§ Order for Committee read.
MR. GLADSTONEWith the indulgence of the House, I will explain the reasons for the change which has been made in the form of the proposal for grants to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley. Originally it was submitted in the shape of annuities for two lives, and indisputably we were governed in a great degree in the matter by uniform course of precedent. But undoubtedly we find sufficient reason for deviating from that course. It cannot be said that it is absolutely a matter of principle, though it was, of course, a real tradition that we should adopt the form of annuity for a provision of this kind; because if you made it a matter of principle then it would be obvious, in order to satisfy the principle, the annuity ought to be what in former times it was—namely, a perpetual annuity. To these perpetual annuities the House has exhibited very great, and, I must say, very just objections—objections so just and so striking that the hon. Member opposite, the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), has not scrupled to make himself the political heir or residuary legatee of the sitting and non-sitting Members for Northampton, and to take into his hands the prosecution of the policy which the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) announced in assailing perpetual pensions. However, there were several facts before us; there was a considerable amount of objection to the mode of proceeding in the form of annuity, and that objection was by no means confined to any one section of the House. But I am 39 bound to say that another consideration weighed very materially with us. What we feel is that, while there is a belief and a general disposition on the part of an enormous majority of the House, without distinction of Party, to reward services of this kind, performed under arduous circumstances, and while we believe it to be alike good in policy and in principle that they should be thus rewarded, we feel that the manner of conferring the reward is a consideration of extreme importance; and, as in long debates involving personal matter it could scarcely be possible to distinguish the individuals who are the immediate objects of the operation, we felt it to be incumbent upon us, so far as we could do it without offending against any one point of principle, to make that kind of proposal which would be likely to meet the views of the House at large, and insure the passing of the measure without painful or prolonged discussion. I know very well that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) means to revive a question of principle on these grants altogether. I do not object to that course, which, I have no doubt, will be taken distinctly from the merits of the question, and I hope and believe, from the merits of the policy of which these distinguished gentlemen were agents; but if information just given to me implies the contrary, I must notice the subject a little more than in a parenthesis or a sentence. I feel the utmost confidence that my hon. Friend will not visit upon Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley the pains of the policy for which the Government are responsible. Those are the leading considerations that induced us to change the form of these Bills. There is a certain amount of difficulty in changing the form of these Bills. The value of the annuity has, of course, reference in some not inconsiderable degree to the age of the persons receiving them. But if on any future occasion annuities in consequence of the precedent we are now likely to set are put out of the question, the probability is that the sums that may be voted will be granted without reference to age. But the House will observe that we had before us a case in which by proposing annuities the Government at least place themselves under a kind of honourable understanding with respect to the value of those annuities, and we have felt 40 bound to have some regard to that in making this proposal in the form in which we now submit it to the House. That is the reason of the difference which appears in the sums named in the two Bills — £25,000 and £30,000 respectively. It is not possible for us to base upon any certain mathematical principle those precise figures. There are two elements, which are more or less of option than of discretion, that enter into the case. The first is this—that for annuities of this class it may be a question as to the rate of interest you are to take in computing the value. The difference is great according as you take a higher or a lower rate of interest. The Government are continually engaged in operations between annuities and lump sums, and I believe the usual assumption of the rate of interest on money is 5 per cent. Well, if that rate be adopted it gives a very considerable lower value for these annuities than if a lower rate of interest be taken. It may be that some, on the other hand, would take the rate of interest as low as 3 per cent. We have not taken either of these extremes, nor do we profess to be able to say there is absolutely any one figure by which we can work out any positive result in pounds, shillings, and pence, the question of the rate of interest being open to some argument; but, on the whole, we have thought if we considered 3½ per cent as the proper rate, that would be as near as we could go by way of approximation for these values. But there is another question, that the annuities purporting to be annuities for two lives—no second life in either case is in existence, but a second life is not an impossibility in either case—we could not entirely, we do not think we should be justified in entirely, excluding it from our view. We have, therefore, included a very small and moderate sum, representative in a general way of the second life; so that it is on the best computation we could form, in correspondence, in substance, with the original proposal, fairly and equitably—and, I was going to say, perhaps liberally, but not extravagantly, estimated—that we now ask the House to vote the two sums of £25,000 and £30,000 respectively. When we come to the annuity of Lord Wolseley I shall have a short explanation to make on the subject; but for the present I do 41 not know that I need say more on the general grounds of the change we have made and the form we have given to those Bills. I do earnestly hope, Sir, that the great mass of the House will indicate to-day, as they indicated on a former occasion, their distinct desire and intention that an acknowledgment of this kind should be made. I think they will probably feel that we have not acted unwisely, considering the whole circumstances of the case, in the step we have taken in changing the form of the Bill, in reference to what we deemed the most becoming, and delicate, and graceful manner in which this offering could be made; and I think I am right in saying we have reason to believe the change of form would not be disagreeable to the two distinguished persons whose services we are now aiming to reward. I cannot, in the least degree, object to the raising of the question of principle, and the recording a vote upon it by those who think that any reward in such a case is open to just and fundamental objection; but I am sure that the opposition that may be made on those grounds will be made in the way that is most agreeable to justice and equity, and to a tolerable and even delicate consideration for the position in which these gentlemen are placed, for the great qualities they have respectively displayed, and for the fact that they cannot be in any degree responsible for any of the open or doubtful questions of policy, of administration, or of conduct that belong entirely to the action and to the responsibility of the Government at home. I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON, in moving that the House should resolve itself into Committee that day three months, said, ho hoped he might very respectfully congratulate the Government on the change that had been made in this Bill. On both sides of the House it would, he thought, be regarded as satisfactory that the principle of hereditary pensions had now been eliminated from it. That step was not only in accordance with the general wish of the House, but also in accordance with the principles 42 the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had laid down in regard to financial matters. The right hon. Gentleman had often told them that each generation should pay its way as it went; and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was strongly of opinion that each generation should certainly pay for its own crime and its own folly and its own deeds of military glory, which were generally a compound of crime and folly. In the words of the Secretary to the Treasury, it was much better for all of them that they should stew in their own juice. He hoped there would be no objection to his discussing the measure, as it was in reality a new Bill. The Bill was to make a grant to Lord Alcester in consideration of his eminent services. But, in his humble opinion, he had not performed services sufficiently eminent to warrant this House giving him £25,000 of the taxpayers' money. He was not going to say anything against Lord Alcester as a great Commander, gallant Admiral, and everything desirable in a British officer. He might be the bravest man that ever appeared in ancient or modern history; but then his opinion was that all Admirals and all Generals were brave. He never heard of one in this country who was not. [An hon. MEMBER: Blake!] It had always been a mystery to him what became of the inferior Admirals and Generals. Lord Alcester might not be inferior to any of the great warriors that had gone before him; but there was no evidence before the House or the country to show that he was superior in any particular way, or that he deserved this grant of public money. On the contrary, he (Sir Wilfred Lawson) went further, and said that he commenced hostilities unnecessarily when he had command of the British Fleet. The Prime Minister said, when he brought the Bill forward, that his great devotion and skill, combined with other great qualities, entitled him to their respectful gratitude. That was where he took issue with the right hon. Gentleman. There was no wonderful exhibition of valour in the bombardment of Alexandria. Lord Alcester did his duty as he was told to do it by the Goverment; he bombarded Alexandria. But he had an enormous Force, and there was no British Admiral who, with that stupendous Force, and with those 43 tremendous engines, as the Prime Minister called them, at his command, would have not-done exactly the same as he did. The Prime Minister, when he moved the first Bill, explained that one reason why Lord Alcester was to have these great rewards was because he did so well at Dulcigno. Very likely; but why did not the Prime Minister ask for the £25,000 then? Because at Dulcigno the Admiral avoided a war, while at Alexandria he got into one. If one was right the other was wrong. His theory about these wars was similar to those of the Chinese with regard to their doctors the Chinese paid their doctors when they were well and mulcted them of their fees when they were ill, and so it should be with the Generals and Admirals. They should be paid when they kept out of war, and not when they went into it. These people who went into war were failures. Governments that went into war were failures. The Liberals, who believed in peace—["Oh, oh!"]—who used to believe in peace—placed the Government in power in order to keep them out of war; and when they went into war, ho did not care how many people they killed, or how many victories they gained, they were total failures for going into war. Unless it could be made out that the war was unavoidable, instead of being rewarded with public money Lord Alcester ought to receive public censure and condemnation. The Prime Minister had said that on the strengthening of the forts at Alexandria the action of Lord Alcester depended. But that was not the ground stated by Lord Alcester, as they were all aware. Besides, the Khedive had written to Lord Granville assuring him that the works had not been continued since they were suspended by order of the Sultan. Said Pasha said that the Khedive assured the Government that no further work was being carried out at the forts. If that was the case, and all he had to go upon was placing the two guns in position, the foreign Consuls were justified in saying that the Admiral was seeking a pretext for attacking the town. They had further evidence of that in the Papers presented to the House respecting the Palmer Expedition. Professor Palmer, who had left the Admiral some days before the bombardment, wrote from the Desert— 44
