I wish to direct the attention of the House at the first available moment to what I conceive to be a gross breach of the privileges of this House, and to put myself in order I will read the resolution which I intend to submit to the House. I shall not detain the House five minutes, and then we shall hear what the First Lord of the Treasury has to say, and I wish him a happy deliverance. The resolution is this;—

"That the action of the Lord Chancellor in presenting to the House of Lords a message from Her Majesty recommending that she should be enabled to grant to Lord Kitchener a sum of £30,000 is a departure from ancient constitutional precedent; is contrary to the usage of Parliament; and is a gross breach of the privilege of this House, inasmuch as the message attributes to the House of Lords the power of initiating money grants, which alone appertains to the House of Commons, instead of concurring in these grants"

That is absolutely flagrant. The first authority that I would like to quote to the House is Sir Erskine May, and I will only quote two sentences. He says, "The responsibility discharged by the House of Lords in the granting of supplies for the service of the time is concurrence, and not initiation." I need not remind the House that, though this is the Queen's message, it is in reality a message for which the Ministers are responsible. The message to the House of Lords in this case is identical in words to that received by this House, as if there were a concurrent and co-ordinate jurisdiction, which there is not. We are told that this message is identical with the message which came to the House in reference to Sir Garnet Wolseley in 1874; but in that case there was a message conveyed to the House of Lords, as in Kitchener's case, with this difference—Her Majesty, taking into consideration the eminent services of Major-General Sir Garnet Wolseley in conducting the Ashantee campaign, and desiring to confer some signal mark of her favour, "recommends to the House of Lords to concur" with the House of Commons in enabling Her Majesty to grant to Sir Garnet Wolseley £30,000. Those were also the terms that were adopted in 1841 and in 1857, when in similar cases the House of Lords was asked to concur. We have the words of Mr. Speaker Onslow, who said Ministers had always sent these messages to both Houses, but the distinction of the wording was that the initiation in making the grant of money is to be only with the Commons, as is done in the Speech from the Throne. I put this matter before the House as a matter for its observation, and I think it is a gross breach of privilege. With these words I beg to move the Resolution and bring it up to the chair. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That the action of the Lord Chancellor in presenting to the House of Lords a Message from Her Majesty, recommending that she should be enabled to grant to Lord Kitchener a sum of £30,000, is a departure from ancient constitutional precedents, contrary to the usage of Parliament, and a gross breach of the privileges of this House, inasmuch as the Message attributes to the House of Lords a power of initiating money grants which alone appertains to the House of Commons, instead of concurring in those grants."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)

I think my hon. friend is amply justified in the course he has taken in bringing this matter before the House. A difference in the form of words may be a matter of serious importance, and it certainly does seem to me that the difference between a direct invitation to the House of Lords to enable the Queen to carry out a grant of a certain sum of money, and a message to the House of Lords to concur with this House in so doing, is a very grave difference indeed, and one which amply justifies my hon. friend in moving his resolution. The proper course for the Government in this matter would clearly have been to proceed by a Resolution, base a Bill upon the Resolution, and send the Bill to the House of Lords. At any rate there is a vast and vital difference between the resolution in 1874 and the present one. I beg to second the Resolution.

I am in very great doubt whether I should allow this matter to be brought before the House as a question of privilege at all. My reason for being in doubt is that it is in any case necessary that the House of Lords should take some action for the purpose of enabling the grant to be made. The Queen by her Message asks the House of Lords to enable her to make such a grant. What the hon. Member is now doing is to ask the House to assume that the message is to be interpreted as asking the House of Lords to act in a way in which they are not entitled to act, and contrary to the privilege of this House, although the language is consistent with a request to that House to act only in a constitutional way. I am, however, very anxious not to take upon myself the responsibility of a decision where there is any ground for suggesting that the matter may be one involving a question of privilege for the judgment of the House. The only point is whether the word "concur' which could be read into the message by implication, ought to have been expressly used. I may point out on the question of precedent that in 1883, when motions were made for grants by way of pensions to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley, two resolutions were submitted to the House of Lords, in one of which the word "concur" was used, and in the other left out, and the same words were used in the latter Resolution as on the present occasion.

