MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any remonstrance has been received from the Porte respecting the bombardment of the Alexandria forts, and if the terms of the remonstrance will be contained in the next papers issued respecting Egypt; also, whether any remonstrance has been received from any other Power?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, no remonstrance has been received from the Porte since the bombardment; but a remonstrance in advance was received. It stated that our fire would not be returned by the forts. In point of fact, however, it was returned. No remonstrance has been received from any other Power.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the Consuls General of the Powers in Egypt protested against the bombardment?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENot so far as I know, Sir. The hon. Gentleman had better give Notice of the Question.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHMay I ask if there is no truth in the note mentioned in a telegram in the newspapers as having been received by Musurus Pasha, which, I presume, has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, in which the Porte refers to the extreme gravity of the fact of the bombardment, and requests its immediate cessation in order to avert more serious consequences?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI said that a remonstrance had been received in advance which was sent out before the bombardment began; but that no remonstrance had been received since the bombardment began. I dare say we shall receive one in the course of the day.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEMay I ask if the hon. Baronet can inform us, whether the bombardment has been renewed this morning, and whether it is known what is going on at the present time?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEOf course, that is a Question for my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty; but I believe he has no official information on the subject. I have, however, seen a private telegram in the House.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI understand that the hon. Baronet has some information; but he refers me to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, he says, has no information.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, we have received no official information; but I have seen a private telegram in the House. I cannot say, however, whether it is from an authentic source. It is dated Alexandria, 10.40 this morning, and states that the Admiral fired three shots at that time at a Moncrieff gun which had been remounted in the course of the night, and at the third shot the firing of the gun ceased.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEHave any instructions been sent out for ceasing fire?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe instructions were read by me to the House word for word the other day.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERPerhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty will read all the telegrams he has received.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWe have no information on the subject of the Question asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford North-cote); but we have this telegram, dated Alexandria, July 12, 12.40 A.M.—
Attacked batteries this morning, silenced forts, landed party from Invincible, burst three guns, and spiked six in Meks Fort.
§ "Casualties in the Fleet.
§ "Inflexible.—Killed, Wm. Shannon, carpenter; wounded severely, Lieut. Jackson; wounded slightly, Wm. Houghton, private R,M.
164§ "Alexandra.—Killed, Walter Fisher, A.B.; wounded severely, John Myers, A.B.; wounded slightly, Thos. Palmer, captain of forecastle, George Talbot, private R.M.
§ "Sultan—Killed, Chas. Collins, A.B., Robt. Marshall, A.B.; wounded severely, James Dexter, boy; wounded slightly, Albert Jutson, A.B., Jas. M'Carthy, A.B., Robert Pacey, A.B., Jas. Tussell, A.B., Thos. Poigndestre, A.B., Joseph Gomes, boatswain's mate; Samuel Fuller, leading seaman.
§ "Superb.—Killed, George M'Claine, gunner, R.M.A.; wounded slightly, George Webb, ship's corporal.
§ "Invincible.—Wounded severely, Redmond M'Guire, boy; wounded slightly, Mr. Wm. Lumsden, midshipman, —Chaseira, stoker, John Yolland, A.B., John Gill, ordinary seaman, J. W. Moore, private R.M.
§ "Penelope.—Wounded severely, John Wheadon, leading seaman, Wm. Woon, captain of the mast; wounded dangerously, Henry Dawson, leading seaman, Levi Holley, boy, Alfred Jackson, boy; wounded slightly, Lieutenant Davies, Wm. Lee, A.B., Wm. M'Analley, A.B."
MR. JOSEPH COWENI beg to give Notice that to-morrow I will renew my Question, and will ask, whether since the bombardment any remonstrance has been received from the Porte or from any other Power?
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as reported, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has prohibited merchant vessels from passing through the Suez Canal; and, whether such prohibition is general, or limited to British vessels, and, in any case, by what right such prohibition can be given? He would venture to ask, in addition, whether there is any truth in a report that torpedoes have been laid, or attempted to be laid, in the Suez Canal?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, so far as the Foreign Office knows, it is not true that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has prevented merchant vessels from passing through the Canal. What we believe him to have done is, to have cautioned British vessels that they would pass through at their own risk. The Question of the hon. Member only appeared on the Paper this morning, and it had not reached the Foreign Office when I left at midday. It is extremely difficult to answer Questions on foreign affairs on such short Notice. With regard to the torpedoes, we have not heard of any being laid in the Suez Canal.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI must apologize for having put the Question in such a hurry; but during bombardments things go rather fast.
§ MR. MACFARLANEMay I ask whether the Egyptian or Turkish Government have any vessels of war in the Bed Sea?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI cannot answer that Question without Notice. All information on the subject of the movements of ships of war is sent to the Admiralty. There is always at least one Turkish vessel of war in the Red Sea.
§ MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it be correct that Admiral Seymour has requested masters of British merchant ships not to enter the Suez Canal during the continuance of hostilities at Alexandria; what measures Her Majesty's Government have adopted for the purpose of convoying British shipping now on the way to and from the East, via the Canal; and, if he will be good enough to inform the House what arrangements have been made with other European Powers for ensuring the free navigation of the Canal?
MR. GLADSTONESir, a portion of this Question has already been answered by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who stated that the masters of British vessels had been cautioned that they would go through the Suez Canal at their own risk, and were informed as to what was going on. With respect to the arrangements with other European Powers for insuring the safety of the Suez Canal, all I can say is, that we have made to other European Powers such preliminary communications as it appeared to be our duty to make.
MR. G. W. ELLIOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If there is any understanding or agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the representatives of other Governments assembled at the Conference at Constantinople which limits or prevents the landing of British troops in Egypt; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the text of the understanding agreed upon?
MR. GLADSTONEWith regard to the matters before the Conference, I must refer to what has been already stated by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on several occasions, and say it is not in my power to make known officially what has been done.
§ MR. BOURKEAre the proceedings of the Conference still going on?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes, Sir.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, he wished to know what arrangements had been made with other Powers as to vessels passing through the Canal?
MR. GLADSTONEI am not able to make any additions to the answer I have already given respecting that Question.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFSir, there is a little discrepancy between the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and that given by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The hon. Baronet said that there was no official information in regard to Sir Beauchamp Seymour's action, but that he presumed that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had cautioned British vessels.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, I did not say what the hon. Member says. I said that, so far as the Foreign Office knew, it was not true that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had prohibited merchant vessels passing through the Canal; but what we believed him to have done was to caution them that if they passed through they would do so at their own risk. We do not know the actual text of the intimation that has been made.
