not do. Baring
had rejected every possible alternative except the sending of
Zebehr, and Zebehr we could not have sent. In discussing the
question of an expedition to Khartoum, Baring had told us that
Gordon was "not in any immediate danger. He has provisions for six
months." Gordon himself had telegraphed: "As I have been
inconsistent about Zebehr, it is my fault, and I should bear the
blame if Zebehr is sent, and should put up with the inconvenience if
he is not." He had himself told us that he had provisions for six
months, but had after this informed us that provisions were still
coming in freely to Khartoum--as late as after March 15th, a week
later than the date at which he had told us that he had six months'
provisions in the town. I had made up my mind that we must send an
expedition, but I did not agree with Baring that it was physically
possible to send an expedition at this moment, and thought that if
sent at high Nile it would be in time. On the 23rd, after Gordon's
defeat, by treachery and shooting, of the two black Pashas, Gordon
telegraphed: "I think we are now safe, and that as the Nile rises we
shall account for the rebels." This we received on March 31st.

'On March 27th there was a Cabinet without Chamberlain, who was
listening to George Russell's speech which I had got him leave to
make, and without Mr. Gladstone, who was still ill. The Cabinet
decided against an expedition to Khartoum, but the Chancellor' (Lord
Selborne) 'gave us to understand that he should resign if one were
not sent in the autumn, and Harcourt intimated that he should resign
if one were sent. Lord Granville observed that no Cabinet could last
a day if it was to be exposed to going to pieces on differences as
regards the future. Harcourt proposed to "clear out" of Egypt
immediately. Lord Granville won an easy victory over him by proving
that only three weeks ago he had wanted to take Egypt under our
protection. Harcourt then said that as long ago as November, 1883,
he had spoken in favour of clearing out. "Yes," said Lord Granville,
"so you did; but I said three weeks ago."

'On March 29th there was a Cabinet at Coombe Warren. Mr. Gladstone
seemed pretty well, and had at least one good laugh. He still
regretted Zebehr. The Cabinet considered Gordon, what we should do
with slavery at Suakim, and House of Commons business.'

About this date the main body of the British troops was withdrawn from Suakim in accordance with the decision of March 25th. They had inflicted defeats on Osman Digna at El Teb, and again at Tamanieb; many Dervishes and not a few English had been killed, but no effect of moment had been produced, and the road to Berber was not opened.

A new complication now arose. Egypt was presented with Europe's total claims for the losses to Europeans in the burnings at Alexandria. They amounted to four millions and a half. How was this demand to be met? Under the Law of Liquidation established in 1880, Egypt could not borrow without the consent of the five Powers who had constituted the Commission of Liquidation. The demand presented to Egypt had to be considered by the one Power which was now _de facto_ supreme in Egypt.

'On April 2nd there was an important Cabinet called on Egyptian
finance. It began, of course, on something else. We discussed the
future of Suakim; the replies to be given in the House on the next
day as to Gordon; and then Childers' views upon Egyptian finance;
while we were considering these, there came a letter from Northcote
with the questions that he intended to put on the next day'
(questions which could only be answered by a full statement of
policy on all the points of the Egyptian problem). 'After going back
to this, we went on again to finance, and decided to call a
conference of the Great Powers to alter the Law of Liquidation. Mr.
Gladstone had unwillingly consented to meet the Powers by proposing
to reduce the charge for the British army; and he was anxious to get
the money for the British taxpayer out of a borrowing operation on
the future value of the Canal Shares. Chamberlain and I decided that
if he did this the Tories would declare that Mr. Gladstone had
become a pensioner on the bounty of Lord Beaconsfield. There was
some talk at this Cabinet as to whether we should guarantee the
Egyptian debt, to which I was opposed. Chamberlain had at one time
been friendly to such an operation, but had now "gone round" on the
ground that we could not "carry it against the Tories and the
Radicals." "Is there anything else?" said Chamberlain to Mr.
Gladstone as the Cabinet was breaking up. "No," said Mr. Gladstone,
"we have done our Egyptian business and we are an Egyptian
Government."'

II.

