§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had placed on the Paper the following Amendment:—
That this House regrets that it should be called on to place increased burdens upon the people, in consequence of the late Military operations in Egypt.He thought hon. Members would agree with him that the function of voting money was about the most important duty they had to fulfil. It was the original object and design of Parliament, he believed, to vote money, and although they had other duties now it still remained their central duty. The question he desired to discuss was, whether the large sum of money which his noble Friend would move for directly they got into Committee in regard to the Egyptian War was money which was really spent for the national interest and the benefit of this country. The theory of those who defended the war was that the money expended had done good to England and to India also; and further it was contended that we had done a great deal of good to Egypt. In order to accomplish that good, we had to spend at least £4,500,000, and we had been the means of taking away the lives of a large number of Egyptians. It had been calculated that we slew about 5,000 of them, and we likewise lost a great many of our own valuable soldiers in the war. Comparing the origin of the war and the defence that was made of it with the present state of things, he found that Gentlemen on the other side of the House, especially those who sat on the front Opposition Bench, had stated more than once that they were misled as to the causes why we went into the war. They asserted that the Government made statements which were not now borne out by the evidence, and that that was why the large Party opposite gave their sanction to the war. Perhaps they were misled. In his opinion, the country was also misled very much as to the real object and cause and origin of the war. He remembered going to a meeting at Glasgow to denounce the Egyptian War a little before the decisive battle. He 1301 made his speech, and thought he had conclusively proved that the war was wrong. When he had finished, a working man got up and moved an amendment, saying—"This gentleman has read the Blue Books, and thinks they know all about it. What do we want with Blue Books. We have read the newspapers." The amendment was agreed to, and a copy of it forwarded to the Prime Minister, who, in acknowledging the receipt of it, said he was very glad it had been carried. He did not mean to charge the Government with having misled the Opposition or the country, but he felt sure that they were misled themselves, and that they did not know the exact bearing of the Egyptian Question. This, however, was no reason why they should not take the Government to task and call them to account for what they did in the matter. When a railway accident occurred, and a number of lives were lost, there was always a very close inquiry to see whether the slightest blame was to be attached to anyone; and in the same way, to take a still more appropriate illustration, when one of Her Majesty's ships was lost a court martial was always held. It seemed to him that the House was only doing its duty—certainly it was not doing more than its duty—in calling the Government to account for what had occurred in Egypt, and seeing whether they or any other persons were to blame. Now, his case was this, that the Government were misled by the officials whom they employed. Their diplomatic agents were continually giving wrong information and leading the country into trouble. It was so in the Afghan War and also in the Zulu War. The Transvaal was even a stronger case. They knew how everyone was persuaded for a long time that the Boers were longing to be taken under British protection. The facts came out afterwards, and showed how grossly they had been misinformed. His complaint against the Government was that they did not make more inquiry before taking the fatal steps that led the country into all these wars. He thought also it was a pity that the Government did not consult the House before going into these wars, which were almost all to be attributed to secret diplomacy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite shrank from condemning the war, although they said they had been misled; and the Leader 1302 of the Opposition said it would never do for them to condemn it, because if they did move a Resolution he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would probably vote for it, and that, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, would be a dreadful thing. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was not so afraid. He would move a Resolution, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could go into the Lobby with him if they pleased. He objected altogether to this system of calculating who would support a Resolution and how many votes would be given for it. It would be much better if they went into these questions with the desire simply of discovering what was right and what was wrong, and voting accordingly. He condemned this expedition to Egypt, and would give the House his reasons for so doing. Let them see how the £4,500,000 had been spent. The first event of importance was the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria; and what were they told about them? Why, that it was absolutely necessary to bombard these forts in self-defence; but that argument was hardly a proper one to use in a meeting of rational men. Just before the bombardment two smooth-bore guns were being parbuckled—that was, rolled along the sand to the forts—and to say that this parbuckling was justification for what took place was one of the most extraordinary reasons that could be adduced. He knew it was very wrong to talk about the "bombardment of Alexandria "—it was called firing on the forts—but, although the phrase was so much assailed, he had heard the Prime Minister make use of it. Certainly, the result was pretty much as if we had bombarded the town. The correspondent of an English