MR. GLADSTONESir, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty has received information that a caution has been given; and, moreover, it has also been stated that there has been a further communication to the effect that if the Canal is clear—and we have not the least reason to believe that it is otherwise—there is no objection to vessels proceeding through it.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, I do not know whether it is of any use asking the Question; but I presume that the Government have no information as to the present position of affairs in Alexandria, and particularly as to the position of the Khedive? I will also take this opportunity of saying that before the House rises at a quarter to 6, I will ask, whether the Government have received any further information?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that, as we have no detailed account from the Admiral or the British authorities even of our own proceedings, we have no information whatever at present as to the state of things in Alexandria, or as to the position of the Khedive.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONI wish to ask, whether the Government has, not any accurate information, but any estimate as to the number of persons killed in the Egyptian forts?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo information on that subject has reached us. All the information we have received has been placed before the House.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, he wished to mate some remarks, and to conclude with a Motion. In consequence of the answer which he received from the Prime Minister, he felt it his duty again to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he could not now, in the public interest, inform the House and the country what the policy of Her Majesty's Government really was with regard to the present condition of affairs in Egypt? At a great crisis like this, when Questions had been repeatedly asked about it, he thought it was the duty of the House to demand, at the hands of the Government, some information with regard to their policy. He had listened to all the answers to the various Questions that had been given from time to time; but the Government had always guarded themselves by saying that it would be against the public interest to give the information asked for. What he wanted to know was, whether the policy of the Government in the action which they were now taking was for the purpose of protecting British subjects and British interests in Egypt; or, in other words, whether their policy in bombarding the forts of Alexandria was for the purpose of protecting only British and French bondholders? If the latter were the policy of Her Majesty's Government, he wished to know how did it happen that the French and English Governments had presented a joint Note in regard to joint interests, and that at a critical moment the French withdrew from the policy indicated in the Note presented by the two Governments? If it were right that the French should withdraw and avoid bombarding the forts of Alexandria, he thought our Government ought also to have taken Parliament into their counsels before proceeding to extreme measures. If the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of proceeding with such grave measures, the end of which they were unable to see, unless they had in their minds some definite policy to guide 168 their future action, the time, he thought, had come when the Government should tell the House and the country what they really meant by their present action. He moved the adjournment of the House.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to second the Motion, and said, it appeared to him that the time had come when those who felt deeply the position in which the country was placed—the position of degradation and dishonour, he would say—should speak out, and, if they did not speak then, that they should be held responsible for what he considered the national crimes that were being committed. The House knew how the matter had been conducted for weeks past. They had been—to use the old well-known expression—drifting into war, and they had been drifting with their eyes open. He felt that some of them were to blame for not having spoken out more distinctly before this great evil was committed. But they certainly had had no encouragement to do so. The system had been to ask some Question of a Minister, who declined to give an answer; and then, next day, to ask another Question of some other Minister, who again referred to the Minister who had before refused to answer. This had gone on until they found themselves absolutely at war with Egypt, and yet there was no information as to what they were fighting for, and no declaration of war, so far as he knew. [An hon. MEMBER: We are not at war.] It must not be supposed he was wrong in stating that they were at war with Egypt, because the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated yesterday, in "another place," that they were at war with the de facto Government of Egypt. That was a very serious position in which to find themselves. It was a position which entitled them to demand a straightforward and distinct declaration from the Government as to what they were shedding the blood and spending the treasure of the country for, without Parliament having been con-suited, and without any explanation of reasons having been given why they had gone into that enterprize. As far as the House of Commons was concerned, the responsibility rested upon the Government, and the Government alone. He remembered many years ago, in the Crimean War, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan- 169 caster, when he was denouncing the Government, said—"These hands are clean. No blood of our countrymen is on these hands." Some of them would take care that it should be the same with them, and they protested against what took place yesterday, and he said deliberately it was an act of international atrocity. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might call "Oh!" as much as they liked; but he would repeat the words—it was a cowardly, a cruel, and a criminal act. How did they lead up to it? Look back at the past few weeks. They sent their Fleet into those Egyptian waters. What for? To overrule the people of that country and to establish a Government which they were in favour of, but which there was no evidence at all to show that the people of Egypt themselves were in favour of. What should they have thought if the Germans had sent their Fleet into the Thames and demanded the dismissal of his right hon. Friend the Minister for War? They would have had riots in England. All the disreputable people would have risen, as well as a good many that were not disreputable, against such an insult, and they would have had a similar massacre to that which they now alleged was the cause of their proceeding to the extent they had. And what had been the result? An abandonment of all the principles of non-intervention, of which we heard so much when the Ministry were in Opposition. They had managed to ruin Egypt for years to come. Europeans were flying for their lives from the country, and the news had come now that the Suez Canal was stopped up. ["No, no!"] He understood so; he might be wrong, but he understood that merchant ships had been warned not to go through the Canal. [An hon. MEMBER: Except at their own risk.] Well, then, amongst all the evils they had done, they had managed to impede the navigation of vessels through the Suez Canal to a certain extent; and—he was not over-stating his case—having done all those things, having got rid of all the Europeans and ruined them, they were now setting to work upon the natives to shoot those that were left. He could not conceal his indignation at England being dragged into these proceedings. Where was the Concert of Europe they used to hear so much about? What had become of that? What was the news of yesterday? That 170 the French Fleet were steaming majestically out of the harbour of Alexandria, a more rational and Christian course than that taken by our ships. He had, moreover, another charge to bring forward. At what time had all these Things been done? They had been done absolutely when they had a Conference sitting upon the affairs of Egypt, and had referred the whole matter to their deliberation. Hon. Gentlemen would remember that only a few short years ago hon. Gentlemen on the other side went into a Conference, and they came down to this House and asked for a Vote of £6,000,000, when up rose the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and asked—"What! are you going into a Conference with shotted guns'?" That was exactly what they were doing now. He did not want to put it too strong; but what was it all for? So far as they could make out, they got a statement from the Prime Minister not so long since to the effect that the policy of the Government was the maintenance of all established rights in Egypt, whether those of the Sultan, those of the Khedive, or those of the people of Egypt. Then there was a postscript like that to the lady's letter—"or those of the foreign bondholders." The single statement, however, that they sought "the maintenance of all established rights and the provision of due guarantees for those rights," was a description of the policy of the Government; and if that was their policy, never had there been such a total and miserable collapse in the history of politics. The Sultan, the new ally of the right hon. Gentleman, was satisfied with Arabi Pasha, and had remonstrated against the atrocity we committed yesterday, and the Khedive had taken Arabi Pasha into his Government. As to the rights of the people of Egypt, it was a nice story indeed that they were protecting those rights when they were sending guns to massacre the people wholesale. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman take the same course in this case as he had taken in others? He could say to Austria, "Hands off!" He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished that some Power would say to us, "Hands off!" Why should we, who lived in a free country, interfere with these poor Egyptians and prevent them having the Government they wished? A "military despotism!" for- 171 sooth, as Earl Granville said. Were they to go about and attack all military despotisms? What about Ireland? Were they to fight the Egyptians because they liked a military despotism? Then, the foreign bondholders, the latest clients of the right hon. Gentleman—and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not think the right hon. Gentleman had done much for them—did not imagine that the ruining of Egypt was likely to add to their prosperity. But he objected to the blood of a single British soldier being shed on their behalf. He asked the Government really to consider the position in which it was placed. Was it too late to take some steps to get out of this miserable position in which they were placed, no doubt, as they would say, by the proceedings of their Predecessors? That was the excuse for everything; but could not the Government get out of this policy? He did not expect the Leaders of the Opposition wished them to get out of it; he dare say they would support the Government; for this was very much their policy, which they had no right to condemn. The Government might also get the support of certain Members on the Ministerial side of the House whom he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would call the "Cotton Jingoes." ["Names!"] He had not got a list of their names. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who called out for them might be one; but he could tell the Government that if they pursued this policy, he felt perfectly confident that they would lose the confidence of the working men of England, who did so much for them. ["No, no!"] "No, no!" cried their thick-and-thin Supporters; but let them test it. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a campaign of the large towns of England, and call upon the working men to fight for the status quo ante, and he would find that the working men were not in favour of this policy of gunpowder. Remember, they were true in the Cotton Famine; they were not "Cotton Jingoes;" when their living depended upon getting cotton, they were true to freedom in the States of the North, and against any interference in a military way. They were true to the Prime Minister; they put him into power; let him recognize the fact. He knew they were true to him in the Mid Lothian campaign, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would say, that just in propor- 172 tion as the Government had been true to the policy and principles then enunciated, so had they been successful in earning the confidence of the country, and just as they had departed from them had they landed themselves in disaster and discredit. It was once said by Mr. Cobden that most Englishmen had as much religion as would carry them to the Cape, and then they gave it up. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) hoped it was not so, and he hoped it was not to be said that our statesmen had just as many principles as would carry them to the Treasury Bench, and then they gave thorn up. He said deliberately, and in doing so he challenged either Tory or Liberal to contradict him, that no Tory Government could have done what the Liberal Government did yesterday in bombarding those forts. If such a thing had been proposed, what would have happened? They would have had his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department stumping the country, and denouncing Government by ultimatum. They would have had the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India coming down and moving a Resolution, condemning these proceedings being taken behind the back of Parliament. They would have had the President of the Board of Trade summoning the caucuses. [Laughter and cheers.] They knew it was true what he was saying. They would have had the other right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster) declaiming in the Town Hall of Birmingham against the wicked Tory Government; and as for the Prime Minister, they all knew there would not have been a railway train, passing a roadside station, that he would not have pulled up to proclaim non-intervention as the duty of the Government. [Renewed laughter and cheers.] Well, now, he said again it was perfectly abominable to see men whom they had respected, whom they believed in, whom they had placed in power, thus turning round on every principle they had professed, carrying out a policy that was abhorrent to every lover of justice and of right; and he asked and implored them, if it were not too late, to reconsider their position, and to carry out a policy more in accordance with common sense, and common justice, and common humanity.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gourley.)
