Page:Tseng Kuo Fan and the Taiping Rebellion.djvu/287

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
264
TSENG KUO-FAN

steamers, when Burgevine was actually ready to start for Nanking, and even the withholding of pay from a force that was so uncontrollable are not hard to understand.

The agreement for the services of Colonel Charles George Gordon, made with the aid of General Stavely to go into effect as soon as the British government should consent, provided for a maximum army of three thousand men.[1] While this consent was being awaited, trouble arose through the desire of Ward's old followers to have Burgevine continued as their commander, and by the failure of Holland at Taitsang which he attacked in vain on February 15. Another failure under Major Brennan at Fushan turned Li Hung-chang's support into dissatisfaction which almost caused him to suppress this force altogether.[2]

Fortunately the required permission now arrived and Gordon took over the command March 25, 1863. This event marked the adoption of a complete pro-imperial programme, for Gordon not only operated outside the thirty-mile limit, but was an officer of the British army detached with his government's consent for this task.

Gordon's campaigns opened with an effort to relieve Changshu. His 2,250 men were giving aid to an imperial force of 6,000, and together they drove off the enemy on April 7. Thence he repaired to Taitsang to rescue Li Han-chang, brother of the governor, who had been taken treacherously by the Taipings when they lured him into the city under pretence of surrendering it. Although he could oppose but 2,800 men to the 10,000 of the enemy, he

    an unwillingness to serve under the governor. It is still hard to understand what he expected the authorities to do with an independent force that would not take orders. Wilson believes the quarrel arose over Chinese claims for credit in a battle with the Muwang, November, 1862.

  1. But with much protest by the British general. The reduction did not take effect at once.
  2. Morse, II, 92 f.; Wilson, p. 127.