New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-07-16
ALEXANDRIA MORE ORDERLY


,spFcrryrp IN FNGLANp-AciloN vi - THE
.,,rp,c.N MARINES OCCUPY III"
80 GREAT SQUARE ~. ros;cned from
4he Cabinet are fully stated I'D u. uarsotion.
:, .:cb to TIE TRIBUNE. IN 'On ,,,o Of his
Al, Bright said that the reai -" ~ Cov-
oct;on was the Egyptian pon'9 80 " shou,d
.rnment He believes that hhsi"n~ Sc
No, interfere with the mternai "n"N
Tovnt and asserts that he woulu n"'0
false TO his principles If he hau peoo."o
Marty TO a war which was begun "l'nouV III
cessitv. Turkey is the only rover W. s
hos demonstrated with the Governii'enV Aoi
;,s action. The bulletins about the trouoio IL
Alexandria are read by great mulutuoes III
Topdon and throughout England. Adlniiai
Savmour is organizing a police force 10 le-
stcro order in Alexandria. The fires are ho'
snreading and nearly all the piilasihS n"'
stopped. The American marines occupy ,no
Great Souare. The Conference met yesterday
and discussed the terms of note to DE au-
dressed 70 the Porte demanding that troops DC
sent to Egypt.
MR.. BRIGHT AND THE EGYPTIAN POLlC1'
fBY CABLE TO THE TRIBUNE.l
LONDON July 15.-In conversation Win MI
Bright about his reported resignation, he SAID thao
tbe true cause of it was the Egyptian policy of the
Government. eliminating in what Mr. Bright con-
sders an unjustifable of force in Alexandria
He was opposed to sending fleet to Egypt origi-
nally for any political purpose lie considered thao
England had no business to interfere with the
IN
there except in the Suez Canal and the canal was
never menaced by Arab or anybody else. lie be-
lieves that the massacre on the 1lth OF June was
largely provoked by the presence of the English
feet. He regards the continued presence of the
fleet. with a constantly increasing number of
foreign men-of-war in friendly harbor as In itself
a menace and unfriendly act. The motive OF send
ING them. namely, the protection of English SUBJ
iects was good motive but matters were man
aged that the fleet became of danger rather
than protection.
WHAT TILE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE DONE.
The true course would have been to carry away
such English subjects as wished to depart, and then
to leave the Khedve and Arab to battle their own
disputes The Sultan, as the sovereign. might
properly have interfered. Mr.. Bright admits that
the restoration of Turkish authority IN Egypt
would have been a misfortune but England would
not have been responsible, and Europe would have
required adequate guarantees for the departure OF
the Turks when order was restored. He also admits
that English intervention would have been bene-
fetal to Egypt but he repeats that England has no
business there When asked to fix the point where
his mind parted company with the minds Of his col
leagues he replied that though unable to approve
the general course pursued with reference TO Egypt
he always hoped they would stop short OF the
employment of force. He rdculed the
notion that the fleet was seriously menaced
by the forts, and dwelt strongly on the
statement of The Standard correspondent, and one
other, that before the bombardment began but
after the expiration of the time fixed by Admiral
Seymour the Egyptian authorities offered TO dis
mantle the forts He was not aware that the state
ment was officially confirmed, but should 1t prove
true he thought that the beginning of hostihties
after such an offer was deserving of the strongest
censure Whether this report was true or not he
was unable to continue as a member of a Govern
1nent sanctioning the bombardment.
ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STORY HEARD.
When Red what the feet should have done after
Admiral Seymour had delivered the utimatum and
Arabi promised to discontinue the armaments and
then broke his promise he answered that we have
yet heard only one side of the story and be seemed
inclined to discredt the evidence that the electric
light showed that the troops were continuing
the works. He insisted, however, that these
details comparatively unimportaht.
The real cause of his resignation was
the use of force, which was not defensbe moral
grounds. For forty years." said Mr.. Bright, Il
have told my countrymen that morals were the
true basis of politics j have denounced war; and
should have been false to my principles had be-
come party to a which was begun without
necessity" He proceeded to express his profound
regret at parting from his colleagues and his chief
and at taking the step which, as have said. mnst
seriously harm the Ministry, and perhaps will divide
the Liberal party. He deplored it, but to abandon
his principles he could not from any regard to the
party any affection for persons.
Mr. BRIGHTs DELAY IN REsIGxING.
Mr.. Brights extreme reluctance to sever him
self from the Government was even moro
strongly shown by his delay In taking
tie final step. He was present at the Cabinet
Council SO late as Thursday, three days after the
hostIlities begun His formal resignation was
offered only yesterday. Even this afternoon some
journals express doubts about it's truth Sir
Charles Dixie in answering a question in the
House. with characteristic caution said that there
might be some grounds for the report. The long
conversation above briefly given might be con-