MR. GLADSTONEMy hon. Friend who has just sat down (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has, in the capacity of Seconder of the Motion, undoubtedly eclipsed the Mover (Mr. Gourley), who was content with a very humble manifestation in comparison with that which has just been made. In reply to the Mover, I have only to say in one sentence that undoubtedly it is not for the exclusive or special interest of the bondholders of Egypt—and, indeed, it is almost wholly without reference to them—that the proceeding of yesterday was taken; and that with respect to the Government of France, it would be impertinent on my part were I to discuss the reasons which have led them to decline taking part in the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government. It is enough for me to say that that which the French Government did they were perfectly competent and entitled to do, acting within their own right, as we, on the other hand, were in acting within our right. We were responsible to our respective Parliaments and countries; and it would be a great mistake—and this is the only farther remark I need make on the subject—if the hon. Member were to suppose that the difference of action at a particular juncture implied any change, and especially any unfriendly change, in the relations of the two Governments of England and France. I now come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Seconder, and I am afraid it will not be easy for me to dispose of that so briefly. He has traversed a very wide field; but I was glad to see that, although he was deeply impressed with the solemnity of the occasion, yet he did not disdain to avail himself of the assistance of those facetious faculties with which we are so familiar. He, doubtless, thought that the intermixture would afford an agreeable relief to the gravity of his general charges; and my hon. Friend must also have perceived, with satisfaction, that he succeeded in eliciting the most lively cheers from those to whom he is most opposed upon every question of this kind, not on account of their concurrence with him, but on account of the breadth and severity of his charges against Her Majesty's Government. I leave him with 174 perfect contentment in the enjoyment of that satisfaction; and although I object to almost every sentence of his speech, I have so much respect for his motives that in replying to him I shall endeavour to avoid every word that would seem to partake of severity, rebuke, or ill-will. I must, in the first place, protest against a complete historical misconception which has taken possession of the public mind. My hon. Friend says we have drifted into war in Egypt, as we drifted into war in the Crimea. There is not a more singular instance on record of the manner in which a particular phrase obtains currency in defiance of facts than the constant and everywhere established use of the word "drifting." What is the history of that word in reference to the Crimean War? It is simply this, that at the moment when the war was on the point of breaking out, when all diplomatic correspondence had ceased and the whole policy of the Government in its endeavour to prevent the war had failed, Lord Clarendon was asked, I think by Lord Lyndhurst, in the House of Lords, what was our actual condition at that moment. Lord Clarendon said—"All correspondence and all practical attempts for the maintenance of peace have ceased, and we are at this moment, if I might so say, drifting into war." That drifting into war was strictly confined to the two or three days which intervened between the policy aiming at peace and the policy which led to war. My hon. Friend says we are drifting into war in Egypt, and that explanation may be just as truly applied here. Nothing has happened in this matter except on the fullest deliberation and on the full and exclusive responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the original intervention in Egypt, that is not a matter on which I can enter at the present moment. It is not for mo now to explain how far the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government are links in the chain which runs back to the period of the former Administration; but if that be so, and if my hon. Friend considers me—and he is quite justified in doing so—as most specially responsible, in the Office I have the honour to hold, for what has now taken place, it is not because I am friendly on general principles to intervention such as has taken place in Egypt. He seems to think that I am a general apostle of non-inter- 175 vention. I do not, however, see why he should say so; he hag quoted nothing that bears out that view. On the contrary, if he will take the trouble to recollect, all my objections to the conduct of the late Government for a certain time—in the year 1876 and the year 1877—were, he will find, expressly founded on the charge that we had not had intervention enough. A change in events then took place; and as to my opinions with regard to intervention in Egypt, happily, they are on record, and if my hon. Friend will have the goodness to turn to a speech made by me in 1876, of which I may hereafter have again occasion to remind the House more particularly, he will see how I planted my foot down at the very first point with respect to intervention in Egypt, and indicated the consequences to which it might probably lead. However, that is a bye-matter which touches only myself. My hon. Friend says "we are at war with Egypt." I do not admit that we are at war with Egypt. ["Oh, oh!"]
