New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-07-27
MORAL GROUND FOE VAR.


unanswerable defense of England's policy.
He admits that Admiral Seymour was justi-
fled in battering down the earthworks, but
thinks that the bombardment should have been
delayed until land force was at hand to cut
off Arabs retreat and to prevent the destruc-
ton of the city and the massacre OF Il portion
of the population. COnceding readily enough
that Arab represents no higher principle than
the lawlessness of sOldier-mOb, and that
the present state of anarchy on the Nile is
intolerable, he questions whether The TRIB-
UNE is right in declaring that the course of
England throughout the present crisis can be
justified on the highest moral grounds. On
the contrary, he considers the action of the
Government to have been precipitate and ILL
considered
Our correspondent evidently considers the
war with Egypt to be both necessary and justi-
fable, for he approves of the bombardment of
the forts and pronounces the state Of anarchy
which has been caused by " the lawlcssness of
a soldier mob" to be intolerable. He con-
dennis Mr.. Gladstone, not for what has been
done, but for what has been left undOne. He
thinks that the forts should not have been bonn
barded until land force ready to cooper
Arabs forces would have been intercepted
and Alexandria would have been saved from
rapine and destruction. But as a matter OF
fact the troops were not at hand 1t was a
force of marines that landed in the deserted
city after the bOmbardment. There were no
troops with the feet and although a fortnight
has elapsed since the catastrophe, there are
barely 5000 British soldiers ut Alexandria,
force utterly inadequate to cope with Arabs
army. The landing of an army which could
have cut of Arabs retreat was utterly imprac-
ticable.
Two reioinders may he made. First, the
Admiral should have waited until there was
Il land force to support him. This policy would
have involved inaction for fortnight or longer,
during which the Notifications would have
been materially strengthened and Arabic army
heavily reinforced from the interior. The fatal
consequences of delay in such a crisis were il
Illustrated during the Napoleonc wars, when the
French were intriguing Tor an alliance with
Turkey against Russia. The English Admiral,
having forced the passage of the Dardanelcs,
threatened to lombard COnstantinople unless
the new alliance should be Immediately re-
nounced. The panic-stricken Pachas resorted
week of negotiation and inactiOn. When their
batteries were armed and their capital was no
longer at the mercy of the enemy's guns, they
returned "a defiant answer, and the Admiral
instead of enforcing his ultimatum narrowly cs-
capped the loss of his feet. If Admiral Seymour
had fallen into the same snare, the risks and
difficulties of the enterprise would have been
multiplied Delay would have emboldened
the Egyptian troops. InactiOn would have
been criminal neglect to insure the safety of
the feet. A retreat would have involved an
abandonment of the Viceroy and European
interests, and have brought dishOnor upon
England.
But, secondly, the crisis should have been
anticipated. The English Government should
have taken requisite precautions and have
been fully prepared for the emergency. A mil
itary force should have been on the ground. to
Cooperate with the fleet. In other words, the
Admiral should have wantonly declared war on
Egypt, and bv hastily disombarking an invad
ing column have forced an engagement with
Arabs troops. But before we convict Mr.
Gladstone of vaciation and lack Of foresight
we must convince ourselves that a declaration of
war would have been justfabe. We have no
hesitation in saying that under The circumstances
the landing of a military force would have been
an atrocious offence against international
morals The bOmbardment Of the forts was an
act of self defense on the part of the fleet
The invasion of Egypt by n military column
for the avOwcd purpose tf cutting off Arabs
retreat and forcing him to fight for his life
would have been glarng act of war. when
hostilitos had not been declared and Europe
was striving to promote the ends of peace.
This we suppose, is the distinction made
by Mr.. Gladstone in the speech which has been
imperfcctly reported in the cable dispatches.
When the full text comes by mail it will prob
ably explain itself, and captions criticism based
upon one of the Premer's complex sentences
will fall to the ground Meanwhile we urge
upon our correspondents attention the re-
Election that the invasion of Egypt by foreign
army was an undertaking fraught with mo-
mentOus consequences.and not to be entered upon
without generalization nor in utter disregard
of European law. Mr.. Gladstone has undoubt-
edly wasted time in watching the drift of
events at Cairo, and in dalIying with the
Pachas and Ambassadors at Constantinople.
Vigorous action taken months ago would have
implied keen disceInment and practical wis
dom. But it was morally right to exhaust the
forces of diplomacy before deciding upon mill
tary intervention. This course enables Eng
land to justify her action on the highest
grounds. The supreme interests of civilization
demand that war shall not be waged until it
has been proved to be necessary and unavod-
able
mr.. BUTLERS BAD TEMPER.