I was not aware that the hon. Member was going to raise this point. I understand that he makes two allegations—one that the course pursued by the Lord Chancellor and presumably by the House of Lords is contrary to the precedents and practice of Parliament; and the other that it is a breach of the privileges of this House. Sir, I challenge both those statements. Take the second point first. Mr. Speaker has already pointed out that the concurrence of the House of Lords and the action of the House of Lords is absolutely necessary to enable this grant to be given. It is a pure assumption on the part of the hon. Gentleman, which he does not himself seriously hold—an assumption which none of us hold, and an assumption which not a single person in this House believes to be true—that the House of Lords, in the case of the grant to Lord Kitchener, are going to violate those ancient constitutional usages which are divided between the two Houses of Parliament in different measures, the responsibility arising from the passing of the Finance Acts. So much for the point of substance. On the point of form, it is only necessary that I should repeat to the House what has already been indicated by Mr. Speaker—namely, that so high a constitutional authority as Mr.Gladstone, a statesman who was never supposed to be oblivious of the constitutional privileges of the House of which he was so long a distinguished ornament. In the time of Mr. Gladstone the following resolution was brought down to the House, and was read to the House by the Leader of the House, in that case Lord Granville. The message was:—

I think we are indebted to my hon. friend for bringing this matter forward (Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!" and laughter). Although some hon. Members opposite appear to differ from me on this point, I am sure the Leader of the House does not differ from me. I am sure we are indebted to my hon. friend for having turned his watchful eye upon the of the proceedings in another place. I conceive that the main point which he had in view has been substantially gained by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House having formally disclaimed the slightest intention to depart from former precedents and usage in this matter. It is unfortunate, from the point of view of those of us who take a rigid view of the relations between the two Houses in this matter, that there is a precedent containing the very words which are now complained of, because otherwise we might have had some justification in discerning an insidious attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to exalt the other House of Parliament at the expense of this. But after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and after his being able to adduce a precedent coming from an unimpeachable source for the words which are now being used, I trust my hon. friend will be content with the substantial victory he has gained, and not put the House to any further trouble.

I rose for the purpose of stating that, while asking my hon. friend not to put the House to the trouble of a Division, I do not accept the First Lord of the Treasury's statement that there is a precedent for what is now being done. If I am rightly informed, the precedent he alluded to was on an occasion when the Message was made the foundation of a Bill, and if that be true it is no precedent whatever. Many years ago, in the days of Mr. Speaker Onslow, in order to settle these disputes, it was agreed and clearly set forth that the two Houses should enact on the same day, but that the Message in each House should be in different terms, and it was on that specific understanding that the two Houses came to an agreement. And now the right hon. Gentleman seeks to establish a proposition that it is in accordance with precedent that what has been clearly set forth is to be departed from, and that the two Messages to the two Houses are to be in identical words. I hold that this procedure is not in accordance with precedent. This is a distinct breach of the privileges of this House, and it is only because I know that the House desires to go on with the actual question before it that I urge my hon. friend not to press his motion to a Division.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I will withdraw my motion, and accept the moral triumph. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lowther, in the earlier hours of last September the whole country was in a mood of anxious, if hopeful, expectation. It was known that the long drama of the Soudan, extending for sixteen years, was visibly and surely drawing to a close. That drama is one on which we cannot look back with unmingled satisfaction. It has been marked by some great disasters, by some barren successes, but by one tragic event which has stamped itself indelibly in the hearts and memories of the people of these islands; and the question, Sir, connected with this great drama was of what character would be the final catastrophe. We knew that the enemy whom we had to meet was far superior to us in numbers; that in point of courage and daring they were not inferior to any fighting troops that the world has ever seen; that they fought with the great advantages accruing to the fact that they were in their own country, and that we were divided from our military base by many miles of country and great difficulties. The question, therefore, which we asked ourselves, not without some pardonable anxiety, was whether the superior arms, superior organisation, and the superior