of a triumphant British army; or hired all the best houses by the river’s bank for the accommodation of the officers of the relieving force.  A Dervish shell crashed through his palace.  He ordered the date of its arrival to be inscribed above the hole.  For those who served him faithfully he struck medals and presented them with pomp and circumstance.  Others less laudable he shot.  And by all these means and expedients the defence of the city was prolonged through the summer, autumn, and winter of 1884 and on into the year 1885.

All this time the public anxiety in England had been steadily growing.  If Gordon was abandoned, he was by no means forgotten.  As his mission had been followed with intense interest throughout the whole country, so its failure had caused general despondency.  Disappointment soon gave place to alarm.  The subject of the personal safety of the distinguished envoy was first raised in the House of Commons on the 16th of March by Lord Randolph Churchill.  Availing himself of the opportunities provided by Supply, he criticised the vacillating policy of the Government, their purposeless slaughter in the Eastern Soudan, and their failure to establish the Suakin-Berber route.  He proceeded to draw attention to the perilous position of General Gordon at Khartoum.

’Colonel Coetlogon has stated that Khartoum may be easily captured; we know that General Gordon is surrounded by hostile tribes and cut off from communications with Cairo and London; and under these circumstances the House has a right to ask her Majesty’s Government whether they are going to do anything to relieve him.  Are they going to remain indifferent to the fate of the one man on whom they have counted to extricate them from their dilemmas, to leave him to shift for himself, and not make a single effort on his behalf?’ [HANSARD’S parliamentary debates, March 16, 1884.]

The Government remained impassive.  Lord E. Fitzmaurice made some sort of reply, and there were Ministerial cheers.  But the subject, Once raised, was not allowed to drop.  Inspired and animated by the earnest energy of a young man, the Opposition were continually growing stronger.  The conduct of Egyptian affairs afforded ample opportunity for criticism and attack.  All through the summer months and almost every night Ministers were invited to declare whether they would rescue their envoy or leave him to his fate.  Mr. Gladstone returned evasive answers.  The Conservative Press took the cue.  The agitation became intense.  Even among the supporters of the Government there was dissatisfaction.  But the Prime Minister was obdurate and unflinching.  At length, at the end of the Session, the whole matter was brought forward in the gravest and most formal way by the moving of a vote of censure.  The debate that followed Sir Michael Hicks Beach’s motion was long and acrimonious.  Mr. Gladstone’s speech only increased the disquietude of his followers and the fury of the Opposition.  Mr. Forster openly declared his disagreement with his leader; and although Lord Hartington in winding up the debate threw out some hopes of an expedition in the autumn, the Government majority fell on the division to twenty-eight.  And after the prorogation the controversy was carried on with undiminished vigour outside the walls of Parliament, and the clamour in the country grew louder and louder.