Of course I know nothing of what has been done in Egypt since I left, except that Alexandria was bombarded, as the Admiral told me it would be soon.Indeed, his condemnation could be taken out of his own mouth, for he was always going about to dinners in the City, and other disreputable place. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, reputable places. He would withdraw the word "disreputable." At the Guildhall, he said—I was told in distinct terms to do nothing until measures could be taken to remove the European population. The massacre at Alexandria took place on June 11. The last vessel containing refugees was towed out of the harbour at 4 p.m. on July 10, and we attacked the forts at 7 o'clock the next morning. So that there was no lack of promptitude in obtaining redress.If this statement was correct, a more reprehensible act was never committed. In a speech in the House of Lords, Lord Granville admitted that the massacre of the 11th of June was not political, and was put down by the Egyptian troops, and he further stated that we had not demanded reparation for that massacre. If that were so, it was most reprehensible to bombard a town in order to avenge acts for which no reparation had even been asked. He asserted boldly that they had reason to believe that the riots for which Lord Alcester talked about getting redress were not caused by Arabi, or his partizans, but by the Khedive and his partizans. He made that statement boldly, and he had a precedent for doing so, because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, a little more than 12 months ago, stated in the House that he feared it was too true that Arabi was the cause of those riots at Alexandria.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWhat I said was that there was grave reason to suspect that that was the case. I distinctly stated that the matter had not been inquired into. Papers were afterwards laid before the House, and the House can draw its own conclusions.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he would show the right hon. Gentleman his own speech, which he had circulated in pamphlet form among his constituents. All he said was that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly gave the House to understand that there could be very little doubt that Arabi was the guilty party. Inquiries were made at 45 the instance of Lord Granville, and Sir Charles Rivers Wilson had stated that there was no grounds for believing in the complicity of Arabi; but, on the contrary, from the evidence adduced for the prosecution, a very good case might have been made for the defence; and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) stood up and accused the Khedive of being the guilty party, just as his right hon. Friend accused Arabi, but with this difference—that if he were proved to be wrong he would apologize to the House, which his right hon. Friend had not done. At the Royal Academy banquet, Lord Alcester said—
I wish to refute a statement which has been widely circulated. It has been said that the attack on the forts of Alexandria was in consequence of the massacre. Nothing can be more false.This was the first time he ever heard of a man publicly accusing himself of falsehood, for the statement was made on Lord Alcester's own authority. Lord Alcester might be a man of very great qualities indeed; but he did not think a man who went up and down the country making statements like these had such qualities that they ought to give him £25,000 of the public money. Already he was in receipt of something like £2,000 a-year, which was pretty good pay. But, even if Lord Alcester was the bravest man, and the greatest Admiral, and the greatest after-dinner speaker that ever lived, he would object to this grant. It was all very well to get up and say—"Oh, why do you object to these poor men geting their money; they are only the instruments of a policy? Do not visit the sins of the Government upon them." But he did not hold with that. He said they could not separate these deeds and the doers of them from the policy under which these deeds were carried out. If they glorified deeds they glorified the policy which led to those deeds, and that was the way in which it was looked at by the country at large, in spite of their hair-splitting; and he was not prepared to glorify these deeds of blood. He was delighted to hear the Prime Minister at Stafford House quote the words of Garibaldi, in which he expressed his pain and horror that it should be necessary that one portion of mankind should be set aside to have for their profession the business of destroying the other. Let 46 the Prime Minister withdraw this Bill, and do not let him come then and ask £25,000 to glorify this Profession, which was kept up for the purpose of destroying mankind. He did not want to deprive Lords Alcester and Wolseley of the tribute of affection which might be paid to them by those who approved of these warlike deeds. Let them have a penny subscription—a national subscription, headed by Tracy Turnerelli. [Laughter.] The House laughed; but he assured hon. Members that they would collect a large amount. Where was the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. G. Russell), who wrote an article last week against the Whigs, and went into the Government this week? He said—The Egyptian Campaign may, after all, do us no permanent injury, and for the moment it has done us unquestionable good. It has improved Mr. Gladstone's position with the timid and respectable, who, oddly enough, are usually the most bellicose, and it has made him for the moment popular with the London mob.The London mob who, a few years ago, used to break his windows! The converted Jingoes, now his most devoted followers! Let them have this subscription. It would pay well. They would have Archbishops subscribing to it; his hon. Friend the President of the Peace Society would subscribe to it, and all the old women. The London mob would give their pennies. That was far better than coming to the House and calling on those who objected to these proceedings to pay their quota. He should take every opportunity of opposing the Bill, or any other of a similar nature, to show his detestation of the policy which led to these proceedings. He would conclude by quoting the words of the right hon. Gentleman, delivered three years ago when he was on the Mid Lothian campaign. They were noble words. They filled him with admiration at the time, and he adhered to them now. The present Prime Minister was condemning with that noble eloquence of which he was an unrivalled master attacks upon weak and helpless nationalities, and he said—Before God and before man, we can assert, every one of us, that we have no share in these proceedings, and every man can exempt himself from any participation in acts which he regards as mischievous and ruinous, and should resolve that no trifling or secondary considerations will stand in our way in order to pursuade our countrymen to arrive at a proper estimate of a 47 policy so unhappy and so mischievous in its results.Following the example set by the Prime Minister, he now took the step of opposing this Bill, which was nothing more or less than to glorify the policy which he then so ably condemned.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that when the Bill came before the House in another form he himself voted for it, because he looked upon it not as any particular compliment to Lord Alcester, but as a tribute rendered by Parliament to the British Navy. The House would recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took part in the discussion, was quite unable to give any satisfactory explanation of Lord Alcester's speech. The statement of Lord Alcester that he bombarded Alexandria in consequence of the massacres he accepted as literally true, and as the blunt, outspoken words of an honest sailor, who was perfectly decided that, under no circumstances, should the truth be kept back from his countrymen. If those riots were the cause of the bombardment of Alexandria, and if for that bombardment the House was now asked to vote that sum, he really thought it became a serious question for them to consider whether it would be in accordance either with precedent or public policy to proceed hastily with the Bill? He acknowledged that Parliament had generally rewarded Generals and Admirals for pre-eminent services; but it took into account not only whether the services themselves were glorious, but whether the origin out of which those services arose was also glorious. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had made an accusation, not without the most ample proof, against the Khedive of being the author of these massacres. If that were 48 so, if the massacres were instigated by the Khedive's orders and carried on under his favour and toleration, and if the bombardment of Alexandria took place in consequence of those massacres, then he wanted the House to ask—"Is the origin of those services which are now under consideration so glorious as to allow the House to proceed further in this matter without more inquiry?" The Khedive, it must be recollected, was not only our ally but our puppet; he was absolutely and entirely in our hands and at our mercy. It seemed to him, then, that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government for a very long time back to escape the responsibility of any of the acts of the Khedive; and, more than that, if there was one intimate confident and friend of the Khedive during the progress of these matters it was the Consul General at Cairo, Sir Edward Malet, who, as they knew, was one of the most capable men in the Diplomatic Service, and they knew further that a capable diplomatist engaged in the East would always be aware of everything that was going on and immediately contemplated by the ruling Powers. They were thus put in a rather curious position, if those promises wore accepted. He believed it could be proved that the massacre at Alexandria was the work of the Khedive. He believed it as strongly as his hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did, and that belief rested on primiâ facie grounds in the proceedings connected with the trial of Arabi Pasha. If the proceedings against that man had been carried out to the extreme length, much of the evidence might have led them to form a widely different opinion of the merits of the proposal now before the House. He had reason to believe that when Lord Dufferin arrived at Cairo this evidence was laid before him, and he asked whether it could be proved in a Court of Law or satisfactorily to the Government? The reply was that if Lord Dufferin would give safe conduct and a pledge of British protection to any witnesses who might come forward to prove the truth of these charges such witnesses would be forthcoming; and so alarmed was Lord Dufferin at the case laid before him, so great were the names involved in this most dark intrigue, that Lord Dufferin shrank from giving that safe conduct, and declined to take the responsibility 49 upon himself. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) was not going to prejudice the case of the National Party in Egypt, of Arabi and his fellow-exiles, or of the unfortunate Suleiman Sami, now under sentence of death, by putting in what documents and evidence he possessed; but he was prepared to make—and honestly believed ho could substantiate—this charge—that the author of the massacres at Alexandria was the Khedive of Egypt, our puppet and ally. On the 3rd of June, after the arrival of Dervish Pasha, the Sultan's Envoy in Egypt, it was apparently necessary that the Khedive should be able to show a case against Arabi Pasha, and prejudice him in the eyes of the Foreign Powers, and he sent the following telegram in cypher to Omar Lufti, the Governor of Alexandria:—
Arabi has guaranteed public safety, and published it in the newspapers, and has made himself responsible for the consequences. If he succeeds in his guarantee the Powers will trust him, and our considerations will be gone. The Fleets of the Powers are in Alexandrian waters, men's minds are excited, and quarrels are not far off between Europeans and Arabs. Now, therefore, choose for yourself whether you will serve Arabi in his guarantee, or whether you will serve us.Again, some days before the riots the Khedive sent his cousin to Alexandria, receiving him secretly each time before and after his return, and on the day of the riots his cousin and his confident were in the city. On the 9th of June, two days before the riots, and six days after the telegram to which he had referred, the Khedive, after consultation with Dervish Pacha, sent for Omar Lufti by special train, and after conferring with him at great length sent him back to Alexandria on the same day. Moreover, he sent for Ahmed Khandeel, the Prefect of Police, and sounded him as to whether he would be instrumental in instigating the riots in Alexandria. As the House was aware, Ahmed Khandeel had been tried on a charge of being concerned in the riot, but no one had been allowed to go near him; whereas Omar Lufti, who was Governor of Alexandria during the riots, had been rewarded for his distinguished services at that time—Omar Lufti, under whom alone the whole police of Alexandria was placed. There were other facts all tending in the same direction and constituting a long chain of circumstan- 50 tial evidence connecting the Khedive, as it appeared to him, directly with the massacre of his own subjects at Alexandria. He did not think the Prime Minister was inclined to treat this matter lightly. On the contrary, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined, for the credit of his own Government and from his own sense of justice—such a charge having been made on both sides of the House, and an assurance having been given that the charge could be substantiated before a proper tribunal—to direct a Parliamentary Inquiry to be made into the subject, or an inquiry conducted by Englishmen in order to see whether the charge was false or well-founded. In his opinion, after the statements that had been made on both sides of the House, it was absolutely necessary that some such inquiry should take place. He was bound to say himself, holding the opinions he did with respect to these riots, and this bombardment of Alexandria, he did not at all see his way towards contributing to giving the sanction of Parliament—for the matter involved no personal question about Lord Alcester—to a military act the origin of which, instead of being glorious, was simply disgraceful. Under these circumstances, and voting only for the purpose of delay until these matters were cleared up, he could not oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet.