strategy of our own forces enabled us to bring this long controversy to a final and triumphant issue. Sir, the fact that the mid-day sun on the 2nd of September saw finally and for ever the power of Mahdism crushed was due, above all others, to the genius of the man whom we desire to-day to honour and reward. Mr. Lowther, I hope that no hon. Gentleman will this afternoon allow the course which he proposes to take upon this Vote to be warped or modified by any view which he may entertain upon the question of the policy of the Government in advancing from Wady Halfa to Khartoum. On that policy sharp differences have divided us in the past. Those differences are not yet healed, and I do not anticipate that the division of judgment which has shown itself in the course of many sharp debates can be expected to die out until history gives some final verdict upon the policy which we have thought it right to pursue. No man, Sir, by the vote he gives to-night, will in any way prejudice the views which he may take upon these broad questions of policy, and I venture respectfully to submit to the Committee that not only would the discussion of questions of controversy such as these to which I have referred, if permitted, interfere with our unanimity on the present occasion and deprive our action of something of its grace, but I would submit also that it is on the worst possible precedent and example so far as the relations between the civil and military powers are concerned. Sir, those who would withhold from a successful general his merited reward, not on the ground of military incompetence or incapacity, but on the ground that he was carrying out a policy of which they disapprove, are, in effect, saying to him, and to the gallant soldiers who supported him, "You have endured hardships; you have faced death; you have gone on an expedition where defeat meant instantaneous destruction or slavery, of which instantaneous destruction would have been by far a more happy lot. All this you have done; you have done it with courage, competence, and perseverance, and you have done it to the best of your ability; we are proud of the skill which you have shown, but you have done it in a cause of which we disapprove, and, because we disapprove of it, therefore we withhold from you the reward which on other grounds you have so honourably and justly earned." An argument like that requires our soldiers to mix themselves up with questions of policy. It compels them to consider not merely whether they are to obey orders, but what the orders are which they are required to obey; and though we live in a country so happily circumstanced and with constitutional traditions so deeply based that we can hardly conceive even the interference on the part of the military power with the authority of the civil power, yet if such a thing were possible the course I am commenting upon would be the very course to bring it about. For a country in which the Army seriously concerns itself in questions of policy is a county on the verge of a military despotism. If, therefore, as I conceive, the one question before the Committee on the present occasion is a question of military merit, then I venture to say that on this question the country has long made up its mind, and months ago has given an authoritative decision. My mind goes back to the great banquet held in the Mansion House, I think in the early days of November, at which Lord Salisbury, Lord Rosebery and the right hon. Gentleman the member for Monmouthshire all vied with each other in giving praise, lavish praise, but not excessive praise, to the hero of Omdurman. Exploits which are praised alike by Lord Salisbury, Lord Rosebery arid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire are exploits which seem to me to have no critics in any quarter of this House, and in no section of the country. I know not where objection is to come from if these three gentlemen are agreed. But, sir, has the lapse of time and the calmer criticism which is born of that lapse of time, made any modification of our views on this subject? I trow not. I think it has strengthened rather than diminished the estimate which all competent critics have formed of the great series of operations which had their culmination on the 2nd September, to which 1 have referred. I do not propose to make any comparison between the exploits of Lord Kitchener and his army and the exploits which have adorned the annals of this country in times past. Such comparisons may he misleading; they are almost certain to be barren. It would be sufficient if we concentrate our attention to-day upon the difficulties which Lord Kitchener had to face, and the manner in which he surmounted them. Now, what was the problem with which Lord Kitchener had to deal? He had to deal with an enemy posted in a country nearly 1,400 miles from his base at Cairo—a distance comparable to that which separates Paris from St. Petersburg. He had to deal with this enemy posted in their own country, knowing, as I have said, that they were superior, and must be superior in numbers to any force that he could bring, against them. He was in a country absolutely barren of all supplies of any sort or kind or description on which an army can subsist, except only water, and then only so long as the army kept within near reach of the Nile. The forces with which he had to carry out this stupendous military operation were in part composed of the Egyptian army, which had only fifteen years before practically given themselves up without a blow to be