"You thought that I should be annoyed at being asked to draw out plans for a mission-house. If there is anything that I can do for the cause of missions I am delighted to do it. What did I come to Jaffa for? Did I not tell you at Haifa that if you could give me some work to do for the Lord, that would set my mind at rest? I was restless because I had been shutting myself up in Palestine, and had not been putting out my powers for service in the Lord's work."

There are among Christian people some who take a deep interest in the spread of the Gospel at home, but do not exhibit the same interest in the spread of Christianity abroad, and vice versâ. During Gordon's stay at Gravesend he showed what a real interest he took in home mission work, and in his letters he frequently used to say that he should like to end his days working in the east end of London. The time he spent among the missionaries in Palestine shows that he took an equally deep interest in foreign missions, and before leaving that country he wrote, in reference to a conference of missionaries that was about to be held at Gaza, "I should like to go down there and meet the brethren who assemble; it may be the last time that I can have any intercourse with a number of missionaries."

On the 15th October 1883 General Gordon received a telegram from the King of the Belgians, asking him to go to Central Africa to govern the territory that had been acquired by the International Association. The King had once before pressed him to join this movement, which had for its object the opening up of Africa to trade and civilisation, and the consequent abolition of slavery and cruelty. Mr. H. M. Stanley was at the head of the movement, and Gordon offered to serve under him, and had promised the Belgian king that when his services were required they would be given. Stanley had resigned his post, and the time had come for Gordon to redeem his promise. He at once telegraphed home for leave, and the reply came back, "The Secretary of State has decided to sanction your going to the Congo." A telegraph clerk had made a mistake, and the correct message was, "The Secretary of State has declined to sanction your going to the Congo." As Gordon had, however, already promised the King of the Belgians to go, there was no alternative but for him to sever his connection with the British army. With the full intention of placing his resignation in the hands of the Secretary of State for War, as well as to interview King Leopold, he left Palestine at the end of the year 1883. He was travelling on the last night of the old year, and he tells us that he spent that night in prayer in the railway carriage, of which he was the solitary occupant. As the new year was ushered in, the lonely traveller between Genoa and Brussels little thought that it was to be almost his last,[11 ] and that soon he would be permitted to throw off the earthly tabernacle, and put on the crown of glory. His active brain was busily employed at this time in considering how best he could wage war with human cruelty. He was to have started on January 26, 1885, for the Congo, but a telegram reached him at his sister's house at Southampton, from Lord Wolseley, requesting his presence in London, as an outcry was being made by certain well-informed persons that the only man who was capable of solving the Soudan difficulties was being permitted to leave the British army, and to go into the service of a foreign power, to busy himself in the wilds of Africa.

[ ]

CHAPTER XIV

KHARTOUM

In order to understand aright the events that suddenly intervened and prevented General Gordon from fulfilling his engagement to the King of the Belgians, it will be necessary to go back to the year 1882, and briefly survey what occurred after that time. It will be remembered that Gordon left the Soudan at the end of 1879, when the young Khedive Tewfik was reigning in place of his father Ismail, who had been compelled to resign. Tewfik unfortunately was not fit to rule, and Egypt above all things wanted a man who was not a mere puppet. His father, with all his faults, had great force of character, and made himself respected in the kingdom. The son was as weak as the father was strong, with the result that his rule soon became nominal. When weak men get into such positions, there is great temptation for stronger ones to rise up and seize the reins of government. It is unnecessary to sketch the history of Arabi Pasha, or to recount in detail the circumstances that brought him to the front. Enough for our purpose to mention that his name, little known before, was suddenly associated with a great military revolt, and that the powers of Europe took alarm lest the Suez Canal should be blocked. But for that Canal, events in Egypt might have taken a very different turn, and that country might now have had, what it sorely needs, a strong man at the head of affairs. England, having far more ships passing through the Canal than all the rest of the world together, intervened. Our fleet attacked Alexandria, and our troops under Lord Wolseley broke up the Egyptian army at Tel-el-Kebir. From that time we have virtually been the rulers of the ancient kingdom of Egypt, the Khedive being little more than a puppet in our hands. He has all the social position and dignity of a Khedive, without the trouble or responsibility of having to govern.

Unfortunately, soon after General Gordon relinquished the Governor-Generalship of the Soudan, the Khedive, in spite of Gordon's protest, appointed to the post about as bad a man as he could possibly have selected. This was no other than Raouf Pasha, whom Gordon had twice turned out of different appointments for playing the tyrant. No sooner was he appointed than there was a revival of all the horrors of cruel government, which Gordon had done so much to abolish. The following are his own words in explanation of the origin of the rebellion:—

"The movement is not religious, but an outbreak of despair. Three times over I warned the late Khedive that it would be impossible to govern the Soudan on the old system, after my appointment to the Governor-Generalship. During the three years that I wielded full powers in the Soudan, I taught the natives that they had a right to exist. I waged war against the Turks and Circassians, who had harried the population. I had taught them something of the meaning of liberty and justice, and accustomed them to a higher ideal of government than that with which they had previously been acquainted. As soon as I had gone, the Turks and Circassians returned in full force; the old Bashi-Bazouk system was re-established; my old employés were persecuted; and a population which had begun to appreciate something like decent government was flung back to suffer the vast excesses of Turkish rule. The inevitable result followed; and thus it may be said that the egg of the present rebellion was laid in the three years during which I was allowed to govern the Soudan on other than Turkish principles."

There was a belief among the Mohammedans that the year 1882 would be an eventful one for them. It closed the twelfth century of Mohammedanism, and the popular expectation was that a Mahdi, or another prophet, would arise to reform Islam, and to abolish the tyranny of the rich and powerful. Predictions of this kind frequently bring about their own accomplishment. Before the time stated, a man named Mohammed Achmet had arisen, declaring that he was the long-looked-for Mahdi, and crowds were flocking to his standard.[12 ] With a powerful governor, such as Gordon, the movement would have been quickly stamped out; indeed, so few abuses existed under his rule, that there was then no demand for such a reformer. But with Raouf Pasha the case was reversed; not only were there many abuses to be reformed, but there was a corresponding want of ability to subdue such a movement. The Mahdi's forces grew apace, for there existed plenty of material in the way of recruits. Passing over smaller engagements in which the Egyptian troops met the forces of the Mahdi, we come to one crowning disaster on the 5th November 1883, when an Egyptian army, numbering something like 12,000 men, under the command of Colonel Hicks, a retired Indian officer, was massacred on the road between Khartoum and El Obeid. No blame can be attached to the commander on this occasion. Mr. Frank Power, the Times correspondent at Khartoum, writes of him as follows: "I pity Hicks; he is an able, good, and energetic man, but he has to do with wretched Egyptians, who take a pleasure in being incompetent, thwarting one, delaying and lying." The unfortunate men who composed his army had been dragged from their homes in chains, and many of them had never learnt to fire a shot, or to ride a horse. Mr. Power predicted, before the army left Khartoum, that fifty good men would rout the whole lot. The Mahdi not only had upwards of 69,000 men on his side, but a large proportion of them were fine plucky fellows, worthy of a better foe.