MR. GLADSTONEI do not admit that we are at war with anyone. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that statement ridiculous. [Laughter and jeers.] That is the position I hold, and the position which I am prepared to defend when the time for argument comes; but not by laughter and jeering, which I think unsatisfactory methods of defending a grave proposition. The events which have happened are very grave. I am not speaking in flagrant contradiction to the facts of history when I say-that analogous cases have occurred within my own life and within my political memory. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will, perhaps, recollect a remarkable event which cost some bloodshed, but which was, perhaps, a cheaper exit from a desperate struggle than could have been found in any other way, and which sealed the freedom of Greece. But after the Battle of Navarine, in which the Turkish Fleet was destroyed by the joint action of France, England, and Russia, it was not stated, nor was it the fact, that we were at war with Turkey. Therefore, it is no such paradox as the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and his Friends, who think proper to jeer at me, may suppose it to be; and I would 176 recommend to him a little study of the analogous cases which have occurred in the history of International Law before he gives vent to what I may call his untutored ridicule. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) reminds me that the analogy went even further than I had supposed at the moment, for that—as I now recollect—a Conference was sitting at Constantinople at the very time the Battle of Navarino was taking place. My hon. Friend asks me what has become of the Concert of Europe? 'What has become of the Concert of Europe is exactly what has become of the navigation of the Suez Canal. It is in force. We are not aware that we have done anything to weaken it. We have not departed from it; we do not know that anyone else moans to depart from it; and we have not the least reason to suspect that anyone else supposes that we have departed from it, or done anything to impair it. The navigation of the Suez Canal is, so far as we are aware, where it was, and the Concert of Europe is where it was, so far as our information goes at the present time. My hon. Friend says we have given no distinct information as to what we are fighting for. There would be no great difficulty, if this were the time to state it, in saying what we are fighting for. I think, however, that he is inaccurate in saying that we have given absolutely no information of what we are lighting for, because we have stated in the most distinct and categorical language that we are fighting for the security of Her Majesty's Fleet, which was menaced in the harbour of: Alexandria by a continuous and deliberate course, denied, but still steadily pursued and persevered in, of erecting fortifications which might have arrived at a point which we could not limit or define, and which would have been one of serious danger. That was the immediate object of the attack. If my hon. Friend asks me whether the action will have any other consequences, I will tell him there is one other consequence, larger, wider, more difficult to grasp, or to state than he thinks—a most important consequence that I anticipate, though do not say whether it would have justified the act. I have, however, given the justification of the act; but there is an important consequence of which I think my hon. Friend will not 177 deny the gravity. Does my hon. Friend bear in mind the massacre which occurred at Alexandria a few weeks ago? Does he bear in mind that that massacre remains down to the present moment wholly unexamined and unavenged? Does he estimate the effect which a massacre of that kind—unavenged, unexamined, subjected to a pretended examination only, which was a mockery, a delusion, and a snare—would have had upon the security, not only of all Englishmen and all British subjects, but of all European people throughout the whole East? Can he reflect with satisfaction upon that; and can he come to the belief after he has examined these great and difficult questions, and computed their consequences, can he feel great confidence and certainty that his is the only just and only true mode of looking at these matters? My hon. Friend asks, what we should have done if the German Fleet had arrived in the Thames and had made certain demands in regard to the Government of this country, calling in particular for the dismissal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who, I am very glad to see, is not in his place, because he has been spared the shock to his feelings of resisting the attack in full force of my hon. Friend. He asks, what would have been the consequences if the German Fleet had arrived in the Thames and made the demand for the dismissal of the Secretary of State for War? I will not undertake to say what would have been the consequence; but I will undertake to say what would not have been the consequence. It would not have been the consequence that my right hon. Friend would have become the dictator of the country, and would have taken into his virtual custody and possession the person of Her Majesty the Queen. I have very little more to say. I have desired to confine myself within the limits of necessity in noticing these great matters, because I think all must feel that this is not the moment, whatever the proper time may be, when it would be right to attempt to enter on a discussion upon the very important event of yesterday. I may say, without quoting any authority, for I have none to quote, that a private telegram has arrived—as is probably within the knowledge of some whom I address—sent at half-past 1 o'clock to-day by Alexandrian time, 178 or two hours earlier than our time, representing that a flag of truce had been sent from the land and was on its way to the Commander of the Fleet. Upon that, however, I do not dwell, because I cannot guarantee its accuracy; but there is one point more of my hon. Friend's remarks which I must venture to notice. First, he said that we were seeking to rule the people of Egypt, and then that we were executing a wholesale massacre of them. Now, the bombardment of the fortifications of a great town is, I admit, a serious thing on account of the absolute impossibility of being certain that no damage will be done by it to the town itself. But I am sure that the skill and humanity of a British commander would reduce that risk to a minimum. Yet I would venture to point out that such a risk, though essentially arising out of an operation justifiable in itself, does not indicate an intention to rule the people of Egypt, still less to massacre them. Sir, we look upon the present condition of things in Egypt as the prevalence of something which is not adequately described even by the unfavourable phrase of a "military despotism;" but it is not entitled to be called that, because a military despotism means, at any rate, a regular and regularly organized Government, acting by some kind of law. That which prevails in Egypt at the present moment, however, is simply a state of military violence, without any law whatever; and the question whether that state of military violence is agreeable to the people of Egypt is one which has not yet been answered, and which cannot well be solved while that state of military violence is maintained. We know that it is in defiance of the orders of the Sultan; we know that it is in defiance of the wishes of the Khedive; we know that it has unnecessarily and wantonly mixed up with problems not difficult of solution as to the internal state and institutions of Egypt—mixed up with them the dreadful question of a military tyranny over all ranks and all orders of the people. We know that we have abjured every selfish object and purpose in this matter; and my hon. Friend may rest assured that it is not the people of Egypt, nor anyone among them; but it is those who are oppressing the people of Egypt who are the sufferers by the operations conducted so effectively, and, I believe, so consi- 179 derately, and with so much real honour to this country yesterday by the British Meet. I will not now, Sir, enter into the question whether we were justified in taking measures against this military Government, because it is a military Government. That is quite a separate and distinct question, wholly out of view at the present moment. I am now only meeting the charge of my hon. Friend, that what we have in view is the massacring of the Egyptian people; and I limit myself to saying that the measure of yesterday was not a measure of hostility to the people of Egypt, or, strictly speaking, to anyone else; but was strictly and only a measure of self-defence, and one the sufferers from which were not the people of Egypt, but those who, as we believe, against the will not less than against the interests of the people of Egypt, have established a system of military violence in that country. I have carefully abstained on this occasion from what might stir up debate by challenging any opinion likely to raise matters of difference in this House; but respect for my hon. Friend, and the gravity of the case before us, has obliged me to make these observations.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, an expression which had been used by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) appeared to him to call for some notice. The hon. Member was in the habit of enjoying his pleasant country abode in Cumberland, free from the difficulties, and the dangers, and the hazards of life in foreign countries, and yet the hon. Member had made use of an expression which practically comprised and applied to the commercial classes of this country. He had said that this action of the Government was fostered or fathered by the "Cotton Jingoes." He (Mr. Mag-niac) did not happen to know what a "Cotton Jingo" meant, nor did he know what the hon. Member meant by it; but he knew the hon. Member meant to apply that as a sort of epithet of opprobrium to the commercial classes.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose, apparently to disclaim the intention imputed to him, but
