§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact, as stated by the President of the Local Government Board in a speech at Chelsea on January 22nd, that
Her Majesty's Government were informed only about ten days ago that, although General Gordon had no wish to go to Egypt, he would willingly obey the orders of Her Majesty's Government to go should they choose to send him;whether such communication was made by General Gordon himself; and, whether General Gordon, being an officer in Her Majesty's Army, it was not in the power of the Government to have sent him to the Soudan at any period during the last two years or more? He had further to ask, If any confirmation has been received of the painful rumours regarding General Gordon—his capture?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, the answer to the last part of this Question is that General Gordon, being an officer in Her Majesty's Service, might undoubtedly have been sent by the Government to the Soudan or anywhere else at any time. But the Government would never have thought of sending an officer on this special service, lying altogether outside of his ordinary professional duties, without his own full concurrence; and 1 need scarcely add that the knowledge that the officer in question fully concurred in the policy of the Government was an essential condition of any such employment. In reply to the first part of the Question, I understand that Lord Granville some months ago was informed, 173 on what he considered good authority, that General Gordon was determined not again to enter the Egyptian Service, which at that time was the only capacity in which he could have thought of recommending him for employment in the Soudan. The President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) correctly described the language used by General Gordon at his interviews at the War Office on the 15th and 18th of January. In reply to the last Question of the hon. Member, I have to say no information has reached either the War Office or the Foreign Office on the subject of the capture of General Gordon; and I may add that a telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring from Cairo has been received as late as noon to-day, in which no mention was made of the rumour referred to.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWith regard to the answer of the noble Marquess, it is not quite clear whether the initiation of this interview to which the noble Marquess referred came from General Gordon or from Her Majesty's Government, and that is a point on which I would ask the noble Marquess to make a distinct reply, if possible. I should also like to know whether it is not a fact that General Gordon has been appointed Governor General of the Soudan by the Khedive?
§ MR. RITCHIEMay I ask whether any inquiries with regard to the reported capture of General Gordon have been made by telegraph to Cairo?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONIn reply to the last Question, it is scarcely necessary to telegraph to Cairo, as Sir Evelyn Baring would have lost no time whatever in informing the Government if any report on the subject had reached him. I would also point out that the report which has appeared in the papers purports to be received from Alexandria, and to have been received at Alexandria from Cairo. The fact that I have just mentioned, that we have heard from Sir Evelyn Baring as late as 12 o'clock to-day, shows that no report—or, at all events, no report to which he attaches any credence—had been received at Cairo up to that time. In regard to the further Question of the hon. Member for Eye, I have no objection to state that General Gordon was asked, with my entire concurrence, by Lord Wolseley, who is intimately ac- 174 quainted with the gallant officer, to come to see him at the War Office, and fully to explain to him the views he held with regard to the Soudan.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLWhen was that?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThat, I believe, was on the 15th of January. The invitation was addressed to General Gordon a day or two before.
§ MR. BOURKEI should like to ask the noble Marquess a Question arising out of the answer he has just given. I understand the noble Marquess to say that one of the reasons why General Gordon was not sent to the Soudan some months ago was that General Gordon was unwilling to enter the service of the Khedive. I wish to ask, therefore, whether Colonel Stewart and two other officers who were sent to the Soudan were in the service of the Khedive or in the service of Her Majesty's Government?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI did not say that the reason why General Gordon was not sent to the Soudan earlier was that we were aware that he was unwilling to serve the Khedive. All I stated, and all I have any knowledge of, is that Earl Granville had received information which he thought could be relied on that General Gordon had expressed his determination not again to enter the service of the Khedive, and he did not think his employment at that time was possible. Colonel Stewart, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, was sent by Her Majesty's Government—not in the service of the Khedive—to report on the condition of affairs in the Soudan. That is a mission which it is quite evident an officer holding General Gordon's position could not have been expected to undertake?
MR. J. LOWTHERDo I understand the noble Marquess to say that General Gordon is now in the service of the Khedive?
§ MR. GIBSONWho appointed General Gordon Governor General of the Soudan?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe Khedive, I believe, has appointed General Gordon Governor General of the Soudan. The mission upon which General Gordon was sent is a mission 175 upon which he was sent by Her Majesty's Government.
§ MR. GIBSONBut does the noble Marquess mean to say that the Khedive appoints General Gordon as Governor General of the Soudan, at the same time leaving him outside his employment?
§ [No reply was given.]