§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, he thought they had come there to discuss the Vote to Lord Alcester; but it appeared they had been brought together to make an attack on the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for Carlisle had stated that Lord Alcester received a large sum already from the country. He received £1,000 a-year as a Lord of the Admiralty, for which he performed the duties attached to that office, and the half-pay of his rank—the same as all other naval officers In former times these occasions were considered gala days, and in discussing Votes of this kind the House never interfered with the political question, but confined itself to the approval of the services of the officers; but he was bound to say that an unfortunate precedent had been afforded for the course now taken by the proceedings with reference to the grant to that gallant officer, Sir Frederick Roberts, who had been very shabbily treated. This was, 51 in his humble opinion, a most painful exhibition, as everyone must have known that Lord Alcester positively declined the Peerage, and it was absolutely forced upon him—
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONI never alluded to the Peerage.
§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, but he was alluding to it. When, three centuries ago, Shakespeare wrote the play of the Merchant of Venice, he little thought his imaginary character of Shylock would become a reality; and they had the pound-of-flesh principle in full play in 1883. He believed the great Napoleon was correct when he said this was a nation of shopkeepers, for hero an actuary had been called in to assess the rewards to be given to men for upholding the honour of their countrymen who had carried their lives in their hands over and over again. This was nothing but a miserable mercantile transaction. Lord Alcester was to receive £5,000 less than Lord Wolseley, not because his services were less distinguished, but because he happened to have been born a few years before the other. The House would remember the testimony the Prime Minister bore on a former occasion to Lord Alcester's services, not only before Alexandria, but throughout his Mediterranean command; and he therefore hoped that the House would insist on the same reward being given to him as to Lord Wolseley. He did hope that the House would insist on rewarding both officers equally for the distinguished services they had rendered.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, ho agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire, that the discussion was not as to the policy of the war in Egypt, but as to the desirability or undesirability of rewarding the Commanders. The statements that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had submitted to the House were highly important. They deserved the grave consideration of the Government and of the country. With some of his comments ho entirely sympathized; but he must confess that he did not see the relevancy of his remarks to the matter then under debate. The question he had raised would have to be discussed. To raise it in that way and upon a side issue was inconvenient to all parties. The few observations he intended to 52 make be should endeavour to confine to the Bill under consideration. It was difficult for him to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle in a debate concerning the exercise of Military and Naval powers. They started from different premises, and necessarily arrived at opposite conclusions. From the drift of his speech that day, and from many other deliverances he had made in the House and elsewhere, it was known to all that his hon. Friend would not, under any circumstances, resort to war. He would allow the marauders of the world to pursue their career of crime and conquest unchecked. Rather than run the risk of a war, he would have them retreat from India, abandon their Colonies, disband their Army, and make England a focus of materialism and trade. Driven to its logical conclusion, this doctrine was the deification of comfort rather than duty. It was simple, but it was selfish. It certainly could not be called elevating, and might be described as cowardly. He (Mr. Cowen) held an entirely different faith. He believed England, as a nation, had a duty to perform, from which it was impossible to divorce herself—not only to her own people, but to the great family of nations of which she was one. War was a dreadful thing; but there were calamities even greater than that. There were times when it was not only desirable but necessary that an appeal should be made to it, both in the interests of freedom and of justice. He would not say the Egyptian War was a case in point. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: Hear, hear!] With respect to the policy which led to that campaign, he was more or less in accord with his hon. Friend. But that was not the point they had met to consider. They were not responsible for the war. The English people were. If ever there was a popular campaign, that in Egypt certainly was one. It was opposed by a handful of persons, and those persons were as insignificant in numbers as in influence. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle were amongst them. But the people having gone into the war, and done so with their eyes open, they should pay for it. They had got the glory, and they should pay for the gunpowder. They had it on high authority that the labourer was worthy of his hire. Lord Alcester was a national 53 labourer. They had hired him to do a certain work. He had done it well, and they should recompense him. Lord Alcester was not responsible for the course of events, or for the line of policy that led up to the war. It was a most undesirable thing, both for the National Service and for the nation at large, to act unfairly and ungenerously with Commanders who had successfully carried out the popular desire under trying circumstances. It was especially undesirable for that to be done under cover of public sanction. His hon. Friend had said he was a Liberal. He (Mr. Cowen) held Democratic principles, and he was prepared to maintain their justice and wisdom. But he could not shut his eyes to the fact that Democracies had their vices as well as their virtues. Democracies were sometimes personal and mean. The opposition to this grant he regarded as personal. He did not know Lord Alcester; but he knew that he had laboured long and ably and faithfully for the State. He had grown grey in the country's service, and age and service ought to earn for any man consideration and regard. An old official ought to have special consideration when he was absent. Lord Alcester was absent. It was impossible for him to reply to charges that were made against him, or to comments that were offered on his conduct. That fact ought to restrain his critics. To import personal bitterness into such a discussion would be most injurious, and he could not help thinking that some of the remarks that had been made bore that character. Democracies, he said, were sometimes mean. They paid their servants inadequately, and higgled over trifles. That had been the case from the earliest to the present time. There were instances of it in Greece, and they had an instance of it in the most successful of modern Democratic experiments. In America—where there was the most powerful Democracy in the world—there was anything but liberality shown in the payment of public men. ["Question!"] Surely the hon. Gentlemen who cried "Question!" had a very extraordinary conception of the rules of discussion. It was impossible to suggest anything more pertinent than the observations he had made to the subject under debate. He was contending that Democracies did not treat their servants as generously as they 54 might do; and he was illustrating his point by reference to the Democratic Government of the United States, and he would continue his observations. The inadequate remuneration that the officials in America got led them into corrupt practices. The political corruption of the Republic was eating into its very vitals. ["No, no"] The hon. Gentleman who cried "No, no!" was contesting a statement the historical accuracy of which every man acquainted with current politics must concede. He would cite an instance to illustrate his point. A gentleman in America—who had served his political Party and had been engaged in the War—failed to get an appointment that he competed for. This was looked upon as a loss to him. The loss was made up by his brother getting a contract for soldiers' gravestones. In other words, instead of paying the man straight and openly for the work he had done, they paid him in a left-handed manner by allowing a relative to get a contract at prices far beyond the value of the article supplied. The course they pursued in this country was vastly superior. The Government proposed, as in this instance, that a Commander should be rewarded for his services by a grant of public money, made in the most open manner. They did not propose to give either Lord Alcester or his relatives a beneficial contract for naval stores. With all the drawbacks of the English Service, with all their national sins of omission and commission—which he never hesitated to condemn when occasion seemed to require it—he confessed he was proud of the character of their Public Service and the absence from it of all petty corruption. He hoped they would long continue in dealing with their officials to observe an impersonal and generous treatment. Attempts had been made to disparage the Naval and Military operations in Egypt. He was not there to contend that the seven weeks' campaign that closed at Tel-el-Kebir could be compared with the seven weeks' war that closed at Solferino, or the six weeks' war that closed at Sadowa. The forces employed, and the skill displayed in these two great military encounters was vastly superior to that displayed in Egypt. Everyone must admit that. But, still, the Egyptian enterprize had special features of its own which deserved com- 55 mendation. The incessant desire on the part of Englishmen to disparage their own country and their own Army was not a wholesome state of feeling. Let them just look at the facts. The scone of our operations was 3,000 miles away. We concentrated on that spot 400,000 tons of war material; 44,000 or 45,000 men—combatants and non-combatants—and 18,000 animals. It took 200 ships to transport them. They were taken there, and the campaign was fought in 48 days from the time the money was granted. And in a month afterwards a largo proportion of the men were back to England. He would undertake to say that no country in the world could have done that save England. Let them compare it with what other nations had done, and that recently. Austria and France were a great Military Powers, and they had both been engaged in military operations akin to ours in Egypt. The Austrians occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina. They had not to convey their troops 3,000 miles, as we had to do, but they had simply to march them across an undefined border. Yet before the Austrian Commander could hoist the standard of the Hapsburghs upon the fortress of Serajevo he had lost 5,000 men, and spent twice as much money as we had done in Egypt. Take the case of France and Tunis. The French ports wers not one-third the distance from Tunis that Alexandria was from the English Channel. The Tunisian people were of the same race and religion as the Egyptians, and the conditions of the two campaigns were very similar. And yet the French had occupied more than double the time, and spent more than double the money, in their Tunisian adventure than we had done in Egypt. It was quite possible for the stoutest opponent of the war in Egypt to recognize these facts. It was also possible for the most persistent advocate of peace to appreciate the military prowess and skill requisite for the conveyance of this fighting material to the spot required. That was all that he did. He objected to the Ministerial proposal when it first appeared before the House, because it perpetuated the objectionable system of pensions. The Government, in deference to the wish of Parliament—and he believed also the wish of the country—bad altered their mode of remunerating the Commanders, and, instead of granting 56 them a pension, had resolved to give them a round sum. With that change of procedure he entirely agreed, and as he had opposed the pensions, he would support the grant. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen, as the money was ultimately sure to be awarded, to vote it generously and cheerfully. If they wrangled over it, the gift would be shorn of one-half of its value.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had often had the advantage of hearing his hon. Friend (Mr. Cowen) address the House on questions of public importance; but he had never been able to understand his position on the foreign policy of this Empire. Although he had always felt the influence of the hon. Gentleman's oratory, he could not reconcile the doctrine which ho had propounded in reference to the foreign policy of this House and this country with the sentiments which he knew him to entertain on the question of nationalities. He should be very sorry to think that his hon. Friend, who expressed so much of the popular opinion in the North of England on other questions, represented any large body in the sentiments ho had just expressed. His hon. Friend promised, in the early part of his speech, to address himself to the Question before the House; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) naturally expected that he would give some sketch of the share which Lord Alcester had either in promoting the Egyptian War or in initiating those hostile proceedings which had led to the war. But the hon. Gentleman had spoken entirely of the military part of the Expedition. That would have been very well if they were now discussing the grant to Lord Wolseley; but even in that case it would have been very difficult for the hon. Gentleman to have proved that success, in a military capacity, was always a test of merit. Undoubtedly, as the hon. Member had said, England owed great duties to the world. She had voluntarily assumed immense responsibility; but he asked his hon. Friend, could he point to the late Expedition to Egypt as an incident in the history of this Empire by which England had set any high example to the world? What principle of liberty, what principle of honour, what principle of International Law had been established by that Expedition? If his hon. Friend could tell him that, then he 57 might begin to feel with his hon. Friend that England performed some great duty to the world when it sanctioned the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria and sent its soldiers to carry desolation over the fair and fertile land of Egypt. The hon. Member argued, indeed, that the naval forces and soldiers were not responsible for the war, but that it was a war of the English people. He denied that entirely. No one had watched the proceedings of the House in foreign affairs more closely than his hon. Friend; and he knew very well—indeed, it had been a matter of complaint over and over again—that the Members of that House were not supplied with the requisite information on foreign affairs; and when the interests of the country were at stake an appeal was made to their patriotism to prevent their pressing for it, and, consequently, nothing was known until the Government were embarked in hostilities in which they had been involved by their Representatives abroad. As one who had given some attention to the history of the great Democracy of the United States, he would take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the view represented by him of that mighty people. The hon. Gentleman said the chief cause of political corruption in the United States was that its public servants were very poorly rewarded. He denied that statement as a matter of fact. It was true that half-a-dozen heads of a Department might not be paid as well as corresponding public servants in England. But they should take the Public Service as a whole, and, viewed in that way, he asserted there was no Government who rewarded its public servants so handsomely as the United States Government. He hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle would press his Amendment, because he believed Lord Alcester was largely responsible for the Egyptian War. They had had different accounts of the origin of that war, not only from Members of the Government, but also from Lord Alcester himself. At the Mansion House he stated the reason for it to have been the massacre of British subjects. Afterwards he qualified that statement, and based it on the ground that the Fleet was in danger. He thought the House had the means of forming an opinion upon the value of those excuses, and he defied any hon. Member to go through the documents, 58 and afterwards to say that the British Fleet was ever in danger. If all the old metal in Alexandria had been melted down and cast into guns, and placed in position against the Fleet, it would not even then be true to say that the British Fleet would have been in any appreciable danger. Besides, the forts did not go to the Fleet, the Fleet went to the forts; and, therefore, the Fleet might at any time have placed itself out of danger by a modest retirement. The spirit which actuated Lord Alcester ought not to be encouraged. He did not allege that of set purpose and malice aforethought Lord Alcester provoked war; but the spirit which actuated men like him was not favourable to peace. He never received a greater shock to all his notions of political honour and political consistency than he did when it came to his knowledge that the Government were contemplating this war; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whose eloquence in the last Parliament he hung upon, and whose invocations of the spirit of liberty wore sufficient almost to animate a stone, rose in his place to justify the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria, he felt then that the time had gone by for expecting the adhesion of politicians in this country to their principles if they were transferred from the cool shades of Opposition to what, he was sorry to say, was sometimes found to be, not only the warm, but the demoralizing precincts of the Treasury Bench. Arabi Pasha was held up by the right hon. Gentleman as the great disturber of the peace in Egypt; yet one of the most eminent public servants of this country in Egypt had written to a distinguished public man in London, who was well known to many men in the House, saying—"I believe Arabi was a patriot from beginning to end." What became, then, of the justification taken for commencing the war? Because Arabi Pasha was threatening the peace of Egypt. He was a patriot in this sense—that he was impatient of foreign control over the affairs of his own country; and, unless for the purpose of enabling some reckless speculators in this country to obtain their money, he was at a loss to see in whose interest the war was undertaken. The people of England had no concern in that war. Gracious Heavens! Did they forget the promises they had made at 59 the last General Election? Were they true to the principles they then avowed upon the hustings, or had they turned their back upon those principles and adopted the principles of their political opponents, which they were never tired of denouncing? So far as he was concerned, he would not compromise the opinions he had always held on questions of this kind; for he did not believe that England was performing any great duty to the world by setting an example of grave violation of International Law and public principle by invading a peaceful and independent country. If the hon. Member for Newcastle wished for an illustration of the way in which the honour of England was maintained and increased, ho would point to the action of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), who concluded the Geneva Convention, and to the settlement of the "Alabama" Claims. These acts had done more to set a high example to the world than any efforts of soldiers and sailors to place a yoke upon the necks of nations intended by God to be as free as themselves.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEBefore the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister rises I wish to say a few words, and I do so for this reason —that I wish to express my extreme regret at the course which has been taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) on the present occasion. I think by the course which they have taken we have been placed in a thoroughly false position. They have raised a question, the importance of which I do not deny, in a manner in which it cannot be properly solved, and the solution of which, when it arrives, will be a false and delusive solution. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North) that at present we have nothing to do with the policy of the Egyptian War, because that question is not properly raised by the vote we are asked to give. So far as the policy of that war is concerned, I have, on more than one occasion, both in and out of the House, expressed my dissatisfaction with regard to the commencement and termination of that war, and the policy which led to it. I have maintained, and I hope at the proper time to be prepared again 60 to maintain, that the war was unnecessary, and therefore was not strictly justifiable. That is a question which the House has had before it even in the present Session, and, by a majority on an important occasion in the debate on the Address to the Crown, a vote was given antagonistic to the views which I have held, and which others have held with me. But if we are asked to accept the vote on the present occasion as a vote—"aye" or "no"—upon the policy of the Egyptian War, I say that you are placing those who object to the Egyptian War in a false and improper position. If I vote, as I intend to vote, in support of this reward to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley, am I, therefore, to be accused of approving a contest which I have repeatedly said I disapproved? No; I think that is altogether a false position for us to be placed in. And I say also, with regard to the question which is now raised, that it is one which the House has, to a great extent, precluded itself from dealing with by the action already taken. In October last we passed Votes of Thanks to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, as he then was, and Sir Garnet Wolseley, one of which was carried nemine contradicente, and the other with only a very trifling minority against it, and we declared that, so far as those gallant officers were concerned, they, at all events, had done their duty, and had done it well, and in a manner which deserved the thanks of the House. That was a decision to which the House came, irrespective of the policy of the Egyptian War; and I think it would be placing ourselves in an altogether false position, and would seem to imply a shabby feeling on the part of this House, if, now that we are asked to follow up those Votes of Thanks with an acknowledgment of a substantial character, we were to say that we decline to do so on the ground that we do not approve of the war in which those gentlemen were engaged. If that was your feeling you ought to have refused the Vote of Thanks in October last. You have altogether missed the opportunity which was offered to you. I find some fault that the Government have not taken an earlier opportunity, when this matter was before us in October, for having completed that which they propose. That was the proper time, it seems to me, for that question to have been brought forward; and 61 I think that the long interval which they have allowed to elapse, involving, as it necessarily does, a great deal of further light upon Egyptian matters which we had not before us at the time, has not unnaturally led to a great deal of discussion now. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: Hear!] The hon. Baronet cheers that remarks. If he means to say that we ought to raise the question of the policy of the Government, either past or recent, I think he has a right to raise that question, but not on the present occasion, when you have to decide whether you will or will not pay that tribute to your soldiers and your sailors which it has been the practice of Parliament in former times to pay, and which I think, in the present instance, you have pledged yourself to do by the Votes which you passed in October, and by the recognition of the services of those gallant officers which you have already made. Sir, I decline altogether to be led into a discussion of all those topics which have been brought forward by the hon. Baronet and by the noble Lord. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] I decline to be led by the noble Lord, and I trust that the House will decline to be induced by the noble Lord, to accept a position which I consider would be degrading to its honour.
MR. GLADSTONEIt is due, I think, to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I should reply to the criticism which he has made upon the conduct of the Goverment in respect of their not having submitted to the House legislation for the purpose of rewarding Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley at the same time when we moved the Votes of Thanks to those gallant officers. I do not deny that there is something to be said on behalf of that criticism. I can only say that we should certainly have done it had we been engaged in the ordinary Business of the Session. But we had met under circumstances the most peculiar, and I own I had obtained an engagement from the House that Business, with the exception of Procedure, should be excluded. We felt that the Votes of Thanks might fairly be treated as an exception, and we did not think we could ask the House to undertake legislation, even for the purpose of giving this reward. Whether we are right or not I admit to be open to discussion; but I think it will be plain that 62 there was some ground, at all events, for inducing us to take the course which, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, has not been convenient in its results. I thank the right hon. Baronet, not for having vindicated—as he was entitled to do—his own position, and shown how very false a position he was placed in in relation to the war by having the policy of the war mixed up in this debate, but for having called the attention of the House to the enormously wide field over which this debate threatens to travel. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) vindicated himself in what I think a very able speech, with a feeling extremely considerate, which, in my opinion, ought to lie at the root of the whole of this discussion, towards the distinguished gentlemen who are the subjects of these Bills. I say nothing can be more hard or more cruel to them than that Bills, for the purpose of expresssing the sense the House entertains, and has expressed by the Votes of Thanks to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley, should be laden with discussions upon every kind of statement, some true, but irrelevant, some of them without the slightest shadow of evidence to support them, and that, upon the whole, the country should understand that these grants for their services, instead of being free, willing, eager recognitions of most honourable exertions on behalf of the country, are matters debated and contested among us with those differences of opinion which go far to destroy the grace of the acknowledgment. But do not let me be misunderstood when I undertake respectfully to say that if Lord Alcester lose and Lord Wolseley lose by this indefinite extension of the field of discussion, and by this introduction of topics wholly irrelevant and disconnected with the merits of the question before us—if those distinguished gentlemen are losers, the House is a greater loser by allowing the discussion so to wander from its aim, and by the failure which it shows in that discriminating power so necessary to a deliberative Assembly, which severs between the topics that are relevant to the questions raised for settlement before it, and the topics which are irrelevant. I do hope I may assume that we have substantially arrived at the close of these portions of the discussion; and on that account, lest I should seem to give colour or handle for 63 renewing it, I will pass over some of the most astounding assertions that I have ever hoard in this House, which were to be found in the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), and I will not undertake to reply to thorn from the demoralizing precincts of the Treasury Bench, which he has described to us. But there are two matters upon which it is right I should say a word. One of them constituted the substance of the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), entirely, as it appeared to mo, irrelevant to the issue now before the House, but still of a character which it would be impossible for the Government not to notice. The noble Lord contrived, by a process apparently satisfactory to himself, to connect a statement which he made as to the complicity of the Khedive in the massacre of Alex-andria—
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI did not say "the complicity"—I said "the authorship of the Khedive."
MR. GLADSTONEI called it complicity, but I will not dispute it—the authorship of the Khedive of these massacres. The noble Lord contrived to connect the authorship of the Khedive of the massacres of Alexandria with the refusal to Lord Alcester of the reward due, as we think, to his services. How did the noble Lord establish that connection? I will speak of the Khedive in a moment; but I am now going to say a word about another gentleman, who, in the Civil Service, has rendered admirable service to his country—I mean Sir Edward Malet The noble Lord said the Khedive was a puppet of the English Government, and that he was in the most intimate connection and communication with Sir Edward Malet. No man who reads the speech of the noble Lord will fail to see that not by direct assertion, but by innuendo, it establishes—or affects to establish—a connection between Sir Edward Mulct and the massacres of Alexandria — a statement, I have no doubt, astonishing to the House, if, indeed, we are to believe that the noble Lord allows to dwell in his mind for one instant the belief or suspicion of the remotest possibility of connection between Her Majesty's Diplomatic Representative and honoured servant and the massacres in Alexandria.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI did not say anything of the kind.
MR. GLADSTONEWell, Sir, I am very glad the noble Lord never said it, and I hope he never thought it; but ho was most unfortunate in the introduction of the name of Sir Edward Malet in connection with that part of the discussion. However, the noble Lord in a manner disavows it. The thing is confuted, I must say, by its own absurdity. But, independently of that, it was the duty of the Government not to allow such an insinuation as that to pass in silence. Now, Sir, with respect to Lord Dufferin's proceedings and to Lord Dufferin's policy, and the presumption that grew out of them, I have had an opportunity of consulting Lord Dufferin, even since the speech of the noble Lord. It is not for me to assert negatives against broad statements confidently made; but, so far as Lord Dufferin's recollection and knowledge go, he entirely declines to recognize any jot or tittle of the statements of the noble Lord as entitled in the slightest degree to credence. Of course, the noble Lord will not understand me that I am ascribing to him falsification of statements. Nothing of the kind. But the statements the noble Lord gave us, on the assurance of others, are, in the opinion of Lord Dufferin, wholly without foundation.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLWhich statements?
MR. GLADSTONEThe statements in which the name and proceedings of Lord Dufferin were involved. Now we come to the question of the Khedive; and here I have to say that what the noble Lord has asserted is entirely at variance with all the evidence and all knowledge and information in the possession of the Government. It is, I think, a cruel blow to a Ruler in circumstances of difficulty. It is not so common in the East to find Sovereigns who, renouncing the methods of violence and oppression, endeavour to govern their country with humanity, benevolence, and good faith, as to make it a matter of indifference to us when we see such men, as we think, so needlessly and so cruelly aspersed. This, Sir, is a tremendous charge that has been made by the noble Lord. It is not for me to say that the charge is false, is untrue; while I state distinctly that it is in contradiction with all the knowledge we possess, and with the fervent conviction which we entertain. Loss than that I cannot say, in 65 justice and in decency, as respects the present Ruler in Egypt; but this it is my duty to say, on the other hand. The noble Lord has undertaken the great responsibility of bringing these accusations not to the Government, whose duty it would have been at once to make them the subject of the very best inquiry they could—
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI beg the Prime Minister's pardon. I stated before Whitsuntide very much what I have now stated, and the Government ought to have made inquiry then.