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, his hon. Friend was quite able, and would have the opportunity subsequently, of explaining what he meant; but, whatever explanation he might give, he (Mr. Magniac) thought the way he had pointed out 180 would be that in which the epithet would doubtless be construed by the country. He took the liberty of telling him that this was a commercial country, and that its great commercial pursuits were conducted with an integrity, a zeal, and an energy which many hon. Members who lived in the country had very little opportunity of witnessing. He protested in the strongest possible manner against the hon. Member making use of such epithets to further the attack he had made against Her Majesty's Government. He did not intend to enter upon the discussion of the general questions of Egyptian policy, because he thought it was wholly premature to do so; but he could not allow the language to which he referred to pass without a protest at least from some Member of the House.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he quite agreed that that was not a proper or convenient opportunity of going into general matters connected with the Egyptian Question. The Prime Minister had certainly opened up various points which might, and would, no doubt, hereafter call for detailed discussions as to the conduct of the Government during the recent negotiations; but he thought that those who entertained the opinions of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) were bound to take the first opportunity of protesting in the strongest and most solemn language they could use against the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, which, in their opinion, was in direct violation of all those principles of policy that brought the Liberal Party into power. Whatever might be the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman as regarded his arguments, he (Mr. Bylands) felt the course that the Government were now taking was one of political immorality, and even of unjustifiable violence. He believed it was a course opposed to those high principles that the Prime Minister enunciated in Mid Lothian—principles that were not to be frittered away by mere microscopical distinctions, and which had taken root in the public mind. He believed they would find that much of the enthusiasm evoked by the illustrious champion of the rights of all nations in favour of those high principles had been a good deal chilled. They would find in every constituency thoughtful men, who might ask in what 181 respect did the present policy of the right hon. Gentleman differ from the policy of Lord Beaconsfield? He appealed to the Prime Minister whether, if the late Government had adopted his present policy, he would not have raised up the whole country against it? He (Mr. Rylands) had often thought what was the difference between the late and the present Government. Of the late Government, he thought it might fairly be said, "They did evil; and that continually;" but of the present Government, with equal truth, it might be said, "When they would do good evil is present with them." He thought they had nothing to do with the course the Government of France might take; they had to do with their own Government. The Prime Minister had taken, very rightly and truly, the entire responsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The House of Commons had at present no responsibility for the blood which had been shed; that as yet belonged entirely to the Government. The Prime Minister, with the wonderful power which he possessed, drew a vivid picture of the Alexandrian massacre unavenged, and indicated that if it had not been avenged, we should lose prestige throughout the East, and the Europeans would be in danger. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department cheered the remark. But if that was their ground of action, why did they not announce it at Alexandria? They had never whispered a word about the bombardment being a consequence of the massacre until that moment. Why did not the Government allow their policy to be distinctly understood? The statement about the massacre was entirely an after-thought. ["Oh!"] Up to the present, the Government had always told them that this bombardment was in consequence of our Fleet being in danger—that innocent Fleet which had gone to Egyptian waters and had planted broadsides of enormous guns right opposite to Alexandria. It was the old story of the wolf and the lamb. We had our enormous guns pointed at Alexandria, and they ought to have been received in favour as objects of interest at Alexandria. But as soon as earthworks were put up by the Government of Egypt, not knowing whether, at any moment, the ships might not 182 begin to fire, it was said that these earthworks threatened our innocent vessels. He believed it would be found, when a full examination was made of the Papers, that this country, by its intervention, had stirred up recent events. When we sent the Fleet to Alexandria in the first instance, it tended to create a feeling in Egypt which had its outcome in the massacre which occurred. He did not wish to go into general questions, but only to say that so far as he could judge from the Papers he thought Her Majesty's Government were seriously responsible for the present state of things, believing that they had taken a course which was most unjustifiable—he thought he should be justified in saying a wicked course—in opening fire upon Alexandria. They had done not only immediate injury to the Egyptian people, but he ventured to think that when they fired the first shot it was like the letting out of water. Nobody could tell what would follow. They might well ask the question, "What next, and next?" The right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues seemed to think that they had been bombarding a weak country; but he (Mr. Rylands) was afraid the range of the question might be extended and bring in other nations; but whether it brought in other nations or not, it was sure to give rise to grave political evils, and unsettle the condition of feeling in Europe, and it might possibly endanger the peace of the world.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, that the Prime Minister based the action of this country upon the supposed danger to the Fleet. But it was notorious that the Fleet was in no danger from the guns of Alexandria, for our officers knew perfectly well beforehand the capacity of the guns in the forts, and that no one of them could possibly have done any serious damage to the Fleet. It was well known that the Egyptians had no fuses for their shells before the forts were attacked. Under these circumstances, it was a mere pretence to say that the bombardment was undertaken from fear of danger from the fortifications of Alexandria. The bombardment was not an act of war; it was simply an act of assassination upon a large scale. Again, if the massacre at Alexandria required punishment, the Government should have tried to induce the Egyptian Government honestly to punish the men responsible 183 for the massacre; but it was a strange thing that the Fleet should have been ordered to fire on the very soldiers who had protected the Europeans at Alexandria. For his part, he did not think that this country had much reason to punish the men who committed the massacre at Alexandria when massacres much more indefensible had occurred at home.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, in his opinion, the House of Commons would be wanting in its duty if it did not at that moment express some anxiety for the events which had taken place within the last 24 hours. It might be said that all the responsibility was upon the shoulders of the Government, which was bound by diplomatic usage to a degree of reticence which did not belong to independent Members. It was, therefore, because he stood there as an independent Member that he was obliged to express his sympathy with the protest which had been uttered by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He did not hesitate to say that, if the course which had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government had been adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite—knowing the antecedents of these hon. Gentlemen—although he would not have been surprised, his indignation would scarcely have known bounds at the transaction. It was, however, because the antecedents of right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench were so contrary to the proceedings which had taken place, that he confessed, while he wished to speak with great moderation, he could not conceal the great anxiety which he felt in consequence of the transaction. He did not like the new variation of the phrase, "killing no murder," which they had heard mentioned. It was said that, although they had bombarded the forts of Egypt, a tributary of Turkey, yet they were not at war with Turkey. But suppose a variation from the case. Suppose that if any Fleet in the world had bombarded the British Fleet or British forts, he wished to know whether the British people would not as one man have regarded that as an act of war, and treated it accordingly? As to the origin of the present complications, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had rather led the House and the country to understand the pre-sent embarrassment had arisen from the 184 massacre at Alexandria. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] He understood that to be the case; but he thought the two cases related as close as cause and effect. He wanted to know from that point of view, whether the British Fleet was or was not in Egyptian waters before the massacre took place? With regard to the military tyranny which the Prime Minister had spoken of, he should like to know what Party in Egypt had invited the Government to send the British Fleet into Egyptian waters to interfere with the internal affairs of Egypt? Further, he wanted information on this point—had they not from the outset regarded the Sultan of Turkey as the Sovereign of Egypt; and, before they sent the British Fleet into Egyptian waters, had they called on the Sultan to control matters in Egypt in such a way as to prevent the dangers to which Europeans were exposed in Egypt? He would assert, without fear of contradiction, that it would be impossible to show that they had been invited by any Party in Egypt to take the course they had taken. When they were told that it was necessary to bombard these forts and silence these guns in order to secure the safety of the British Fleet, it reminded him of the suggestion once made to a great philosopher, who complained that the fire was too hot and wished it raked out, that he might put the matter right by drawing his chair back. If the British Fleet was in danger, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he thought it might have been withdrawn. The action winch had been taken he regarded as most inconsiderate. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle had made use of an expression which he (Mr. Ming-worth) thought had been misunderstood. ["No, no!"] His hon Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), at all events, appeared to suppose that the commercial interests of the country were charged by the hon. Member for Carlisle with selfishness. No man in that House was prouder of the commercial interests of this country than his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, and more desirous of serving its true interests. As regarded himself, he was bound to say that there was not the very smallest of foundation for the belief that the commercial classes were in favour of the Government policy. The most serious part of the question was 185 the assertion of the Government, in which they had taken exception to the statement that they had drifted into this war. He admitted that the precedent of the Crimean War was not altogether applicable; but, at the same time, he would improve upon the saying by declaring that it seemed to him that they had been steaming express into this war, and had hastily and rashly appealed to force. It might be said that the Egyptians were an imperfectly civilized people, and could not be treated in the same way as a great European Power—for instance, as we should deal with either Germany or France. He admitted the difference; but, in his opinion, it threw an additional obligation upon this country, that they should be more circumspect and show more forbearance with the Egyptians than if they were dealing with a civilized country. With regard to the Prime Minister's reference to Navarino, they knew that the great Powers then acted in a very high-handed manner, and he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would be able from that to maintain his contention that what had taken place was not an act of war. The effort of the Liberal Party for many years past had been to act in regard to international difficulties in a less high-handed manner than had formerly been the practice, and with a greater regard to justice and the rights of the different weaker parties. He did not say that the Government might not be able to make out a case that this intervention was absolutely necessary. He must confess, however, that he believed that their action would be condemned by the great majority of the country who sent them (the Liberal Party) to that House; and, personally, he felt very great concern lost the labours and the teaching of the Liberal Party for many years should have been utterly destroyed and neutralized by this hostile act of the last 24 hours. He need not say that, in that House, right hon. Members on the Front Benches had not a warmer Friend than himself—that it was out of regard for them and their character for consistency as regarded their public conduct that he ventured at this moment to interfere.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, I have no intention of entering into the discussion which has been raised by the Motion of the hon. Gentleman who 186 moved the adjournment (Mr. Gourley). The conduct of Her Majesty's Government throughout these proceedings will, no doubt, come to be the subject of serious examination on a future occasion. I do not think that we are, at this moment, in a position conveniently to enter into that discussion, and I intend to say absolutely nothing about it. I rise for a strictly practical purpose. It was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, that a fresh telegram had been received, stating that a flag of truce had been sent from Alexandria to the Fleet. I do not know whether this is true or not; but it is probable that the statement is a correct one. But, if so, I wish to impress upon the Government the desirableness of taking advantage of that opportunity, or any other opportunity that may be offered, by taking some step for the protection of the life and the safety of the person of one for whose safety, I think, England must be anxious. Whatever we may-say with regard to the whole course of the policy and the position of the Parties concerned in this matter, the position of the Khedive is one that demands, and has the strongest claim upon the honour of this country; and I do trust, therefore, that advantage will be taken of this, or of any other opportunity, to take such steps as shall secure in every possible way the security of the Khedive. I entirely abstain at the present moment from saying anything with regard to the grave questions that have been raised. No doubt, at the present time, responsibility lies upon and is accepted by the Government, and I presume that an opportunity will be given to the House of Commons and to Parliament to express its opinion on the subject. There is also the pecuuiary question, as, no doubt, a Vote will be asked for. These are points which will arise hereafter, and I do not think it would be desirable that we, as a Party, should express any opinion on the subject at the present moment.
§ MR. SLAGGsaid, he should not have interfered in the debate had it not been that he found it necessary to make a reference to some remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson). The hon. Baronet had said this war had been promoted by, and that it would probably have the support of, certain parties whom he described 187 as "Cotton Jingoes." He (Mr. Slagg) really must protest most emphatically against such a term being applied to any class of the commercial community of this country. If the hon. Baronet's expression meant anything, it meant this—that a certain section of the commercial community of this country, and especially those interested in the Cotton Trade, were, for the purposes of gain or for considerations in relation to their own personal advantage, prepared to aid and endorse a policy of which they did not approve in the shape of the present hostilities in Egypt. He resented most strongly the shadow of an implication of the sort upon any class of the commercial community in the North of England. He was perfectly certain that no such interest or desire existed in their minds in any degree whatever. He would point out to the House that the whole tradition of the working classes and the employers connected with this cotton industry in Lancashire wholly forbade any suspicion of that nature—he referred to the course of conduct which had been followed by that community during the American War, when a large section of the politicians of this country wholly lost their heads, and wished to commence hostilities against the Northern States of America. He presumed to say from their conduct at that time that the term "Cotton Jingoes" was not applicable to them. They remained perfectly calm, and most certainly abetted no excitement whatever upon the subject, and he considered the hon. Baronet's remarks very unjustifiable. No doubt, the industry of Lancashire and all industries of this country generally were deeply concerned in what was taking place in Egypt at this moment; but he repudiated the idea that for their own interests they would advocate an unjust policy. He would refrain from discussing matters in detail; but he trusted that even those who had ventured upon such terms as "Cotton Jingoes" would be able to see that there was a distinction between a policy of needless and meddlesome interference with the affairs of a foreign country for purposes of aggression, and intervention which was directed solely, as he believed was the case at present, to the maintenance of the honour as well as of the interests of this country, and the protection of an oppressed population, and not for attack or invasion.
§ MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that as one of the Liberal candidates who spoke so strongly—and who hoped always to continue doing so—at the last General Election against an aggressive foreign policy, he felt bound to say a word or two on this occasion. The very same arguments had been used with regard to this as had been used with regard to former acts of war, and it was always easy to find an excuse. He must say, however, that unless the Government were able to establish that this attack upon the Alexandrian forts was necessary for self-defence, it was not consistent with Liberal principles. He would ask the House to consider whether the conduct which had been adopted by this country towards Egypt would have been adopted towards a Power as strong as ourselves; whether that conduct was not a violation of that principle of non-intervention in foreign matters, and a hindrance to the peace policy which had for some time been advocated by the great Liberal Loaders. How could they preach to others about the necessity of abstaining from high-handed acts of violence if they themselves resorted to it, and took such steps as that of attacking Powers in the circumstances reported of yesterday? Of course, there was always some provocation in the case, and there was always some defence to be offered; but he was not quite sure that in this case the defence would satisfy the conscience of the country. It was an open question whether there was not in Egypt a genuine national movement, and if there was, and this was the expression of it, surely no one would regret more than Her Majesty's Ministers if any act of theirs should have interfered to prevent such a movement from making headway. He earnestly hoped that, as a flag of truce had been sent to the Fleet, there was a chance of putting an end to this war, for practically it was a war which we had commenced; and he trusted, therefore, that steps would be taken to stop further aggressive proceedings as soon as possible, for he could not help believing that the Government were still as strongly in favour of a peace policy as when they so justly denounced the policy that was adopted by their Predecessors in Office.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, with regard to the Question which has been addressed to the Government by 189 the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), I need hardly say wo entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the position in which this country stands towards His Highness the Khedive. If His Highness were not already the true friend of this country, we should specially admire, at all events, the courage he has displayed on this occasion; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that every possible step will be taken under the circumstances, which can be taken, to secure the safety of the person of the Khedive. The right hon. Gentleman also asked, whether it was the case that the Government had received any confirmation of the telegram stating that a flag of truce was flying over Alexandria? A further telegram has come. It is not from the Consular Representative of Her Majesty's Government, nor is it from the Admiral; but it is from the agents of the Eastern Telegraph Company, who are on board the telegraph ship, and, therefore, I have no doubt it is an accurate statement. The telegram informs us that—
