§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to propose the grant of a pension, annuity, or sum of money to Lieutenant General Sir Garnet Wolseley and Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour in the present Session of Parliament; and, if so, whether the Committee of Supply will be set up for the purpose; out of what funds, and under what authority, the expenses attending the occupation of Egypt by Her Majesty's forces are being defrayed; and, whether it is intended to propose any Vote for such expenses in the present Session?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I will divide this Question into its several parts. I am first asked whether it is intended to propose the grant of a pension or annuity—annuity is the best term to use—to General Sir Garnet Wolseley and Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour; and, if so, whether it is intended to make the proposal in the present Session of Parliament. That I cannot quite say till I see what course Business is likely to take; but the matter will be so arranged as to make no perceptible difference to the gallant persons concerned if the grants should be 663 delayed, for in that case the grant would run from the date of their Peerages, instead of, as is sometimes done, from the date of the Message in which it is recommended to the consideration of Parliament. In case of proposing this grant during the present Session, there is no necessity for a Committee of Supply. It would be a charge on the Consolidated Fund, conveyed directly to the Consolidated Fund under a preliminary Committee held for that purpose in conformity with precedent, and it will have no connection either with any Appropriation Act. Then, as to the next Question, I should say that, so far as Her Majesty's Forces will still be a charge on the British Exchequer, we are still proceeding on the authority which, as we conceived, Parliament has given us, though, of course, we are responsible for the exercise of that authority. Our view has been this—that from the time when the suppression of the military revolt was completed the business of the British Force assumed a new character. They remained in the country for its security, and were discharging duties which would, in a normal state of things, fall to an Egyptian Force to discharge. We, therefore, thought that from the commencement of that period some demand should be made to Egypt for a contribution to the expenses of the British Force. It is not possible for me at present to speak very definitely upon the subject, for the whole of what may be called the conquering force, as distinguished from the force which remains for a time, has not yet been removed. That is the general principle on which we shall proceed, and we shall make an arrangement with the Egyptian Government. I cannot give a more definite answer at the present time to this portion of the Question. As regards the closing part of the Question, it will certainly be necessary for us to ask the House of Commons for some further Vote before this subject is wound up; but we have no reason to believe that the excess above the Vote of Credit which has already been passed in respect of the expenditure of the British troops will be thought by the House of Commons to be a great one when judged with reference to the objects attained. What we thought is this. Had there been a very great excess, or anything like a possibility of a difficulty, of course it would have been our duty, even 664 during Sittings of this kind, to come to the House of Commons and ask for an immediate supply of money; but as we have no anticipation of anything of that enormous character, and as there is no difficulty with respect to money, I think it will be more convenient to the House that we should postpone the subject till we are in a condition to give the House something like a complete view of the transaction, so that it may know with what it has to deal. That is the answer to the last part of the Question.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that the Government of this country has authority, while Parliament is still sitting, to maintain a portion of Her Majesty's Forces as an army for the civil administration of a foreign country without any direct authorization from Parliament?
MR. GLADSTONESir, in reply I have to say that the Question of the right hon. Gentleman presumes a definiteness in arrangements of this kind which cannot be expected and cannot be found. We have been engaged in a war. [Loud cheers and laughter from the Opposition.] I thought the House of Commons was aware of that circumstance, and had been aware of it for some time. If it appears, from the expression of surprise, that some Gentlemen opposite were not aware of it, I am very glad that at last they have received information of the fact. We have been engaged in the operations of war. We are about to hand over, we hope, the maintenance of peace and security in Egypt to a domestic force. I do not quite understand what it is that the right hon. Gentleman thinks we ought to ask Parliament for at the present moment, when we have not yet been able to draw back from Egypt that portion of the Force which is now there, and which we consider ought to be withdrawn. There are things going on from day to day. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to signify, in a definite shape, his disapproval of any portion of what we have done, I shall be very ready indeed to meet him in debate.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONWill the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the House when we went to war, and with whom we went to war?
MR. GLADSTONEI apprehend, Sir, that my hon. Friend is perfectly 665 aware when our warlike operations commenced.
§ SIR WLLFRID LAWSONWhen?
MR. GLADSTONEIf my hon. Friend is not aware of it let him look back to the date. I believe I stated it j the other night. I need not repeat that series of statements as to when the embarkation of the Force was made from this country to Egypt. I may suppose that my hon. Friend is aware of the day when Alexandria was bombarded. My hon. Friend seems to play upon the words "with whom we went to war." We did not go to war with any Power, and that is the regular and normal meaning of going to war. We went to Egypt for the purpose of suppressing a military revolt, and it was suppressed by the operation of our Forces.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI beg to give Notice, in consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that when this Motion for a grant or annuity to the General and Admiral is proposed, I shall oppose it.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONI wish, Sir, to make a personal explanation. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if we look back to dates we shall find when Alexandria was bombarded. The reason why I asked when we went to war was that the day after the bombardment of Alexandria the right hon. Gentleman told me in this House that we were not at war.
MR. GLADSTONEI did say so, and that is and was perfectly true. We had not been, in the ordinary and the established sense of the word, at war. In order to be at war you must be at war with some Power—with some settled and established Power. I do not understand why my hon. Friend plays upon the word "war." We were engaged in military operations—in the operation of war; but when I spoke I was bound to have due regard to the laws of peace and war which prevail all over the civilized world.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTAs this House has voted a sum of something like £2,300,000 for a three months' campaign, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to how much that sum has been exceeded? We have a right to know how much more the taxpayers will have to pay before we separate on the Prorogation.
MR. GLADSTONEI have already stated—but probably the hon. And 666 gallant Baronet has forgotten it—that whenever we receive any definite information which will be of any value or use to the House on this subject it shall be at once communicated.