§ MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the happy event of the relief of General Gordon by Lord Wolseley, the former officer, as Governor General of the Soudan, will be in supreme authority, or whether Lord Wolseley, as Commander in Chief in the Soudan, is to be allowed to dictate orders to General Gordon what he is to do or not to do? The hon. Member also asked whether it was still the opinion of the Government that their whole hope of the solution of the question of the relief of the Soudan garrisons depended on the fate of General Gordon?
MR. GLADSTONEThe addition which the hon. Member has made to his Question is really a matter that can only be answered in detail in discussion, and is not a matter for a Question and an answer Aye or No. As to the hope which he suggests that General Gordon is likely to be relieved by Lord Wolseley, the hope of that happy event the Government entirely shares with the hon. Gentleman. And if that should be the case, and if Lord Wolseley should be brought into contact with General Gordon—at present he has not been so brought—the Government will be responsible for providing that all the instructions which may be necessary and useful to regulate the relations of those distinguished persons shall be applicable to the case. The Question is of a hypothetical character, and at present it 259 would be premature to enter upon it. It may, however, be recollected that Lord Wolseley is the General Officer commanding Her Majesty's Forces in Egypt, and in that capacity is General Gordon's military superior, so that, as a matter of course, certain relations between General Gordon and Lord Wolseley would arise by the Rules of the Service.
§ MR. ONSLOWGeneral Gordon was not only appointed Commander-in-Chief, but was appointed by the Khedive as Governor General of the Soudan. What I want to know is whether Lord Wolseley will supersede him?
MR. GLADSTONEI think that the way in which this question arises shows how very premature it is to enter upon the consideration of circumstances which have not arisen. We shall be responsible for the due regulation of these matters. To the direct portion of the Question I have already replied, and I am perfectly aware that the Khedive has appointed General Gordon to that office in the Soudan; but I do not apprehend that that appointment by the Khedive can have any operation or effect whatever upon the Rules which regulate Her Majesty's Government.
§ MR. BOURKECan Her Majesty's Government give the House any information as to the fate of Colonel Stewart?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTQNI very much regret to state that the Government received yesterday a telegram through Lord Wolseley, which is almost similar in purport to that which appears in the public newspapers. I am afraid there can be little doubt that Colonel Stewart was among the party which was wrecked in the steamer on the Nile, and which, apparently, with two exceptions, has been massacred. I am sure that the House, on hearing this communication, will share with Her Majesty's Government in the regret with which we received this information, as well as in the great admiration which Her Majesty's Government feel at the gallant conduct of Colonel Stewart in sharing the dangers of General Gordon's mission, and also, as far as intelligence leads us to believe, their admiration for the manner in which he has discharged the duties in connection with that mission.
§ MR. M'COANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the actual Report 260 of Lord Northbrook on his mission to Egypt, or only "the result of its consideration" by the Cabinet, will be communicated to Parliament?
MR. GLADSTONEWith regard to Lord Northbrook's Report, it would be premature to express any opinion. It is a rule, and a salutary rule, that the Government does not state its intention to produce Papers of this kind until it has seen them.