A large white flag is flying over the town, and a gunboat, with a white flag at the fore-royal truck, is steaming up the harbour towards the arsenal;and—That all is quiet, awaiting the result of the flag of truce.That is dated Alexandria, 1.30 p.m. [Mr. W. H. SMITH: Is it an English gunboat?] The telegram does not say, and I cannot say. It is quite possible it may be an English gunboat; but from the telegram's saying "a gunboat," instead of giving the name, it is very possibly an Egyptian vessel. With regard to the speeches which have been made since the remarks of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has spoken about what he considers, in the total absence of any real knowledge of the case, a violation of the principles of the policy which brought the Liberal Party into power. All that I can say is, that I hope, if there were any such violation, I should not be in this place, nor on this Bench at the present time. I feel quite certain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not be there at the present time either. The hon. Member has asked 190 why these steps have been taken at Alexandria? I stated why, with the utmost fullness to the House, giving the House possession of every piece of information that was in our hands, and giving the reason why the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria took place yesterday I did so, by anticipation, before the bombardment commenced. The hon. Member has fastened to that statement the statement of the Prime Minister, in which he referred to the endangering of European life and property throughout the East. But the Prime Minister did not state that as the reason for the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria. He mentioned that incidentally, and I think he was right in mentioning it for reasons which I will venture to give; but the reason which he gave for the bombardment was the reason I gave on a previous occasion—namely, the safety of the Fleet, and the absolute necessity of preventing the erection of further fortifications, and further guns being brought to bear upon the Fleet in the manner I have described. To show how long-suffering we were, I read the whole of the despatches which had passed, and pointed out that, although on Friday last, after the order had been given, further guns were put up on the outer portion of the fortifications, not bearing directly on the Fleet, we informed the Admiral, in regard to these guns, that he was not to take action, but to allow them to be put up, showing that we pushed our forbearance and long-suffering to the very utmost limits. It was only when fresh guns were mounted bearing directly on the harbour and the Fleet that the action was taken which I have described. My right hon. Friend did allude to the recent massacre at Alexandria, although he did not give it as the reason for the action of the Fleet, and he spoke of the danger to European. life throughout the East. Now, I cannot but think that we are not liable to the reproaches which have been addressed to the Government to-day for the use of the language of that kind. I have already declared in this House, on behalf of the Government, that reparation will have to be made for the massacre at Alexandria, and that is still the intention of Her Majesty's Government, because it must be perfectly clear that, by massacres of this kind, European life 191 throughout the whole of the East is endangered, and the effect of any such massacre being passed over without redress, would be to put the lives of Europeans throughout the East absolutely at the mercy of a fanatical mob of Mahomedans. We ought to remember not only the enormous number of British subjects who live in Egypt and abroad, but the immense interests which our country possesses, and which were protected during late years by the sanctity of European life observed throughout the East. My hon. Friend spoke of injuring the feelings of the working men of this country; but I cannot think it is the desire of British working men to see the whole of the British traders completely debarred from operations in the East and driven out. I cannot think that, having regard to peace principles, working men would desire to see a state of things existing under which the whole of those interests would be sacrificed, and all trade in this country which depends upon them would be at end. Although that is a subject which is mentioned incidentally, it is one to which I cannot help referring, because I am the Under Secretary superintending the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, and I know the enormous importance of this matter to this country. Still that is not the reason put forth, and I wish to state distinctly that it is not the reason for what took place at Alexandria yesterday. What took place was not in consequence of the massacre, but in consequence of the mounting of fresh guns bearing upon the Fleet. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) went out of his way to speak of Arabi Pasha as an innocent lamb, and he spoke a great deal about the national movement. Sir, the whole question of the national movement and of military ascendancy in Egypt, which are two different things, will have to be debated in this House on some future occasion. All I can say at this moment is, that it is utterly untrue to tell the House that Arabi Pasha represents the national life of Egypt. He holds, as it appears to me, the whole Egyptian nationality by the throat, and his use of the word "national" is a mere prostitution of that term. Passing by that matter, I heard with much regret the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) speak of the action of yesterday as an 192 act of assassination. That is language which I regret to hear, and ought not to have been used within the walls of the House of Commons; but when he asked in regard to this act, whether it was or was not an act of war, and spoke of acts of this kind as acts of war, I am bound to point out that, besides examples given by the Prime Minister, there have been a vast number of examples in all times of isolated cases, either of reparation, or of protection, or of self-defence, being taken by this country, without any declaration of war, or state of war, following these acts. I may remind the House of the bombardment of Algiers and of Jeddah, in 1858, and of the action taken in regard to the Spanish Fleet during the first Administration of my right hon. Friend; and, an immense number of cases will occur to the mind at once. Take the case of Algiers. The Sultan was Sovereign of Algiers at the time of the bombardment, and although an application was made to the Sultan with regard to the state of things in Algiers, the action taken had no reference to any permission obtained of the Sultan for bombardment, and it was not treated as an act of war. There was the case of Jeddah. In Jeddah, in 1858, there was a massacre of Christians by a native mob, and the English and French Governments asked for reparation. That reparation was promised, but not made. Jeddah being under the Sovereignty of the Porte, the Turkish Government announced its intention of sending clown troops for redress; but that redress was so slow, the troops were so long on their way, that action was taken by the bombardment of Jeddah, and that took place before the troops arrived. In the case of the Spanish Fleet, when it was sent to sea under circumstances which caused danger to all the Powers represented in the Mediterranean, during the first Administration of my right hon. Friend—I think it was at that time—the English Fleet went after the Spanish Fleet and brought it back to port. On many occasions of this kind action has been taken which it might be possible for a Power to resent as an act of war, but which, in point of fact, have never been resented and treated as acts of war at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) asks why we did not call upon the Sultan? That only shows the impossibility of de- 193 bating a subject of this kind before the House is in possession of all the facts; because, when the House is in possession of all the facts, hon. Members will see what has passed at the Conference and elsewhere with regard to the call which, as my hon. Friend says, ought to have been made on the Sultan. He says we ought to have acted with circumspection and forbearance. My contention is, that we did act with the greatest circumspection and the greatest forbearance all through. During the five weeks which elapsed, from the first erection of the new fortifications to the first erection of new guns bearing directly upon the ships, upon which action was taken, we certainly were reproached day by day, and night by night, in this House and the other House of Parliament, and throughout the country, for not taking action—reproached for what I consider was the proper circumspection and forbearance which we displayed. We have been asked what has become of the Concert of Europe? The Concert of Europe is as active at the present moment—[Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: As it ever has been.] The Concert of Europe successfully settled the Dulcigno difficulty, in spite of the prophecies of the hon. Member, and the Greek difficulty was also settled by the Concert of Europe in spite of the prophecies of the hon. Member. ["No, no!"] I maintain it successfully settled it.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFIt had nothing to do with the settling of the Greek Question.