mendation. The incessant desire on the them a pension, had resolved to give MR. O'CONNOR POWER said, 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 he 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 he 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. Un Mr. Joseph Cowen 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 might begin to feel with his hon. Friend | and afterwards to say that the British that England performed some great duty Fleet was ever in danger. If all the old to the world when it sanctioned the bom- metal in Alexandria had been melted bardment of the forts of Alexandria and down and cast into guns, and placed in sent its soldiers to carry desolation over position against the Fleet, it would not the fair and fertile land of Egypt. The even then be true to say that the British hon. Member argued, indeed, that the Fleet would have been in any apprenaval forces and soldiers were not re- ciable danger. Besides, the forts did not sponsible for the war, but that it was a go to the Fleet, the Fleet went to the war of the English people. He denied forts; and, therefore, the Fleet might at that entirely. No one had watched the any time have placed itself out of danger proceedings of the House in foreign by a modest retirement. The spirit which affairs more closely than his hon. Friend; actuated Lord Alcester ought not to be and he knew very well-indeed, it had encouraged. He did not allege that of been a matter of complaint over and over set purpose and malice aforethought Lord again-that the Members of that House Alcester provoked war; but the spirit were not supplied with the requisite in- which actuated men like him was not formation on foreign affairs; and when favourable to peace. He never received the interests of the country were at stake a greater shock to all his notions of an appeal was made to their patriotism political honour and political consistency to prevent their pressing for it, and, con- than he did when it came to his knowsequently, nothing was known until the ledge that the Government were contemGovernment were embarked in hostili-plating this war; and when the right ties in which they had been involved by hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, their Representatives abroad. As one whose eloquence in the last Parliament who had given some attention to the he hung upon, and whose invocations of history of the great Democracy of the the spirit of liberty were sufficient almost United States, he would take issue with to animate a stone, rose in his place to the hon. Gentleman on the view repre- justify the bombardment of the forts of sented by him of that mighty people. The Alexandria, he felt then that the time hon. Gentleman said the chief cause of had gone by for expecting the adhesion political corruption in the United States of politicians in this country to their was that its public servants were very principles if they were transferred from poorly rewarded. He denied that state- the cool shades of Opposition to what, he ment as a matter of fact. It was true was sorry to say, was sometimes found that half-a-dozen heads of a Depart-to be, not only the warm, but the dement 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, moralizing 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 the last General Election? Were they | to maintain, that the war was unnecestrue to the principles they then avowed sary, and therefore was not strictly justiupon the hustings, or had they turned fiable. That is a question which the their back upon those principles and House has had before it even in the preadopted the principles of their political sent Session, and, by a majority on an opponents, which they were never tired of important occasion in the debate on the denouncing? So far as he was con- Address to the Crown, a vote was given cerned, he would not compromise the antagonistic to the views which I have opinions he had always held on ques- held, and which others have held with tions of this kind; for he did not believe me. But if we are asked to accept the that England was performing any great vote on the present occasion as a voteduty to the world by setting an example "aye" or "no"-upon the policy of of grave violation of International Law the Egyptian War, I say that you are and public principle by invading a placing those who object to the Egyptian peaceful and independent country. If War in a false and improper position. the hon. Member for Newcastle wished If I vote, as I intend to vote, in support for an illustration of the way in which of this reward to Lord Alcester and the honour of England was maintained Lord Wolseley, am I, therefore, to be and increased, he would point to the accused of approving a contest which I action of the right hon. Member for have repeatedly said I disapproved? North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), No; I think that is altogether a false who concluded the Geneva Convention, position for us to be placed in. And I and to the settlement of the "Alabama" say also, with regard to the question Claims. Those acts had done more to which is now raised, that it is one which set a high example to the world than the House has, to a great extent, preany efforts of soldiers and sailors to cluded itself from dealing with by the place a yoke upon the necks of nations action already taken. In October last intended by God to be as free as them- we passed Votes of Thanks to Sir Beauselves. champ 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 SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Before 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 Mr. O'Connor Power 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! 1 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. GLADSTONE: It 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 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. Í 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 to us. MR. GLADSTONE: Well, Sir, I am very glad the noble Lord never said it, and I hope he never thought it; but he 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 renewing it, I will pass over some of the most astounding assertions that I have ever heard 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 them from the demoralizing precincts of the Treasury Bench, which he has described 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 me, 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 satisfac-speech of the noble Lord. It is not for tory to himself, to connect a statement which he made as to the complicity of the Khedive in the massacre of Alexandria LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not say "the complicity"-I said "the authorship of the Khedive." 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 CHURCHILL : Which statements? MR. GLADSTONE: The 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 MR. GLADSTONE: I 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 Eng-variance with all the evidence and all lish 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 establishesor affects to establish- -a connection between Sir Edward Malet 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 CHURCHILL: 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. Less than that I cannot say, in |