MR. GLADSTONEThe speech before Whitsuntide! But I must say that I recognized nothing in the speech upon which we could make inquiry.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI said the same thing then as I have said to-day.
MR. GLADSTONEYes, the same allegation; but in terms so wide, so vague, so destitute of verifying points on which it might have been tested, and of which the untruth might have been shown, that it was utterly impossible for any Government in its senses to take any proceedings upon it. Yes, Sir; because there is nothing so easy as to make the wildest and most extravagant allegations, provided you make them in a form sufficiently general and free from particulars that it is hardly possible for them to be confuted. The noble Lord has given us citations of what purported to be telegrams. Into the truth or falsehood of things we can inquire. They have been stated here by a Member of this House, and that makes it our duty to inquire into them.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONI stated them also.
MR. GLADSTONEThe statement of my hon. Friend was exactly the same as that made before Whitsuntide by the noble Lord—perfectly valueless—a kind of accusation which, if I were to make against him, or he to make against me, it would be totally impossible, from its vague, shadowy character, to verify.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONI do not remember saying anything about Sir Edward Malet.
MR. GLADSTONENo, no; the statement of my hon. Friend after Whitsuntide I am endeavouring to compare with the statement of the noble Lord before Whitsuntide. Therefore, the noble Lord 66 will be good enough not to depend on newspaper reports, but to place before us those matters of fact which can be stated as matters of fact.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI could not think of placing the details of a case on which might hang tremendous issues in the hands of the Government, unless they give me a guarantee before Parliament that they will enable the witness to be brought to this country, and be examined by a tribunal which I would cheerfully leave in the hands of the Government to appoint, in order that the public may judge the truth of their allegations.
MR. GLADSTONEThe noble Lord must know that it is perfectly impossible for me, in the present state of the matter, to go beyond acknowledging the duty of the Government to examine any definite matters of charge which he may think proper to place in our hands.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLYou have other means in your power.
MR. GLADSTONEIf he thinks fit to do that, we shall make the best examination in our power; and if he is not satisfied with the method of examination, it will be in his power, and in his right and his duty, to arraign our conduct. I am bound to admit that, on one point, there was a flicker of relevancy in the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle, and it was very nearly the only point with the slightest approach to relevancy that I have heard to-day, in objection to the present Bill. It was a statement which he ascribed to Lord Alcester, that the bombardment of Alexandria had been a punishment exacted for the massacres of the 11th of June. My hon. Friend said Lord Alcester is a great diner out, and that in dining out Lord Alcester declared that he had bombarded Alexandria to avenge these massacres. Lord Alcester, on a subsequent day, declared that ho had not; and my hon. Friend treats these two contradictory statements as both made by Lord Alcester, and coolly argues upon them against the present grant. What Lord Alcester did was this. In a speech made at the dinner of the Royal Academy, of the authenticity of the report of which, I believe, there is no doubt, ho referred to a rumour which he said, to his astonishment, had gone abroad, ascribing to him the statement that the bombardment of Alexandria was a punishment or revenge for 67 the massacres of the 11th of June. He indignantly disclaimed that statement in the speech quoted by my hon. Friend. But that declaration of Lord Alcester cannot be taken in any sense but one. It was a disavowal, and an indignant disavowal, of the statement which had been previously imputed to him.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONA disavowal of his own statement.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONNo.
MR. GIADSTONENo; because such a construction is put upon certain unauthorized words—[Mr. BIGGAR: Not unauthorized.]—ascribed in the accident of a newspaper report to Lord Alcester, therefore my hon. Friend, without making any inquiry, and without ascertaining whether the report is acknowledged by Lord Alcester, when he finds a distinct and absolute repudiation of the substance of the report in a speech delivered shortly afterwards, instead of giving Lord Alcester credit for that which, as a rational man, he is entitled to claim from every candid person—namely, that his disavowal was a true disavowal, my hon. Friend charges upon him these two contradictory statements. I admit that if Lord Alcester had bombarded Alexandria in revenge for the massacres, he would be open to the censure of my hon. Friend; but while these charges have been applicable in other times and other circumstances—sometimes, perhaps, to our Commanders, but more frequently, I am afraid, to some of our Civilian Representatives abroad—as regards Lord Alcester, I say, on the faith and the credit of the Government, there is riot one grain, one shadow, one tittle of ground, for any of these imputations. The responsibility of adopting warlike operations was entirely the responsibility of the Government; and we have to thank Lord Alcester for having kept us so well informed from day to day with information so thoroughly trustworthy, accurate, and relevant, that we were able, under the difficulties of that period—and they were not slight—confidently to form our decisions on what the honour of the country required. Lord Alcester was no more than the intelligent Minister of the Government, for the purpose of supplying them with information, and the able instrument of giving effect to a 68 policy which, I believe, Parliament and the nation, as well as the Government, approved. Setting aside that statement injuriously applied to Lord Alcester, the only possible ground of relevant objection to this Bill, I hope we shall consent to make an effectual severance between the responsibility of the Government for the conception and inception of these measures, and the admirable skill, courage, and intelligence with which effect was given to that policy through the medium of Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley.
MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that the statement detrimental to his noble Friend made by the Leader of the Opposition would have been more properly made by the Prime Minister. Whatever might be the character of the Parliamentary conduct of his noble Friend, it would be better if the Leader of the Party, of which he was so distinguished an ornament, would leave it to the opponents of the noble Lord to question an error, rather than do so himself. The right hon. Gentleman did his utmost to encourage the Government to pass over in silence the allegations and accusations of the noble Lord; and if the Prime Minister had followed the lead of the Leader of the Opposition he might have refused to take any notice of the noble Lord's remarks. He (Mr. Gorst) did not pretend that the important accusation made by his noble Friend was strictly relevant to the matter before the House; but no one know better than the right bon. Member for North Devon that Members in Opposition—particularly if they sat below the Gangway—must seize upon every opportunity they could get of bringing any important matter before the House; and it was not easy, when they felt that their duty towards their constituencies and their country required it, to do so, for it was very little assistance they obtained from the Front Opposition Bench. The statements of the noble Lord had been treated in a very different manner by the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Gorst), for one, had been so struck with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, that he intended to vote for going into Committee on the Bill, though he was deeply impressed by the statements of the noble Lord. He might observe that Lord Dufferin did not venture to say that he did not reject the evidence in the manner described by 69 the noble Lord. Lord Dufferin only said that—
So far as he could recollect, no such event took place; but he would not venture to say that there were not serious matters brought under consideration, so serious that he declined to go further into them.But, whatever might be said of the position of the Khedive before the war, he was, at the present moment, absolutely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. His rule over Egypt, whether it was of the kind that had been described, or whether it was misrule, was kept up entirely by British bayonets. Her Majesty's Government were considered by the whole world as responsible for the character of the Khedive's rule; and, therefore, if they really wished to inquire into the conduct of the Khedive they could do so; and, moreover, they ought to do so, because they had no right to spend the resources and arms of this country in keeping up a Government, if that Government was a discreditable and disgraceful one. The noble Lord vouched for the authenticity of the evidence he had brought forward.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLNo, no!
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that, perhaps, his hon. and learned Friend would allow him to correct him. What he had said was, that he firmly believed, and others firmly believed, that they would be able to prove before any tribunal the absolute authenticity of that telegram. [Laughter.]
MR. GORSTsaid, he was very glad to be put right. He did not know that it was a matter to be laughed at; and if hon. Members would follow the example set them by the Prime Minister in treating the subject in a serious manner, it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman and for his Party. The telegrams undoubtedly deserved investigation, and it was in the power of the Government to investigate their authenticity. The Government was a party to stopping the trial of Arabi; and there was a consensus of opinion in all parts of the civilized world that the trial of Arabi had been stopped from a fear that circumstances would come out which would implicate the Khedive. Lightly as the matter might be treated by the right hon. Member for North Devon 70 (Sir Stafford Northcote), it would not be so lightly treated by Her Majesty's Government; and when a statement was made with authority in that House, it must be investigated by a tribunal in which the country had confidence.
§ MR. RYLANDSreminded the House that when the question was before it on a former occasion he quoted the very words of a speech delivered by Lord Alcester, and fully reported in The Army and Navy Gazette and other newspapers, in which the noble Lord said he had bombarded the forts of Alexandria for the purpose of punishing the Egyptians for the massacre of the 11th of June; for, after stating that the last vessel was towed out of the harbour on the 10th of July, and that the batteries opened at 7 o'clock the following morning, he went on to say—
Therefore, there was no lack of promptitude to redress grievances.Those words were subsequently quoted in that House, yet Lord Alcester never made a sign or uttered a single word repudiating them; but, at the Royal Academy dinner, he stated that—It had been said he opened fire on the forts of Alexandria on account of the massacre. That was false.Nobody, however, but Lord Alcester himself said that. If, having made the original statement in an after-dinner speech, he had afterwards said he did not mean to say anything of the kind, that would have been intelligible. The whole affair was most unsatisfactory; and while the case stood thus as regarded Lord Alcester, he thought it preposterous to ask the House to vote this large sum.