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThat is not the view of the Government, or the vast majority in this country; and it is my firm conviction that the Concert of Europe will be efficacious in this case as it has been proved efficacious in the past. At the time we were asked what had become of this Concert of Europe it was contended that it was violated by our action of yesterday. But reservations were made in regard to the necessity of action of this kind which covered the case of yesterday; and when we are asked whether any Powers have protested against our action, all I can say is, that the only two Powers which have mentioned it to us—namely, Austria and Germany—have both declared that our action of yesterday was perfectly legitimate and justifiable.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERSir, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) that the present is not the time to enter into any debate with regard to the conduct of the Government, and I should not trouble the House now were it not for the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and other hon. Members, with whose views in regard to peace and war and non-intervention I generally agree. Both my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Carlisle and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), certainly did strongly attack the conduct of the Government. My hon. Colleague (Mr. Illingworth) spoke with great moderation, and not unnaturally insisted that this is a matter upon which we must be all desirous, and all await most anxiously, to hear the explanation of the Government at the proper time. But I shall feel satisfied now to say that, so far as I have been able to form any opinion at all, up to the present time I confess it has been in a different direction from my hon. Friends, and I wish to state that the impression left on my mind certainly now is that the Government could not have acted otherwise than they have done without disregarding not only its duty in connection with the legitimate protection of British interests, but also its duty in connection with the higher duty of protecting English, European, and Christian lives.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTSir, it is not my intention to criticize the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to grave events now taking place in Egypt. I feel the justice of the remark of the right hon. Baronet who leads the Conservative Party in this House (Sir Stafford Northcote), that this is not the moment to discuss recent events at Alexandria. It is too soon and too late for such debate—Inter arma silent leges. While the Forces of the Queen are actually engaged in hostilities, and a great crisis is unsettled, it would be unpatriotic and impolitic to examine too closely the details of the policy which has led to the present complications; but I cannot pass without contradiction certain general statements made by the Prime Minister and the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The latter has 195 just avowed his old and courageous belief in the mythical Concert of Europe, with, considering the existing crisis, even more than his usual audacity. He has pointed with singular pride to the glorious achievement of Dulcigno. Sir, three times within the past four years has the British Fleet been engaged in what may be called demonstrations. The first was in February, 1878, when, alone and unhampered, either by "concerted" or by "joint" assistance, it confronted the might of Russia before Constantinople. Lord Beaconsfield then, following the traditional policy of England with firmness and consistency, checked Russia in the full tide of her victorious advance, wrung from her half the spoils of her triumph, and protected the interests of this country without the sacrifice of a single life. The second was in the autumn of 1880, when the combined Fleets of Europe lay for 10 weeks in glorious paralysis off the coast of Albania. That splendid feat resulted in the ridiculous, though, as compared with the present trouble, the comparatively harmless fiasco of Dulcigno. The third demonstration is that which has just eventuated so painfully. It began with a "joint" action, which proved its inability to accomplish anything. It irritated Native feeling by its insufficiency, and looked on idly during the sanguinary massacre of the 11th, and has now culminated in the still more sanguinary bombardment of Alexandria. Its end remains to be seen. So much for the hon. Baronet and his "Concert of Europe." The Prime Minister gave a very remarkable and rather ingenious explanation with regard to the phrase "drifting into the Crimean War." He attempted to limit it to some words of Lord Clarendon. But, Sir, when we say the country "drifted" into that war, we use the expression with no such limitation. We mean, and we are prepared, with a full knowledge of the facts, to prove, that the irresolution and weakness of Her Majesty's then Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was himself a prominent Member, caused that unnecessary war. Mr. Cobden, whose opinion hon. Members opposite almost deify, said that if the Conservative Ministry had remained in Office that war would never have taken place. The Emperor Nicholas, who knew more about these events than any 196 other man, said, on his deathbed, that he would never have begun his attack upon Turkey had the British Cabinet spoken out plainly and warned him against that fatal aggression. The Prime Minister has also denied that he is a believer in non-intervention. The right hon. Gentleman's views may be stated better in this way—he is in favour of intervention against the weak, and of non-intervention against the strong. He was opposed to any action against Russia in 1871 and 1878; but he was in favour of intervention against Turkey when environed with enemies. He was in favour of intervention between the North and South, when the United States were distracted with civil war; but he was mortally opposed to it when confronted by the might of a united country, and he paid the Alabama claims. He is proud of intervention against the Albanians and Egyptians, but he left the unhappy Danes to their fate in 1863. I will say nothing about recent events except this, that when the time comes we shall be prepared to prove that this crisis and bloodshed has entirely been brought about, as the Crimean War was brought about, by the weakness and the wrong policy of Her Majesty's Government. I do not speak of the occasion of this bombardment, for that may be justified, if it can be proved that otherwise the British Fleet would have been in danger. But I refer to the cause of the whole difficulty—the neglect, irritation, and provocation which have produced anarchy and war in Egypt. In conclusion, I will venture to urge upon the Government the importance of paying all possible respect, not only to the just rights, but even to the susceptibilities of the Ottoman Government and people in the present crisis. In that way alone can this struggle commenced in Egypt be prevented from spreading over the whole East. The odium which France acquired by her unjust aggression in Tunis, has now been taken upon our shoulders and unless a course of conciliation and justice be followed, grave evils, and possibly disasters, may ensue.
§ MR. RICHARDsaid, he united with his hon. Friends the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), in entering a most solemn protest against what was done yesterday at Alexandria. He could not see that the justification, given 197 by the Prime Minister or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was at all satisfactory. They had both said that this was not an act of war. If it was not an act of war, then what was it? He (Mr. Richard) had always understood that there was no justification for the wholesale slaughter of human beings, unless it was done in pursuance of the rights of war. But here it was denied that there were any rights of war. Well, then, he could not see, if it was not an act of war, that it was anything else but murder. The right hon. Gentleman assigned three reasons in vindication of the proceeding at Alexandria—that it was necessary, first, to defend Her Majesty's Fleet, next to put down military violence in Egypt, and, thirdly, to avenge the massacre committed about a month ago. But what business had Her Majesty's Fleet in the port of Alexandria at all? Further, was the mere fact of an independent nation fortifying its coasts against a threatened invasion by a foreign Power to be regarded as a justification for making an attack upon it? He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman referring to the massacre that had taken place about a month ago as another justification of the act of bombardment of Alexandria.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not referred to the massacre by way of justifying the bombardment of the forts. He had merely referred to a possible consequence of it.
§ MR. RICHARD,continuing, said, he was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's repudiation, because he (Mr. Richard) should look upon such conduct as mere vengeance. They were told, also, that the bombardment was necessary for the protection of the interests and lives and property of British subjects. His contention, on the other hand, was that all the mischiefs that had arisen in Egypt, the massacre of last month, the danger to the Fleet, the destruction of Egyptian commerce for the time, the driving out of Europeans, and the jeopardy of the Suez Canal were owing to the wanton act of intervention on the part of Her Majesty's Government in sending the Fleet to Alexandria. If that had not taken place, none of these results would have followed. As a Member of the Liberal Party, he personally regretted that such things should 198 have been done by a Liberal Government. He felt not only grieved, but humiliated, at the course taken by a Government in whose wisdom, moderation, and justice he had been accustomed to repose the most absolute confidence.
§ MR. GOURLEYasked leave to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEwished to ask, whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could give any information as to the reported change of Ministry at Constantinople yesterday? It was said in the telegrams that Said Pasha had been appointed Prime Minister. Was it the Said Pasha who a few days ago was Foreign Minister, or was it the Said Pasha who had been Prime Minister not long ago, and resigned?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe latter, Sir; I take it that there is one Said Pasha who is Prime Minister, and another who is still Foreign Secretary.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had lately spoken of a flag of truce. He wished to ask, how was the flag of truce to be dealt with if they were not at war?
§ [No reply.]