THE VOTE OF CENSURE (1885).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 294, col. 1311. (House of

Lords debate on Egypt, February 26, 1885.)

THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY: ... The conduct of Her Majesty's

Government has been an alternation of periods of slumber and

periods of rush, and the rush, however vehement, has always been

too unprepared and too unintelligent to repair the damage which

the period of slumber has effected.... The case of the bombardment

of Alexandria, the case of the abandonment of the Soudan, the

case of the mission of General Graham's force--they are all on

the same plan, and all show you that remarkable characteristic

of torpor during the time when action was needed, and hasty,

impulsive, ill-considered action when the time for action had

passed by. Their further conduct was modelled on their action in

the past. So far was it modelled that we were able to put it to the

test which establishes a scientific law. I should like to quote

what I said on the 4th of April, when discussing the prospect of

the relief of General Gordon. What I said was this: "Are these

circumstances encouraging to us when we are asked to trust that,

on the inspiration of the moment, when the danger comes, Her

Majesty's Government will find some means of relieving General

Gordon? I fear that the history of the past will be repeated in

the future; and just again, when it is too late, the critical

resolution will be taken; some terrible news will come that the

position of Gordon is absolutely a forlorn and hopeless one, and

then, under the pressure of public wrath and Parliamentary censure,

some desperate resolution of sending an expedition will be formed

too late to achieve the object which it is desired to gain." I

quote these words to show that by that time we had ascertained

the laws of motion and the orbits of those erratic comets who sit

on the Treasury Bench. Now the terrible responsibility and shame

rests upon the Government, because they were warned in March and

April of the danger to General Gordon, because they received every

intimation which men could reasonably look for that his danger

would be extreme, and because they delayed from March and April

right down to the 15th of August before they took a single measure

to relieve him. What were they doing all that time? It is very

difficult to conceive. What happened during those eventful months?

I suppose some day the memoirs will tell our grandchildren, but

we shall never know. Some people think there were divisions in

the Cabinet, and that after division on division a decision was

put off, lest the Cabinet be broken up. I am rather inclined to

think it was due to the peculiar position of the Prime Minister.

He came in as the apostle of the Midlothian campaign, loaded with

all the doctrines and all the follies of that pilgrimage. We have

seen on each occasion, after one of these mishaps, when he has been

forced by events and by the common sense of the nation to take some

active steps--we have seen his extreme supporters falling foul

of him, and reproaching him with having deserted their opinions

and disappointed the ardent hopes which they had formed of him as

the apostle of absolute negation in foreign affairs. I think he

has always felt the danger of that reproach. He always felt the

debt he had incurred to those supporters. He always felt a dread

lest they should break away; and he put off again and again to

the last practical moment any action which might bring him into

open conflict with the doctrine by which his present eminence was

gained. At all events, this is clear--that throughout those six

months the Government knew perfectly well the danger in which

General Gordon was placed. It has been said that General Gordon

did not ask for troops. I am surprised at that defence. One of

the characteristics of General Gordon was the extreme abnegation

of his nature. It was not to be expected that he should send

home a telegram to say, "I am in great danger, therefore send me

troops"--he would probably have cut off his right hand before

he would have sent a telegram of that sort. But he sent home

telegrams through Mr. Power, telegrams saying that the people of

Khartoum were in great danger; that the Mahdi would succeed unless

military succour was sent forward; urging at one time the sending

forward of Sir Evelyn Wood and his Egyptians, and at another the

landing of Indians at Suakin and the establishment of the Berber

route, and distinctly telling the Government--and this is the main

point--that unless they would consent to his views the supremacy of

the Mahdi was assured.... Well, now, my Lords, is it conceivable

that after two months, in May, the Prime Minister should have

said that they were waiting to have reasonable proof that Gordon

was in danger? By that time Khartoum was surrounded, the Governor

of Berber had announced that his case was hopeless, which was too

surely proved by the massacre which took place in June; and yet

in May Mr. Gladstone was still waiting for "reasonable proof"

that the men who were surrounded, who had announced that they had

only five months' food, were in danger.... It was the business

of the Government not to interpret General Gordon's telegrams

as if they had been statutory declarations, but to judge for

themselves of the circumstances of the case, and to see that those

who were surrounded, who were only three Englishmen among such a

vast body of Mohammedans, and who were already cut off from all

communications with the civilized world by the occupation of every

important town upon the river, were really in danger, and that if

they meant to answer their responsibilities they were bound to

relieve them. I cannot tell what blindness fell over the eyes of

some members of Her Majesty's Government....

Imperialism and Mr. Gladstone (1876-1887) · 第 91 / 117 题