newspaper stated that he went over Alexandria several weeks after the bombardment, and saw in the centre of the town four shells of the Inflexible that had not exploded. He thought it might fairly be concluded that other shells were discharged into the town which had exploded. After the bombardment of the forts, from some cause or another, the town was burned, and thousands of persons were driven into the Desert, many of whom, no doubt, perished miserably. The horrors of this bombardment were pressed upon the Government even by the unspeakable Turk. The Egyptian Army then took refuge in the open country, and we carried on a 1303 military operation against thorn, which resulted in a wholesale massacre of the Egyptian soldiers, who fled before us as a flock of sheep would before a dog. These operations concluded, the troops were brought homo, and there was the greatest rejoicing in this country. People seemed as much pleased with that slaughter as though our troops had conquered the combined forces of Russia, Prussia, Austria, France, and the United States. The next step was to catch Arabi. We went to Egypt as the detective of the Khedive, and having caught Arabi, banded him, a political prisoner, over to his bitterest enemies. When that act was fully and fairly understood, he believed that every right-minded Englishman would regard it as one of the greatest crimes that ever disgraced the history of this country. They had been told that our action was due to international engagements; but he challenged any hon. Gentleman present to produce a scrap of evidence to show the existence of any such engagement. When the bombardment took place, and the French Fleet steamed majestically out of the harbour, there was an end to the international engagements. Then, they were told that we must interfere in order to procure the freedom and safety of the Suez Canal. He again challenged any hon. Member to show one iota of evidence that before these warlike operations there was any attempt, or suspicion of an attempt, or even a desire, to do anything to interfere with the safety of the Canal. The next thing was that they had to put down anarchy. He denied that there was anarchy. One of the first things that anarchists did was to commit robbery; but it was an extraordinary fact that there was no robbery here, and that the Treasury Chest remained untouched throughout. Perhaps it might be said that the action of the Government was owing to the riots at Alexandria. But there was nothing whatever to show that Arabi had anything whatever to do with them. Lord Granville had admitted that the charges against Arabi in reference to the burning of Alexandria had broken down. That being so, he wished to make a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), whom he did not see then in his place. He said, when it was necessary to get up a feel- 1304 ing in favour of the war, that there was no doubt that Arabi was guilty of complicity in the attack on Alexandria. Now, his right hon. Friend made that remark in cold blood, and not when he was in a scatterbrained condition. He knew his right hon. Friend to be an honourable and upright man, and he quite expected that before very long he would come down to the House and either withdraw the charge he had made, or produce some further evidence. Then there was the official statement of the Prime Minister of the cause of the war—he begged pardon for calling it war in that House, he should have said "military operations." The Prime Minister said that we went to war to keep up the rights of the Sultan, the rights of the Khedive, the rights of the people of Egypt, and the rights of the bondholders. Were those proper objects for which to spend the treasure and the blood of a free nation? To keep up the rights of the Sultan. What rights had he in Egypt? None, except the right to draw from the ground-down and oppressed people of Egypt a tribute of £700,000 a-year. And we went, cap in hand, to the Sultan for weeks and weeks begging him to help us to keep up his rights. Then came the rights of the Khedive. What had we to do with them? What earthly reason was there for spending the lives and money of the people of this country in keeping up the rights of the Khedive? Did anyone know of any good the Khedive had done? Then there were the rights of the Egyptian people. Why, that was almost as ridiculous as all that we were told about the Suez Canal. The first right of any nation was the right to govern itself. Even in Ireland we gave some semblance of self-government. ["No!"] Well, we let people out of prison occasionally. The first right of a nation was self-government, and the day would come when most of the people of this country would look back with horror to what they had done when they saw that we, a free nation, that England, the mother of Parliaments, spent her blood and treasure in putting down the first rising hope of freedom in a long down-trodden and oppressed people. Then came the rights of the bondholders. That was what the right hon. Gentleman put in last; but that they were the first consideration he 1305 had very little doubt. Was there a sane man in this country or out of it who believed that, were it not for the bondholders, this country would have ever gone to war? It was in the interest of the bondholders, and in order to collect their debts, that we kept up those miserable Controllers, who led us into war because they feared that their influence and power would be taken away if the popular movement was to go on. But we were told in the beginning of the proceedings that we went to war on account of the status quo ante. What had become of the status quo ante? It was gone—as dead as Henry VIII. Arabi fought to get rid of certain things, and now, having got rid of Arabi, Her Majesty's Government had gone and done what he wished so much to do; but they had done it after spending £4,600,000, sacrificing 5,000 lives of the Egyptians, and many lives of our own soldiers. That was the result of their status quo ante. Arabi was in prison