From this time forward the 'Egyptian Government' at Westminster had two main subjects of concern--the question of extricating Gordon with the garrisons, and the question of dealing with the international situation, partly diplomatic and partly financial. France, increasingly unfriendly to Great Britain, was above all unfriendly in regard to Egypt: while Bismarck, doing his best to foment this quarrel, was at the same time weakening Great Britain by menaces in Africa and Australasia, and the danger of a Russian advance in Central Asia hung like a thundercloud over the whole situation. [Footnote: Sir Charles wrote to Mr. Brett on November 15th, 1884: 'I told Herbert Bismarck when he was here that it was very silly of his father to get in the way of our Egypt plans, for France would not go to war about them, and therefore, after threatening, he would have to look on and see the things he had threatened against done quietly.']

There were three groups of opinion in the Government in regard to the Soudan. The first was for an expedition which should carry with it the consequence of occupation more or less prolonged. Another was against any expedition and in favour of immediate evacuation. A third section-- including Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Chamberlain--accepted the need of an expedition, but was determined that occupation should not follow. It was incumbent on this last-named group to suggest a positive policy, and Dilke, as will be seen, had his plan ready. There was a further decision to be taken. When once an expedition was in contemplation, the route and the character of the expedition had to be fixed. On this matter also Sir Charles had early formed a resolve, but neither he nor anyone else could pin the Cabinet to a clear course of action.

'At this time' (April 2nd) 'Chamberlain wrote to me of Egypt: "Once
more Hartington, and you and I, are at opposite poles. For one, I do
not mean to be forced any further in the direction of protectorate."

'Although they would not admit it, the Cabinet were rapidly coming
round at this time to an autumn Gordon expedition, and Chamberlain
wrote to me: "I believe it will come to this in the end"; while
Northbrook was in favour of an expedition. I then made up a list
from private information showing that six of us were favourable to
an expedition, as against five the other way--several members having
made no statement either way. Those for an expedition were
Hartington, Northbrook, the Chancellor (Lord Selborne), Derby,
Chamberlain, and myself; and those against it, Mr. Gladstone, Lord
Granville, Harcourt, Kimberley, and Dodson. On April 21st, Egypt was
discussed without decision, though with the note by me: "The
majority now begin to see that an October expedition is certain."

'On the 23rd a Cabinet ... considered the possibility of reaching
Berber.... After the Cabinet of April 23rd, I advocated a naval
expedition by the Nile on the ground that the Admiralty were likely
to do the thing better than the War Office. [Footnote: A review by
Sir Charles in the _Athenæum_ of October 24th, 1908, deals with the
_Life of Lord Northbrook_, by Sir Bernard Mallet, and his allusions
to Lord Northbrook's consideration, as early as April, of a 'rescue
and retire' expedition by the Nile route for the autumn, 'it being
assumed that the boats then ordered could not pass the various
cataracts before High Nile.' See _Life of Lord Northbrook_, pp.
185-186. A review by Sir Charles of March 28th, 1908, in the same
paper, of _Modern Egypt_, by the Earl of Cromer, also deals with
Lord Northbrook's pressure for a Nile Expedition in March, 1884.] On
April 28th, Berber, Khartoum, and Gordon, on which there was nothing
new, but Hartington insisted on a large and important military
expedition.'

'On April 29th Baring had now come over about Egypt, and attended a
Cabinet to state his views. I saw him privately, and settled with
him the details for a possible Nile expedition "small and early."
The difficulty was at the sixth cataract. He also broached to me his
scheme for a new control by the four Powers already represented on
the Caisse de la Dette--namely, England, France, Austria, and Italy,
with an English president.'

'At the next Cabinet there was a proposal by Hartington that there
should be a vote of thanks to Sir Gerald Graham and Admiral Hewett
for the Suakim expedition--a proposal which the Cabinet rejected,
having had quite enough of votes of thanks on the former occasion
when Wolseley and Beauchamp Seymour were in question. The next
matter was what we should say about our Law of Liquidation
Conference, on which there arose an awkward question as to what
should happen in the probable case of the representatives of the
Powers not being unanimous. There was every reason to suppose that
the French would not agree to anything, and precedents went to show
that unanimity was necessary to render valid the decisions of a
conference. Indeed, there was no precedent as regards questions of
principle which told the other way; and at the Congress of Berlin
Prince Bismarck had stated, as recorded in the first protocol, that
as regarded substantive proposals it was an incontestable principle
that the minority should not be bound to acquiesce in a vote of a
majority.