massacred by the enemy against which Lord Kitchener was leading them. So great was the prestige of the Dervish force, so great their acknowledged superiority in war, that practically as soon as the forces of Egypt under Hicks Pasha met the forces of the Khalifa, practically there was no battle, but only a dreadful and terrible massacre. That, Sir, was the problem that Lord Kitchener had to solve; that was the problem which, in fact, he did solve with a less expenditure of men and a less expenditure of money than, I venture to say, has ever been made on any similar occasion in the history of military operations of this, or perhaps any other civilised community. Other generals—and these are the greatest whose exploits history has recorded—have done their great deeds with an army which was ready to their hands. Lord Kitchener had in part to create the army with which he worked, for he was one of those eminent organisers who from the very beginning made the Egyptian Army what it is today from what it was in the time of Hicks Pasha. And, again, other generals have shown perhaps their greatest skill in using to the best advantage their lines of communication, for the proper use of lines of communication is, I suppose, part of the art of war; but Lord Kitchener not only had to use to the best advantage his long line of communication, he had in great part to create it. And as he was in part the creator of the army, so he was in large measure the creator of that railway without which the Soudan could either not have been reconquered at all, or could not have been reconquered without an expenditure of blood and treasure which it is terrible even to contemplate. We must not contemplate the services of Lord Kitchener merely as the victor at Atbara, the victor at Omdurman, as the successful general in a few great combats, as the brilliant leader of a brief military expedition. No, Sir. There is a famous, phrase used of a great Frenchman, that he was the "organiser of victors." Lord Kitchener combined in his own person that organisation of victory of which I speak, and also carried out all those military operations by which victory was ultimately secured. He organised the victories, he won them; and of those two great feats I venture to think that the organisation was perhaps the greater. Whoso would realise what it is that Lord Kitchener has done for the Soudan, for Egypt, and for England, should not think of him merely, or chiefly, as he was before the fortified lines at Atbara or in the open plain near Omdurman. They should think of him through those long months and years of patient, arduous, anxious preparation. They should think of him as the man whose foresight never was at fault, who never turned his eye from the objective which he had in view, who immersed himself with an unwearied and almost superhuman industry in every detail which could secure the final triumph, who never, even amid the utmost complexity of detail, allowed himself to lose sight of the final object towards which every measure was intended to converge. He had the art of extracting from every shilling of public money every halfpenny it was worth, and of extracting from every one of the distinguished men under his command all that they were capable of doing. Sir, that requires something more than untiring industry. It requires a genius for managing men, and for inspiring them with confidence—a genius without which, I venture to think, all the art of war to be learned from books is so much waste paper. Lord Kitchener showed, in addition to these great qualities, a reticent caution which never for a moment permitted him to precipitate the action at the appropriate moment, and the decisive courage which never allowed that moment to pass unfruitfully used. That, Sir, I venture to think, in dealing with such an enemy, and in such a country, constitutes the highest qualities of a soldier which could very well be demanded from any general on whom we bestow our confidence. Sir, it is true, of course, that alone and unaided, by his single merit and by his own right arm, those great triumphs for Egypt, for England, and for civilisation could not have been won. It is true that the statesmanship of Lord Cromer, the brilliant administrative abilities of the officers whom he collected around him, the great soldierly qualities of the generals under his command, to whom, I trust, the House will unanimously on Thursday next vote their thanks—that the disciplined resolution of the Egyptian forces, the cheerful daring of the Soudanese, and last but not least the great fighting qualities of the men of his own race—all contributed to the final consummation. But the men of whom I have thus spoken in not undeserved praise would, I think, themselves be the first to admit that in all this expedition Lord Kitchener was the moving spirit, that Lord Kitchener was the animating soul, and that he, above all others who were engaged in these great and extended operations, has deserved from this House and from the country some mark of the gratitude of the nation. Feeling, therefore, that I am only carrying out, in the first place, the wishes of the House, and, in the second place, the wishes of my countrymen, I beg now to move, in accordance with the notice given on Friday. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to be issued to Major-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., as an acknowledgment of his eminent services in planning and conducting the recent Expedition in the Soudan."—(The First Lord of the Treasury.)