a long time, and they were obliged to let him out. They dared not execute him or let the Khedive execute him. And now Arabi was in exile, and the President of the Local Government Board, who had conducted all these things to such a successful conclusion, had risen to a high position. One had gone to Ceylon and the other to the Cabinet, but the man who had succeeded was Arabi. He in his dungeon was more powerful than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, backed up by an enormous majority of the House and the country. What Arabi demanded was being now carried out in Egypt, and for no other reason than that he had right on his side, while we fought on the side of wrong and injustice. For his own part, he could only say, now that they were called upon to vote this money, that never since he had been a Member of the House had he been called upon to vote money for so unsatisfactory a purpose. They might say that the money was spent. He knew it. He knew that the evil was done. But why he wished to refuse the money now was, because he did not desire to see these things repeated. When the London mob rejoiced, he never heard any expression of regret or abhorrence on the part of the Government for the crimes committed last summer, and there was no guarantee that if they found a people weak or 1306 oppressed they would not attack them to get money for the bondholders, Jews, and usurers. Therefore, he would take a division in order to obtain an expression of opinion against such intervention in the affairs of other countries. That was not a policy which became a Liberal Government, and all true Liberals should oppose it. In doing so they would be supporting the principles by which right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench got into power three years ago. Gentlemen on the opposite side sometimes condemned the principles of the Mid Lothian campaign. He believed these were the right principles on which the policy of this country ought to be conducted, and just as the Government had been true to them had their course been honourable and satisfactory, and just as they had departed from them had they been landed in discredit and disgrace. The Prime Minister said that in our foreign policy we ought to proceed on the principle of recognizing the equality of nations and the absolute equality of public rights. That was the right policy, and if we departed from it we should not only have troubles abroad, but should never do justice at home, because if we did not act justly abroad there was very little chance of getting justice at home by domestic reforms. Some in that House were bound to show their condemnation of this policy—a policy more disheartening than any adopted by a Liberal Government for years past; and holding these views he should venture to propose the Amendment which he had read at the beginning of his speech, and take a Division upon it.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. It might be said that they were crying over spilt milk, that the money was spent, and we should have to pay it. That might be very true; but what cut him to his heart was this—that the position and interests of the bondholders were, after all, the main cause of the war. If the Egyptian people were left to act freely, the bondholders would have run the risk of losing their money. Instead of these bonds being very low, as they were before the war, they had now risen to a very high point; and it seemed to him unjust and unreasonable that if we were to be at all the expenditure of blood and treasure, 1307 we should not take some return from the bondholders by way of salvage. He denied that there was anything like a direct international pledge for the security of these bondholders. The only pledge was the establishment of the International Courts, by which the claims could be enforced, and the agreement for those Courts came to an end on the 1st of February, 1883. Her Majesty's Government, for reasons best known to themselves, had resolved to continue the International Courts for another year. He was very glad that the Government had limited their continuance to another year. He hoped when the year had expired that they would not continue these Courts on the same footing, by which they gave international guarantees for the debts of foreign money-lenders and usurers. The House was told the other day that Her Majesty's Government hoped to remove the British troops within six months from the present date. He wished it had been stated, at the same time, that they would also remove the British officers and the British control. He sincerely hoped that they would be able to clear out of Egypt, "bag and baggage;" but he believed that there was a very great difficulty in this matter, and it was this—that we had by our isolated operation, and in practically for the time taking possession of Egypt, placed ourselves in so delicate and difficult a position with regard to foreign nations, and especially France, that we could not hope that the French would abstain from action unless we satisfied the bondholding interest in France by insuring that they should have their money in full. It was that necessity which seemed to make the hope of an effective and secure Administration in Egypt exceptionally difficult and, he was almost afraid, exceedingly remote. Let them look at the financial situation of Egypt at this moment. They knew that one-half of the gross revenues of Egypt wore pledged to those bondholders. But he found that there was, in addition, a very large claim by the bondholders who had mortgages on what were called the Daira and Domain lands; and then there was the claim on account of Moukabalah, than which there was never a more shameful transaction, the enormous indemnities, and a claim of £240,000 for the maintenance of the English Army since the 31st 1308 October. It therefore appeared to him that probably there would not be one-fourth, or more than one-fourth, of the gross revenues left for the administration of the country. That being so, it