Particularly if one is citing Gladstone as a candidate for greatest Victorian. Gladstone caused quite an uproar in saying that Jefferson Davis was making a nation--this was very much the opinion of much of the British ruling class, but Gladstone was in the Cabinet.
Bagehot's dictum: During a financial panic, the central bank should lend freely against good collateral to solvent firms at a penalty rate. The moral hazard arises because as the lender of last resort, the central bank is inevitably providing funds at a below market rate. This could encourage investment by those who can hope for a bailout and not face the full negative effects of the risk they've undertaken. However, so long as there's a penalty rate, this should control (if not completely overcome) the relevant moral hazard that might arise from the loans and (if you look at the system as a whole and the costs of the panic), the moral hazard is often worth enduring.
That's hardly enough to warrant the "who got almost everything wrong" title. In general the article is just bad writing...