Mr. Lowther, I rise for the purpose of saying on my own behalf, and on the part of my political friends, that we fully share the estimate of Lord Kitchener's services which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has so eloquently expressed. In his conduct of the long series of operations which culminated in the capture of Omdurman and the occupation of the region of the Upper Nile Lord Kitchener's grasp of the difficulties to be encountered, the skill and foresight with which he formed his plans, the alternating boldness and caution with which he carried them into execution deserved and attracted the admiration of the world. He was engaged in warfare with a fanatical adversary who carries bravery to the pitch of recklessness, and who is unsurpassed in his own methods of lighting—methods which are in a peculiar degree trying to the bravest and best disciplined forces. He was acting in a climate pernicious to the health and depressing to the spirits of Europeans, in a country, as the right hon. Gentleman has described to us, practically barren of supplies, and at a long and ever-lengthening distance from his own base. The complete success which, under these conditions, he achieved constitutes one of the most brilliant pages in the history of British arms. Mr. Lowther, Lord Kitchener deserves all the honours that have been conferred upon him by his Queen and by his country, and he deserves the grateful recognition of this House. But when we speak of Lord Kitchener it will, of course, be understood that we do not imply that the merit is all his. In passing this Vote we should be giving expression to our grateful recognition and admiration of the services of those, whether his own countrymen or of African race, who fought and endured under him, and of the distinguished officers who advised and assisted him. And I would go further and say that we ought to include in our warmest gratitude, and to give perhaps a larger share of the tribute of our praise than is sometimes given to them, those British officers who, through many years of patient hope and effort, have been creating and building up the Egyptian Army, and, what is much more important and much more difficult, have been breathing into that army the spirit of self-confidence and solidarity without which any army is of little use. In honouring Lord Kitchener, therefore, we are setting the seal of our approbation upon all those patient labours as well as on those brilliant exploits, and we do so with one mind and one voice. Now, I would gladly stop here, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there are some reasons adduced for our not passing this Vote, at any rate in the full measure in which it is proposed. And perhaps it is only right—although the right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt with great propriety from his point of view, hesitated to anticipate objections that may be raised—perhaps it is only right that I, from another side of the House, and from another point of view, should refer briefly in anticipation to these objections. If I thought that my silence would have any effect in inducing the House to pass a unanimous vote I should sit down at mice. And yet perhaps it is better that I should, against my will, undertake the somewhat difficult duty of meeting an enemy who has not yet, from no fault of his own, appeared in the field. So far as I can gather from what has appeared in the Press and from other sources, there are two circumstances, or sets of circumstances, which are alleged to militate against this Vote being passed without opposition. The first of these is the incident of the disentombment of the remains of the Mahdi, and their dispersal under circumstances which involve something like ignominy attempted to be put on his memory. Well, I believe for my part that there has been no wavering in the honest judgment of British opinion upon this matter from the first day until now. The news, when it was received in this country, struck us all with a shock, and with something like horror. We could hardly believe that such a thing had been done, and now at this cool distance of time, in the absence of any explanation, and being unable at the same time to see what explanation can possibly be offered, we still remain regarding it with condemnation and continue to deplore it. So far as I have seen, all that can be said in favour of it is that it was necessary to destroy and to obliterate that which would have been a focus of fanaticism and discontent among the population of the region for which we have become responsible. That may be asserted, but even among those who are best acquainted and most familiar with what are called Eastern notions there is by no means a unanimous opinion on the subject. And let me point out to the Committee that the Mahdi was a false prophet, and not likely to be held in much veneration by the greater part of the Mussulman world, but no doubt held in veneration in his own part of the world. But he was something more than that; he was our enemy. He was a bitter enemy of the domination of Egypt, and we