appeared to him that the administration must be starved, the people must be discontented, and there would be the most extreme difficulty in establishing a stable Government. His hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) told them that having spent £4,500,000, we were about to do that which Arabi wanted to do—namely, to grant a Constitution. He wished he could quite agree that that was so. Why was not Arabi allowed to grant a Constitution? Because we were afraid that these Constitutional Egyptians would not pay the Debt. He was afraid we were in the same difficulty. It seemed to him that if we were to arrive at the point within six, or nine, or twelve months, or within any measurable distance which would admit of our leaving Egypt a settled and self governed country, we must not only establish a Constitution, but a Constitution on a very broad basis. He had been a good deal alarmed by what had been communicated to them—the narrowness of the Constitution which had been suggested by Lord Dufferin in his preliminary Reports. He had not the least doubt that Lord Dufferin was a very good and liberal man; but he feared that he was hampered by events, and that he dared not give a sufficiently liberal Constitution, lie was very much at a loss to understand what the noble Lord referred to when he observed that he wanted to give the Khedive a Council of the same character as existed in British India. The Councils in India were not of that representative and powerful character Lord Dufferin seemed to suppose. They were merely this—With the great officers of the Government were associated certain persons nominated by the Government, and whose advice and assistance they were over ready to have. They were nothing but nominee Councils. He could not understand why Lord Dufferin should not have called together the Notables, who were, perhaps, as fairly representative a body as could be convened at first. In Egypt, the Chamber of Notables having been got together, they began to ask questions about the debts and the foreigners, and made themselves disagreeable to the autho- 1309 rities, the result being not only that they were sent to the rightabout, but that the war resulted.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must point out to the hon. Member that he is going far beyond the scope of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would not pursue that subject further. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government, if they were to maintain peace and quiet in Egypt, and avoid a greater question in the future, must give a much more liberal system of administration to Egypt than we had yet been able to give to India. It might be asked, why did not we give in India a more liberal administration? The answer was that we did not expect to leave India within six months. If we hoped to leave Egypt within six months, and to leave a stable Government behind, we must leave a Constitution, and put it on a very broad basis.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House regrets that it should he called on to place increased burdens upon the people, in consequence of the late Military operations in Egypt,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he intended to vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, for he believed that the war was a mistake all through. If we went to Egypt at all, we ought, in his judgment, to have installed Arabi instead of the Khedive. He had never been able to understand from any Member of Her Majesty's Government precisely the position in which our troops in Egypt were now placed. They had been sent to support the Government of the Khedive; but when Questions were asked of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he put all the responsibility on the Khedive for what was happening in Egypt. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) believed that so long as the British troops supported the Khedive, and supported him, moreover, against his own subjects, England was absolutely responsible for what was going on in Egypt. As meetings of the Egyptians would not be allowed, we 1310 were obliged to receive all news from official sources. No doubt, Lord Dufferin did his best to procure trustworthy information; but he was necessarily very much in the hands of the Europeans, and of the Ministers and friends of the Khedive. He did not gather from the despatches that his Lordship had in any way consulted the people of Egypt. The hon Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said he had "read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested," Lord Dufferin's scheme of government. For his own part, although he had read, marked, and learned it to a certain extent, he could not digest it, because it was objectionable to a Radical stomach. His Lordship's scheme was a perfect sham of Constitutional government. If any species of representative government were established in Egypt it must be based on a control of the purse; but when anything was said to the noble Lord the Under Secretary on this subject, he vaguely alluded to representative government and international obligations. What were those international obligations? Was Lord Dufferin prevented from doing what he thought desirable for the country by any obligations which the Egyptians were supposed to be under to pay the interest on their Debt? If there were an international obligation on their part, it was not our business to go there to carry it out. He (Mr. Labouchere) denied that the people of Egypt were bound by any such thing; but, supposing they were, it was not England's business to deprive them of the most elementary and necessary basis of representative government—the power of the purse. He had risen to try to elicit a clear statement on this subject, either from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, or from the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, if the House were a mere debating society with nothing else to do, he could understand this discussion being