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he thought it necessary to make some observations on what had been stated by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) with regard to Lord Alcester. The hon. Member had said that Lord Alcester, after having delivered a speech which made a certain erroneous impression on the public mind, had allowed weeks to pass without a correction. His hon. Friend was in the House on the former occasion when the matter was discussed. During that debate, first of all his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Childers) stated that the meaning placed on Lord Alcester's speech was not the meaning ho intended to convey; 71 and afterwards he himself stated that he had Lord Alcester's authority for saying—he having spoken to the noble Lord upon the subject—that he had no intention whatever of conveying an impression that the action on the 11th of July was in any degree due to a desire to take vengeance for the massacre.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThen, what did ho mean?
§ MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMANWhat Lord Alcester meant was another question. He was anxious to make these remarks in reply, especially, to the attack made by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley upon Lord Alcester, on the ground that, although an erroneous impression had got abroad as to the meaning of his speech, he took no steps to contradict it. He desired, therefore, to say that, a few days after that speech, he himself got up, by Lord Alcester's desire, to make the contradiction at the Table of the House.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) had drawn attention to the mean and paltry distinction—those were his expressions—which the Government had made in this matter. In that view he (Mr. Hicks) cordially agreed; and, in his opinion also, the distinction was unworthy the country and the House. He believed it was not in the province of an independent Member to move an increase to a grant; and he certainly, for one, should be very sorry to be a party to moving a reduction, lest, by any chance, his motives might be misconstrued. However, he hoped that before the Bill finally passed the Government would relieve it of this objection, and would not call upon independent Members to vote for that with which they could not cordially agree.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHwished to say a few words in support of the vote he should give in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. He thought the Prime Minister was entitled to complain that the debate had travelled unnecessarily wide, and that irrelevant topics had been introduced into it. The proposition of the Prime Minister was a perfectly fair one—that where Military or Naval Commanders acted purely as administrative instruments in the hands of a Government, the whole responsibility and blame 72 of their action, if there was any blame, must rest with that Government whose blind instruments they were. But he had never been satisfied in his own mind that there was not a certain amount of discretion left with Lord Alcester by the Government in the position he held at Alexandria. Was the gallant Admiral not permitted to determine whether the menaces, the arming of the forts, and other movements might or might not be regarded as sufficient to justify him in firing on the forts, and thus bringing England into collision with Egypt? It was his belief that if the matter had been left in the hands of the Members of the Government in Downing Street there would have been no war; and he ventured to think that the Government itself found matters precipitated at the last moment. He did not deny that the position of the gallant Admiral was one of difficulty; but he could not hold him free from blame, for he believed Lord Alcester was precipitant. If the gallant Admiral had exercised the forbearance on this occasion that he did at a former period before Dulcigno, the result might have been more satisfactory, and he could have well done this with the overwhelming force he had at his command. The Prime Minister, no doubt, reckoned that the debate would be confined to narrow limits, and surprise had been manifested on both sides of the House that it had been so lengthy and wide. But he rejoiced at this fact, because it would indicate to those in authority that there was a growing difference of opinion among Members and in the country as to the glory of those military enter prizes. To make Generals and Admirals Peers of the Realm in this way, to grant them large rewards for successful deeds of bloodshed, was really to offer serious temptations to them; and for those reasons he felt bound to support his hon. Friend.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was certainly rather remarkable that the Prime Minister should say that he could not undertake, on the part of the Government, to demand an inquiry into the truth of the serious allegations made by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) before Whitsuntide—allegations which affected the credit, not only of the Ruler of Egypt, 73 but of the English Government that upheld him—as to the part taken by him in the massacre at Alexandria, until they had first inquired into these matters. In that case he was entitled to suppose that no such steps had as yet been taken. But what had been happening in the meantime—what was happening at that moment? What guarantee had the Government that the Egyptian Government would not be murdering the witnesses? Indeed, so far as he could perceive, they were doing so. [Cries of "Divide!"] He wished to remind the House that, at that moment, an Egyptian officer was under sentence of death, who had based his defence on the ground that he was acting under superior orders; but every opportunity of bringing forward evidence of those orders was refused him. In the same manner, every person who had been engaged against the nominal Ruler of Egypt, and who brought forward inconvenient evidence or allegations, might be disposed of in a similar fashion by the gibbet, or by a sentence to hard labour, which was equivalent to death, unless the Government of England took up a very different attitude in the matter. With regard to Lord Alcester and the proposed grant, he (Mr. O'Donnell) contended that the noble and gallant Admiral had done no service at Alexandria to the public of this country that justified any such exceptional reward; and whatever service he rendered was certainly not that of either a great soldier or a sailor. If any reward was to be granted to him, it should, therefore, be on other grounds than those of having rendered distinguished service as an Admiral. What were the Naval services which Lord Alcester had rendered? He know, by the plans and specifications of the Intelligence Department, every weak point in the fortifications of Alexandria, and that the guns in the greater part of them would not carry half way to his ships. Was it for such a contemptible victory as that that he was to be rewarded in this manner? If he had attacked a Cronstadt and silenced it, then he (Mr. O'Donnell) would not rise in his place and oppose this grant, because such a proceeding would have been worthy of the title of a Naval service. As it was, the Government had rewarded the promenade of the British Fleet into the Suez Canal; while they connived at the injustice done to the Natives who were 74 hung, because, in the defence of their country, they killed Professor Palmer and his companions. It had been stated that 400,000 tons of material, 40,000 men, and 20,000 animals were landed in Egypt in 48 days; but it should be borne in mind that there was no substantial opposition to any of these operations, though as much show had been made about them as a promenade at Astley's. There was a very useful provision, very much talked about of late, and which prevented Civil servants of the Crown from becoming Members of that House; and now they were prevented from approaching Members of Parliament for the purpose of bringing grievances connected with their Departments before the House. He thought it would be a very wise thing if the same rule applied to the Military and Naval Services; for, undoubtedly, the present system led to the granting of most lavish rewards for Military and Naval achievements that were no achievements at all. And it had nothing less than a direct influence in inducing the professional class follows of the officers rewarded to engage in wars which were as unjust and contemptible as the Egyptian War. With regard to the speech of Lord Alcester at the Mansion House, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had explained that Lord Alcester did not mean to convey what was apparently conveyed by the reports. But the hon. Gentleman had failed to put any other interpretation on the words used by the noble and gallant Lord. With regard to the speech of the lion. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), and to the Prime Minister's comments thereon, it was an affecting sight to see how the old Jingo above the Gangway fell upon the neck of the young Jingo below the Gangway. The hon. Member for Newcastle had referred to the remarkably short time in which the war was completed. But he omitted to notice the fact that there was no substantial opposition to those operations. The Vote for Lord Alcester came before the House, after a lapse of time, during which the country had had an opportunity of obtaining information upon the subject; and he would wish to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary doctrine laid down by the whole Front Opposition Benches. The initiation came from the Leader of the first Opposition 75 Bench. He alluded to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), as the Leader of the first Opposition Bench. The right hon. Gentleman regretted, some months ago, before any documents were laid before the House, that the Government should not have taken the advantage of an ignorant and surprised Legislature, and consented to fling away £50,000 of the taxpayers' money in grants to Lords Alcester and Wolseley, without any knowledge of the real merits of the proposed recipients. The Premier then regretted that the circumstances of the Autumn Session prevented him from asking the House to grant a large sum of money without knowing really whether it would be right or wrong in so doing. Both right hon. Gentlemen were financiers, if they were anything; and yet such were their ideas of the probity which should direct the policy of England, that they avowed themselves ready to snatch from the Legislature a Vote of money without waiting to see whether it was proper that such a Vote of money should be passed. For his (Mr. O'Donnell's) part, he considered that if these Votes were to do any good, if they were to have any effect in stimulating men to do real service for their country, they should be brought forward after grave consideration and deliberation. When such were the principles on which the Leaders on both sides of the House were ready to conduct the financial policy of the country, it was little to be wondered at that a brother of a General should become contractor of the Army, and that another English contractor should send out rotten flour to support English soldiers in Egypt.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not speaking to the Question.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was endeavouring to show that the financial policy of the Government—
§ MR. SPEAKERI must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would not pursue the subject further, though he did hope that those Radical Gentlemen, who professed so much sympathy with Egypt, would be a little more patient when its affairs were discussed. He protested against the proposal which the Government had made the country and future Parliaments ought to be 76 warned by the statements and the doctrine laid down that day, and be careful about sanctioning in the future the line of policy which the Premier regretted ho was not able to perpetrate in the past.
