New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-07-24
ENGLAND AND EGYPT.

lfhoM TIE RLGJLR coRRRsPoSDENr OF TIP rRrBuNE.I
The gnats and galfies Of the Liberal rariy have
| been buzzing about the Government as usual AsI
am going to mention names hope 10 will be UNDER
stood that use these chronological terms in "a
purely political sense The individuals in question
most excellent persons in every private relation
and even in some pnblic capacities. But on inter-
national questions they belong to the socalled Man
chester school, to the peace AT -any-Drce party II
they are not exceedingly mIschieyous IL IL because
they have exceedingly little Influence MT. Henry
Richard is one, the worthy member for "A worthy
Welsh constituency, Merthyr TydyiI, place given
over to Nonconfomity and commerce. Up started
Mr.. Henry Richard on Tuesday in the House with
question whether there was not an undersi andIng
among the Powers that, pending the Conference, no
separate action should be taken by any one Power
To put it in PLAIN terms, Mr.. Richard asked Mr.
Gladstone whether he had not pledged himself, tho
Government and England To a particular line Of
conduct, and then broken his pledge. Mr. Glad
stone answered with decOrum. but cOnceivably with
some inward tumult, that the bOmbardment at
Alexandria was in contraventIon OF no agreement
but an act OF self-dcfence on the part Of
the fleet; absolutely necessary IN the Judg-
ment of the Admiral Of the feet. The PGH Mall Ga
7etfe which n this matter Of Egypt has bonorably
distinguished itself from its morning Liberal con-
temporary by patriotic and sensible views, speaks
of Mr.. Richard representing " much Of what il
good Tor even best among Liberals" II omits TO
specify what il is that is good lOr even best among
Liberals which Mr.. Henry Richard represents.
And this polite panegyrc il iii fact but the prelude
to a censure on Mr.. Richards action none the less
severe because yelled No Radical wants to quarrel
with Radicals. but the outsider writing for out
sders, may be permitted to state things as they
If any proof were wantng-whch it il not-of
the overwhelming pTepouderance Of public opinion
in favor of the action taken at Alexandria it is sup
piled by the adverse minority. The indifference
or approval of the advocates Of peace and non-nter
vention,' says the London correspondent of The
NeCcasie Chronicle " 70 our course OF action is re-
markabe." The London correspondent of the jour
nal III question is also its editor, its proprietor and
one of the members for Newca.tle-in word, Mr
Joseph Cowen; perhaps all things considered, tho
least useful member Of tho House certainly the
one most noxious TO the Liberal party, in whose
ranks he still sits, for purposes best known TO
himself. colleague, who is often a colleague in
more than the mere name speaks of Mr.. Cowen as
"snarling' at the Liberal Government. The word
is Mr. Passmore Edwards's; and Liberals in general
will be quite content 10 leave Mr. PassmoTe Ed
wards and Mr. Joseph Cowen to fight the matter
out between them.
The moro so since Mr. Passmorc Edwards like
Mr. Cowen owns and edits newspaper The Echo,
hali-panny evening sheet which peryades the
streets of London and that the leading article in
this print to-day begins thus:
England has more shown its might-oyer
weak Power, of course"
Hardly year passes but that we are at war
with some POwer-an inferior Power. of course"
1--WE are great and magnanimous pc He. and
particularly when arc killing people whom va
despse, but whom we ought TO protect
This sort of thing might DO credit 80 81 Henri
Rochefort That an Englislman should say it only
shows how un-English some EngshmeE can be-
The sentences quoted are mere sneers. and a sneer
IS difficult to contradict. But it may be- said Of
such remarks these that they were both unworthy
and untrue.
The opinion of journal like Tho Westra Morning
; cCs OF Plymouth, is worth noting; the more so
because 1t il the best informed paper in the south
west of England " In Cornwall" il says peace
at-any-price principles are firmly rooted in the
minds of many, and influence or less the opin-
ion OF "a ma ority, but so far from policy OF sub
mission to foreign insult and menace being accent
able in that county, it ia literal fact to which our
correspondents IN every town bear witness that The
news of the bOmbardment Of the Alexandra forts
was received with positive enthusiasm and a sense
of relief" And again: "Whcthcr the proceedings
of to-day for good for ILL., it is certain they
are indorsed by the opinions and feelings of the
public in ths western counties" Now that is tho
testimony of a man who knows.
Mr.. Richard on Tuesday was bad enough but
worse, much worse, remained behind. On Wednes-
day, Sir Wilfrid Lawson took up the running. Now
of Sir Wiifrd Lawson / desire to speak with tho
respect due to man Of undoubted sincerity aud
disntere stcdness. and of sono vivacity OF mInd.
quality only too rire the British Parliament. or
III British public life in general. IL may lie posi-
Bile to discriminate between Sir Wilfrid Lawson as
an individual and Sir Wilfud Lawson as "a oqua-
cOus member Of Parliament. II Is to the latter that
any observations | may make are addressed. I
have nothing to do with The amiable Cumberland
Baronet or the agreeable hos Of Grosvenor Crescent
But the member for Carlisle IS public property, aud
his language is open to the widest criticism. He is
himself "A critic.
What did Sr Wlfid LawsOn permit himself TO
saw Yesterday in the House I This, among other
things. That he bombardment of Alexandria was
an act of international atrocIty. whatever that may
mean. And that 1t was a cowardly, a cruel and q
criminal act Now 1t is sometimes difficult matter
10 discriminate between the act and the actor;
when the responsibility direct, personal imne IL
ate il is impossible The act complained Of by Sir
Wilfrid was the act of Mr.. Gadstone's Government,
resolved on and Iully SahctIoh'" oy MI '''u''"ho
himself and his colleagues; Mr.. Bright among
them. If the bomblrdment was cOwardly,
cruel and criminal. the responsible authors of II are
cowartls and cruel, and criminal. Does sir Wfrid
Lawson mean 70 say that OF Mr. Gladstone and his
colleagues Ii he does not, his words have no mean-
ing II no does, in what sense does he recognize
these towards and criminals as bis leaders and a5
the heads of Ministry which he supports
Mr. Gladstone replied 20 Sir Wlrid Lawson with
a moderation which few of his friends are disposed