raised tonight. There had already been two debates on the subject since the opening of the present Session. The Government were most anxious to go into Committee of Supply, and the country desired that some practical legislation should be proceeded with, and yet they were now wasting their time in an idle and a fruitless discussion, which could end in no- 1311 thing. He was not going into the general question. The proper time to have raised this question was when the Vote of Credit was proposed last year. Nothing had transpired since then as to the general policy of the Egyptian War that could not have been raised at that time. The House accepted that policy, and they were now discussing whether they should pay for that which they had themselves ordered the best that could be said for this debate was that it was premature, because the Leader of the Opposition intended to bring Egyptian affairs under the notice of the House when Lord Dufferin's despatch was presented. He appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. ["No, no!"] Well, if he took the judgment of the House upon it, that judgment would be formed on an imperfect kuowledge of what the Government was going to do in the future. If the Opposition had raised this debate they would have been severely criticized; and he held that those who had done so ought to be ashamed of their proceedings. He had risen in the interests of Public Business to make these few remarks.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the manly and practical speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He only rose to express his concurrence in the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, and to ask the House to take note that an Amendment of this sort, which was likely to produce delay in the conduct of Public Business, had not originated from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was, no doubt, entitled to claim the credit of consistency, because on this occasion he was expressing the precise opinion which he expressed last year. He (Mr. Raikes) thought one word ought to be said, at least by those who were anxious to see Egypt take her proper place in the future, against such a speech as had been delivered by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). If there was one thing more necessary than another to Egypt it was something of public credit; and if speeches were made with the view to obtain from the House and the country an admission that Egypt was free to repudiate the engagements into which she had entered, it could not fail to be most injurious to the future of that country. He had no doubt that the 1312 hon. Member for Northampton had a perfect right to express his views; but if he had any concern for the future of Egypt he should be a little more chary in making speeches which, when read in all the bazaars of the East, had the effect of undermining the credit of a country which was struggling into a better position. There was this difference between the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Carlisle—that the former was anxious to bring forward a particular financial view, and the latter a particular political view. But while the House received the opinion of both, he could not see what useful purpose it served to be continually stating that those two hon. Gentlemen were more consistent in their views than other hon. Members who were more highly placed.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he felt that, whatever difference of opinion there might be amongst hon. Members sitting in different parts of the House, upon the policy—past, present, or future—of the Government in Egypt, they would all be agreed that, so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was concerned, there was not only no Member in the House, but no man in England, who was so perfectly free from inconsistency on this question, having from the first taken one particular line, which he had stood to. Feeling great respect for that consistency, and for the character of his hon. Friend, he regretted that he could not adopt the same view. His hon. Friend had gone over ground which was already familiar to the House in repudiating what he had termed a bondholders' war. He had said that the Government were misled by their own diplomatists, and that they ought to have the frankness to acknowledge the error into which they had fallen. But that was not his own view or that of the Government. The Government still held the opinions which the Prime Minister had expressed last year, and which had also been expressed by the President of the Local Government Board—that the cause of the war was that there was growing up by steady degrees a condition of affairs in Egypt which could only be described by the name of anarchy, which threatened British interests, and which ultimately, with great regret, compelled Her Majesty's Government to depart 1313 from the principle of the Liberal Party—namely, the doctrine of non-intervention. His hon. Friend did not think that a sufficient justification, and said that if they had done certain things in a different way they would not have been compelled to depart from the attitude of non intervention. But in the several speeches of his hon. Friend lie had heard no detailed statement of facts which warranted his opinion. The hon. Baronet had chiefly relied on the order of events at Alexandria, and had said that the massacre and the bombardment, following pretty closely upon the arrival of the ships, were related to that arrival as effect to cause. But his hon. Friend forgot that a little further back there was a condition of growing confusion even before the arrival of the ships. The arrival of the ships was caused by the existing confusion, and did not itself cause that confusion. He recollected a remarkable speech made by one who had the singular advantage of being at Alexandria at the time of the events in question. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers-Stuart) had made a very interesting speech on July 27 last year, in which he expressed a totally different opinion from that which was entertained by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford gave a general description of the condition of things at Alexandria previously to the arrival of the ships, and stated, with his usual accuracy of description, that a condition of anarchy existed which was dangerous to British interests, because dangerous to the Suez Canal. There was, he said, a state of circumstances which threatened the existence of civilization in Egypt. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle had expressed disbelief that any such state of things existed previously to the arrival of the ships. But he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could show that there were movements threatening the Suez Canal, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the Canal; and though he was willing to grant that the dates of these were two days after the bombardment, nevertheless, it was perfectly clear that the organization and intention of these movements had originated before the bombardment—at any rate, there was quite sufficient evidence of the facts to justify the Government in taking the 1314 steps they did. But what he mainly based the case of the Government upon was that the whole condition of Egypt was one of rising anarchy, which they felt Arabi, whatever his intentions might be, was quite unable to control. It was said that the Prime Minister and the President of the Local Government Board had made charges against Arabi in that House, the details of which were contained in one of the Blue Books, and which were summarized in Lord Granville's despatch. But the Government had never rested their policy on those charges alone. Even if Arabi had been an angel of light, he was entirely unable to direct a movement the elements of which had got entirely beyond his control. The history of the movement did not exhibit Arabi in the light of a great General or statesman. Whether his intentions were good or not, he came forward as one capable of governing Egypt; but his incapacity was such that in a very short time he would have left no Government at all in the country. In other words, he very soon produced that state of things which, as Lord Granville had said, was the only circumstance that could make us depart from our neutrality. The hon. Member went on to ask what the position was in regard to the other reasons of the war, besides the condition of Arabi; and he said it was stated by the Prime Minister that, this condition of Arabi having arisen, it was the intention and desire of the Government to go back on the status quo. The Prime Minister did not state that the maintenance of the status quo was the object of the Government in going to war, or that they declared that after the war they were going to restore everything to the condition in which it had existed before. If the House would reflect on the great knowledge and experience of affairs of the Prime Minister, they would feel that he was not so rash as to be likely to make such a statement. When war had taken place, it was almost impossible to go back to the condition of things which existed before the war.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONThe Prime Minister says it was not a war.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEMy hon. Friend says it was not a war.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThe Prime Minister said it was not a war.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEWhat the Prime said was this—that it was not a war between two civilized and recognized Governments. ["No, no!"] He said it was not——
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONThe words were—"We are not at war with anyone."
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that was precisely the distinction he intended to draw. The Prime Minister declared that there was not a war in the sense of there being that international condition of affairs which was known and described as a war. [An hon. MEMBER: The operations of war.] There were military operations going on, although there was not a war. Supposing the English Channel suddenly became full of pirates, and English ships went out to destroy them, there might be a condition of warfare, although not war; and that was a perfectly legitimate description of the operations in Egypt. The Prime Minister said our business was to indicate the ends we had in view, and not the means by which those ends should be attained. These ends were the general maintenance of established rights, whether of the Sultan, of the Khedive, or of the people. But the specific measures ought not to be indicated. The Prime Minister specifically guarded himself against saying that, consistently with the maintenance of those general ends, he was going to keep himself down to the maintenance of the status quo. The moment it became clear to the Government that they were obliged to enter on military operations, they held, after these operations were over, it would become absolutely necessary to reconsider the whole position; and no Member of the Government, he was sure, suggested the maintenance of the status quo. The Resolution related to the past policy of the Government; and he was afraid that he could not, without transgressing the Rules of the House, reply to the various questions raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the future finances of Egypt. All these points were receiving the close attention of the Government and Lord Dufferin. There was a legitimate expectation that if, on the one hand, there were certain reasons to apprehend, in regard to the indemnity claims, and the cost of the arms, an in- 1316 crease of expenditure, there were equal reasons to apprehend in regard to other matters a considerable diminution of expenditure, and also increased efficiency in the services. There could be no doubt that the Egyptian Army Budget would, before long, show a very great reduction; and there was hope that there would