MR. O'BRIEN, who spoke amid great and continued interruption, said, he was sorry he could not congratulate the Government, or the Radical Party, on the half-hearted compromise which had been come to between them in this matter. [Cries of "Divide!"] When hon. Gentlemen opposite had exhausted themselves, he would continue his speech. In his opinion, the English Government were responsible for this war; and, as they were responsible for it, they ought not to attempt to get out of paying for it. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He would wait, of course, until hon. Gentlemen opposite had finished their incoherent interruptions.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must call upon the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was about to observe, with reference to the noises from the other side of the House, that if hon. Members continued to interrupt him, he would simply have to wait until they had learned a little more sense and listened to what he had to say. He submitted that the Egyptian War was a shabby and disreputable business, whatever way one looked at it. Now, to him it seemed that a Jingo who had the courage of his convictions, and believed in his heart that the bombardment of Alexandria was a very fine thing, figured in the disreputable business to far greater advantage than the economical Radicals opposite, who were shouting out their interruptions—[cries of"Divide, divide!"]—and who now wanted not to give to their soldiers and sailors a little of that prize money which they had won for them. He, for one, could not agree with those Radicals who, like the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), tried to victimize men for doing what the people of England sent them to do, and which, to use the words that had been used to describe an enter-prize nearer home, of about equal courage, was to murder, to burn, and to destroy. He was sent out to do that work, and he had certainly done it in a manner to commend himself to those who sent him. The Government, ap- 77 parently, had conciliated hon. Members opposite by sacrificing their original programme of hereditary pensions. Such pensions were very objectionable; but they were still more objectionable when awarded for safely and ingloriously slaughtering an all but defenceless people. As for the gallantry of the affair, it seemed to him that Lord Alcester, miles from the forts, and standing behind his walls of iron, shooting down defenceless men, who had as much right to defend their country as the English had to defend themselves from dynamite, was as safe from the fire of those forts as if the enemy had been pelting him with roasted apples. It seemed to him that Lord Alcester, standing thus, occupied the not less glorious position of an assassin behind a hedge, and certainly one of much less risk. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members wished to prolong his remarks, they could not adopt a better means of doing so than by interrupting him. None the less, he submitted that he had a right to be protected from the stupid and unmannerly conduct of hon. Members on both sides of the House. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member does not attend to my directions to address himself to the Chair. If he would address himself to the Chair, probably he would receive more attention.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was sure the Speaker would admit that he received a great deal of provocation, which should also be taken into account. However, he would endeavour to keep to the point. He ridiculed the plea put forward by the Radical Members, that Admiral Seymour was more anxious to commence hostilities than the people of England were. He believed every cannon shot was telegraphed home and gloated over in England. He, for one, believed Lord Alcester was very moderately remunerated indeed for the amount of slaughter he had done; and if hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal persuasion disapproved now of his services, he hoped they would show their disapproval in some less disinterested manner than that of trying to save the ratepayers £20,000. If they had the courage of their convictions, or rather professions, let them give up the advantage they had got by the war; let them do an act of justice and honesty, as they would pro- 78 bably have done, if they had to face the long rifles of the Boers at Lang's Nek.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, who also spoke amid great interruption, said, he should protest against the principle laid down by the Prime Minister and the Leaders of the Opposition in this debate. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] He wondered why it was the Radical Members were so anxious to suppress discussion on this question. [Continued cries of "Divide, divide!"]
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it has not been forced upon your attention that an hon. Member, sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House, has kept up continuous cries of "Divide!" ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Longford rose to address the House? I would ask you, Sir, whether my hon. Friend, being in possession of the House, is not entitled to be heard without interruption?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) is in possession of the House, and is entitled to be heard without interruption.
MR. STANTONI rise to a point of Order. May I be allowed to ask whether it is not the evident sense of the House that the Question should be put, and that we should proceed to a Division?
§ MR. SPEAKERmade no reply.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he wished to protest against the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister, that whenever a Government, on any ground, wished to confer special rewards upon anyone who had rendered services, that House had no business and no right to discuss the nature of the services rendered for those rewards, by way of protest against their being granted, or to say whether it approved of them or not, but was bound to vote what was proposed by the Government in a servile manner.
MR. GLADSTONEI appeal to the House whether I ever stated anything so absurd as that the House should vote the money because the Government demanded it?
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that he was alluding to that part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman 79 where he had distinctly said that discussion would take away the grace of the grant, and that it would be undignified, and more to the discredit of the House than of Lord Alcester, if the Vote was opposed; and that, he thought, came to the same thing. He protested against the doctrine of the Prime Minister. If a man did his duty, he was entitled to his remuneration; but when a special reward was proposed that was a very different thing. He had no intention of saying anything against Lord Alcester, except that he had not an opportunity in Egypt of displaying his ability as a Commander for earning this special reward. In the country which had produced men like Nelson, it was absurd to talk of Lord Alcester's services. One would think that this country had never won a Naval battle, or taken a town. The Government would have done more wisely if they had abstained from moving in the matter, and had left Lord Alcester alone with his glory, such as it was. He supported the Amendment.
§ MR. LEAMY, in opposing the grant, said he could not help expressing his surprise that so few of those who represented the working classes had spoken iii the debate. He contended that the House could not consider this proposed grant to Lord Alcester's services apart from the policy of which Lord Alcester was the instrument. If the question of the policy of the Government was to be raised, it was impossible that it could have been adequately discussed in the few hours which the debate had occupied. He denied that Lord Alcester's services had been of advantage to the country. [Loud and continued cries of "Divide!"] The interruption he was meeting with, owing to the impatience which the Radical Party manifested in a discussion which exposed the inconsistency of the present Government, was a strong argument in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), because it showed that the Liberal Party were ashamed of the transaction which allegiance to their Chiefs led them to approve. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was not suprised that hon. Members persisted in shouting "Divide!" It must be very hard on hon. Members opposite to find their great Liberal Government, which came into power in 1880 with anti-Jingo cries, turning out a fili- 80 bustering and marauding one, and masquerading in the stolen clothes of those very Jingoes whom they had so vehemently denounced.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, that, in his opinion, the Government were perpetrating a practical joke upon the country in asking for a Vote to reward Lord Alcester for his eminent services in cruelly and heartlessly bombarding the defenceless town of Alexandria. The fact was, that noble and gallant Lord had provoked a conflict with the Egyptian people, knowing, with mathematical accuracy, that they were incapable of resistance. The position and power of every gun round Alexandria were known by the noble and gallant Lord before hostilities commenced, and he must have known that the enemy were unable to resist. Such were the military services in recognition of which they were asked to vote the money of the people. He protested against the proposed Vote, for if it were agreed to they would be guilty of a piece of political pick-pocketing. That a soldier, pretending to be civilized, should attack a practically unarmed people, and use the powers of civilization simply for the purpose of destruction, was something a country like this ought to be ashamed of. England had now destroyed three centres of civilization in Africa—Magdala, Coomassie, and Alexandria.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must call upon the hon. Member to address himself more closely to the Question before the House.
§ MR. O'KELLY, resuming, said, he thought that the burning of these towns had something to do with the services distinguished soldiers rendered to this country. However, Mr. Speaker had ruled otherwise; and he should conclude by saying that if the House were to be asked to vote enormous sums for such services as those rendered by Lord Alcester, there would always be a great inducement to young men to enter the Navy, for in no other business would there be such great rewards for such small services.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he utterly scouted the idea that the House of Commons should be debarred from discussing the murderous policy of the Government in connection with the Vote. If the House readily agreed to such a proposition as that now before it, the 81 effect would be to encourage the Government to engage in small wars of aggression against weaker nations. The present Vote gave hon. Members an opportunity of protesting against the warlike policy of the so-called Peace-at-any-Price Party. The Government had charged the Tories with blood-guiltiness, on account of the war they had waged in South Africa; but their hands were never so red with blood as were those of the present Government, in crushing the efforts of patriotic men who had been endeavouring to free themselves from the most disgraceful thraldom. By rejecting the Bill, the House would put some little check upon such outrage in the future. He looked upon the Egyptian Campaign as a most miserable and disgraceful war. No one attempted to disguise the fact that the war, which was originally one of aggression, had become one of annexation; and the House ought not to countenance the voting away of public money for such purposes at this, for the result would be only to encourage such adventures. England now had Egypt in her clutches, and would never let her loose so long as she had anything of which she could be plundered; and, that being the case, he must decline to condone such an infamous proceeding by voting for the Bill.
It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.