Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 137.djvu/885

1885.] should depart and leave them, took this proposal into serious consideration, and that some at least were ready to accept the conditions. And as to the time, the Mahdi desired to defer the surrender till some of our troops should be lured to cross the desert, when he hoped to destroy them – a result nearly accomplished. The city, with Gordon in it, was used as a bait. What finally decided him was the arrival of our troops on the Nile. For all he knew, we might advance in force to raise the siege – and thereupon he put his foot down.

It is fortunate for Sir Charles Wilson that the vague charges against him have been brought to a head in a cruel and unwarrantable attack published in a monthly periodical. A Mr Williams, the correspondent with Stewart's column of the 'Daily Chronicle,' has written a paper ascribing to Sir Charles Wilson the whole blame for the failure to rescue Gordon, in language so injurious that nobody can suppose it to be inspired only by a desire to impart unbiassed facts. All the delays that took place in resolving on the expedition, in starting it, and in conducting it, so far as it went, are as nothing (according to this writer) compared with the space of two days between the time of the arrival of the steamers at Gubat and Wilson's departure in them to Kartoum. The most offensive charges are made with reference to his conduct both at Gubat and in sight of Kartoum. But this Mr Williams is actually the same person who has already written accounts of the expedition to the 'Daily Chronicle,' speaking of the object of his spite in very different terms. Thus, he said in that paper of January 29th: "Sir C. Wilson was now in command, cool, collected, meeting each move of the enemy, noting weak points. ... A commander of weaker fibre might well have hesitated, but not so Colonel Wilson, who did not fear to realise that the risk must be taken." Will it be believed that he now writes in the periodical: "A soldier should not have hesitated; Sir Charles Wilson hesitated"! Again, he said in the 'Daily Chronicle ' of February 12: "Sir Charles Wilson, ... with that boldness and resolution which characterised his conduct at the battle of Gubat"; but now in the periodical: "If I differ from this, it is only in wondering if he had any nerve to lose." Lieutenant Stuart-Wortley's diary, published in the 'London Gazette,' says: "January 24. – Left Metammeh at 8 A.M. in steamers." Mr Williams says: "It was high noon on Saturday the 24th before he went." But it is unnecessary to pursue this distasteful subject further. No one who has read what we have written will think the attack worthy of the slightest credit, and its readers will be disposed to agree with us that nothing but the competition for notoriety could have induced a periodical which valued its own self-respect to be made the vehicle of such aspersions on a brave and devoted officer.

We trust we have said enough to induce any reader, even if prejudiced on the other side, to pause before imputing any failure to perform his duty to an officer whose devotion to Gordon was well known, and who would have rejoiced to make any sacrifice in his behalf.