be a brighter side to the picture in regard to the taxation of foreigners, and Egyptian Customs dues, and other questions. As to the question of the Courts, if they had not continued the tribunals for a year, a condition of legal anarchy would have ensued. In assenting to a temporary renewal, they had shown that the question was fully before them, and that it would receive their best attention. As to the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), there was no intention on the part of the Government, through their troops, to be a party to any illegitimate interference with the right of public meeting and public discussion. On the contrary, the object of the Government was, as much as possible, to develop free discussion in Egypt. As for the larger issues that had been raised in the course of the debate, involving delicate and complicated questions of International Law, he had rather defer his reply till they could be more fully and fairly discussed on the Motion which was to be brought forward from the Front Opposition Bench. He hoped, in conclusion, that they had now arrived at a stage when they might be permitted to look more to the future than to the past. Differences might have divided various sections of the House in regard to the past; but they were all agreed, he thought, in the sincere desire that the delicate and difficult task of Lord Dufferin might be brought to a successful termination, and that the principles of liberty and stability, which had their champions equally on both sides of that House, might find at length, after many centuries, a home in Egypt. He had to assure the House that those views which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Carlisle—namely, those of consulting the views and wishes of the people of Egypt—now formed the animating principle of Her Majesty's Government; and he believed that in the future there would be little or no difference between them. As far as was in his power, nothing would be 1317 wanting to contribute to the happy consummation to which he had alluded.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would not attempt, especially at that hour and in the present circumstances of the House, to follow the noble Lord through the remarks he had made on various points involving matter of controversy. The debate had arisen very suddenly and unexpectedly, and it was not looked upon as a Motion of a serious character, as was shown by the fact that hon. Members left the House at the time the hon. Baronet announced his intention of carrying his Motion to a division. As a division would be required, he desired to put on record the feeling which he himself, and, he believed, some others who sat around him, entertained on the subject. The feeling was that they should be compelled to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle. The terms of the Motion expressed regret that they should be called upon to place increased burdens on the people in consequence of the recent military operations in Egypt. Anyone who reverted to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet which was dealt with on the 16th of last month would see that his present Motion, though slightly different in form, was practically identical with the one which the hon. Baronet proposed on the former occasion.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONexplained that through an inadvertence he was unable to go to a division on that Motion.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that on his own part, and on the part of those who sat around him, he thought their position was best described by the Amendment which was lately moved from that (the Opposition) side of the House to a paragraph of the Address. They felt now, as they had felt then, that although there was a period when, in their opinion, the war in Egypt might have been prevented and military operations avoided, yet, at the same time, when the Government, acting on their responsibility, had decided that the operations were necessary in the interest of the country, they could not deem it their duty to record any opinion in opposition to the course which the Government then considered it requisite to pursue. The sentiments which hon. Gentlemen on his side expressed in the debate the other evening were those which they 1318 entertained on the present occasion; but the House had thought fit to negative them by a substantial, though not an overwhelming, majority. That being the case, and the House having negatived the views which it was then their duty to take, he and his Friends now found themselves in this position—that they were called upon, on the occasion of the Estimates being brought forward, to do that which would practically refuse to the House at a later date the means of carrying forward the operations which it had itself approved. Considering, then, that the general sentiments of hon. Gentlemen on his side upon the question were expressed on a former occasion, he wished now only to say that, while on the one hand they entertained the opinion which they had placed on record the other day, on the other hand, if the hon. Baronet went to a division, they would think it necessary to support the Government.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHdoubted not that the House would, by a large majority, decide to vote the expenditure incurred in the military operations in Egypt; but they had had evidence, both in the House and from the state of the Revenue, that both locally and Imperially the taxes were now at a height very difficult for the impoverished people of this country to bear; and he was most willing to express his sympathy for the overburdened taxpayers of this country, and his deep regret that it should have been necessary to have increased the expenditure and taxation of the country on account of the expenses of the military operations in Egypt. At the last General Election the Conservative Party suffered more from its rash and reckless foreign policy than from any other of its mistakes; while the Liberal Party were carried into power through the declarations as to foreign policy contained in the Prime Minister's Mid Lothian speeches, even more than by any of the domestic reforms indicated in their manifestoes. He was much concerned for the consistency and honour of the Government; and whilst he would not say that the Egyptian War was as reckless and wanton as those in which the late Administration engaged, he would say this—that he held that no Government was free from blame which did not keep the country entirely out of foreign entanglements. Every such dis- 1319 cussion had an effect in preventing a Government from entering so lightly upon war. There was a great change in the judgment of many people, in the House and outside of it, as to the merits of the campaign. The Government did not hold the position it did in regard to the character of the rebel Arabi and the present Khedive. Would the Government deny that if the British troops were withdrawn the Khedive would not be obliged to flee? If so, were they not maintaining a Government distasteful to the Egyptian people? In that case he wanted to know if they were pursuing a policy of true Liberalism, or one consistent with the principles and professions they put forward? In voting with his hon. Friend, he would express a hope that the Liberals who would support the Government on this occasion were not going to throw their principles overboard; and, at the same time, he trusted a check would be put upon the readiness of the Government to engage in warlike operations.
MR. GORSTannounced that if the hon. Baronet went to a division he should support him. It was natural to feel pride and satisfaction in the prowess which our soldiers and sailors had displayed in Egypt; but the fundamental question as to whether the war was necessary must not be lost sight of. He held that the war was unnecessary, and was due to the mistakes of Her Majesty's Government. Owing to the policy which was forced upon them by M. Gambetta, and to their dislike to operate in conjunction with the Sultan of Turkey, who was the Suzerain of Egypt, they found themselves face to face with what everybody now admitted to have been a national movement. It was no use to abuse Arabi. He was for a time the representative of the national movement, and he was forced into that position by the determination of Her Majesty's Government to quarrel with the Chamber of Notables and all the popular leaders. There was no doubt that that national feeling still existed in Egypt, and that the Khedive was only kept up in his position by the bayonets of the British troops. If that were so, Her Majesty's Government had been fighting against the Egyptian nation; and he was quite certain the House must regret extremely that this great, free nation should have been engaged in putting down by mili- 1320 tary force the budding aspirations of a free people. Therefore, he thought it was not unreasonable, before voting Supplies for that Expedition, that the House should express its regret, and thus place on record a lesson to this and future Governments.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, he was content to leave the matter where his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) had left it but for one consideration. From the first he had taken a strong view with regard to the policy that led to the war. He regretted at the time of the Vote of Credit that the policy of the Government could not be separated from that Vote. He believed that that policy was distinctly the cause of the war. That being so, the Amendment simply declared a truism, and, therefore, he felt the greatest difficulty in voting against it. At the same time, as one must be allowed one's own opportunity to express an opinion on a matter of so grave importance, he did not intend then to vote for it, as he had recently voted for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). There was one point which the noble Lord had cleared up in his speech regarding an unfortunate expression which occurred in several of the despatches of Her Majesty's Government. It had been stated in despatches and speeches that the only object of Her Majesty's Government was to return to the status quo. He always thought that a most imprudent observation; and it was a considerable relief to him when he heard the noble Lord say that that was not their only object, but that they intended to review the whole question. It was a comfort to those of them who felt an interest in Egypt that the Government were no longer to be trammelled by their previous imprudent pledges with respect to the status quo. But he wished it to be observed that they had heard this for the first time to-night, and it was a matter of interest to them to know what the future policy of Her Majesty's Government was to be. The noble Lord had also referred to the difficult task now in the hands of the Earl of Dufferin. He was perfectly well aware of that, and he did not know of any statesman whom they could more cordially trust than that noble Earl; but he should like to know how long the 1321 noble Earl was to remain in Egypt. He (Mr. Bourke) hoped that he would be left there for a considerable time, and that he would not be recalled to his post at Constantinople until Egyptian affairs were thoroughly organized. It was no use throwing dust in the eyes of the English people by saying the troops would be withdrawn from Egypt at present. He was perfectly certain that if they wished for liberty and for anything like good government in Egypt—if they wished foreign intrigue to be kept out of that country—an object which he believed to be of the greatest importance—it would be absolutely necessary for a considerable time indeed to leave the British Forces to keep order there, and to bring about a state of things which they all wished to see.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 24: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 15.)
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
§ (In the Committee.)