stand largely in the place of Egypt, and by the side of Egypt, in the matter. And on that account there was in our treatment of his tomb and of his remains an element, an air of vindictiveness, which surely was unworthy of this country. I make every allowance for this political desire to do away with a focus of fanaticism and discontent. But still it remains that there was a cruel outrage performed, what in all civilised countries would he considered a cruel outrage and, I cannot help adding, a gross blunder. If ever there was a case where an act may be considered to be worse than a crime—to be a blunder—it was this. It is singular how often, as any one of us may observe, it is not the most exalted aspect of a case which is most forced on our minds. It is the humbler and more familiar aspect, and this act seems to me to have been an infraction not only of sound policy, but of good feeling and good taste, I would even say of good manners. If I were to explain to the House exactly how it strikes me I would employ an illustration which I hesitate to use because it may be thought hardly equal to the dignity and seriousness of the debate. I recall to my mind a picture drawn by a man who had a singular knowledge of human nature—the late John Leech—in which he represented a fine lady sitting in a room with two children playing in a corner. The little girl complains to her mother of the conduct of her brother. "Is he not wicked, mamma?" she says; "he is swearing." "My dear," says the mother, "it is worse than wicked, it is vulgar." I believe that that is an exact illustration of the sort of feeling with which we regard what has happened on this occasion, as far as we understand it, and subject to the explanations which may come from the bench opposite. But although I have this strong feeling as to this particular event—although I reprobate it in as strong a way as I have stated—yet it appears to me that it would be a most exaggerated and fantastic view of the matter if we were to set a detached, isolated, and comparatively unimportant event—however much we reprobate it in itself—against the whole mass of labours and risks and successes which attach to Lord Kitchener and those who served under him. Therefore, although sharing the strong feeling entertained in many quarters in regard to this particular occurrence, I do not see any reason for altering my opinion as to the vote which is now before the Committee. But the second of the objections which are held to justify hesitation in assenting to this vote is perhaps of a more serious kind. It relates to the treatment of the wounded during the campaign and after the battle. As to this there has been much conflicting evidence, and for my part I candidly say that I give most weight to the evidence which clears our soldiers of complicity in anything inhuman or cruel. I do not say that from any desire to huddle up or hide away an unpleasant topic; but because of my belief in their temper and character and in the moral influences which sway their conduct. But there has been, as far as I am aware, no material evidence against the British regiments employed, and the wild stories which circulated at first have been disproved or have been withdrawn. But it is alleged that the Sudanese battalions did commit excesses of cruelty upon the wounded on the field of battle. Now, undoubtedly there is great danger of uncivilised troops practising in battle, and especially at the close of the battle, those savage methods of warfare to which, in a wilder state, they are habituated. That is the case; and it may be—for we have no full information on the subject—that there were unnecessary excesses committed at Omdurman to some extent. Then the best use to which we can put that fact is to impress upon those responsible—whether civilians or soldiers—if they wish to preserve our national name free from stain, if they wish to prevent a degradation in the tone of our own Army which co-operates with these troops, if they wish to satisfy the universal sentiment of the British people, the urgent duty to see that precautions are taken against the recurrence of any such danger in future. Do not let us deceive ourselves. War is war, and war means carnage in every case. But wars conducted between savage tribes or against savage tribes mean excessive carnage, and probably retaliatory carnage, to an extent that must be abhorrent to every humane and civilised mind. The only justification for our being in that region of the world at all is that we bring to it, slowly and lamely it may be, and in circuitous ways, civilisation and peaceful development. Let it be an instruction to all our officers, while leaving them perfect freedom of action—because it is they only who know the difficulties, as it is they only who incur the risks, of the situation—let us impress upon them that they should conduct their operations as nearly as possible according to the rules of civilised warfare; and let us see that those officers are numerous enough and have authority enough to repress the natural barbarism of those whom they are obliged to use as instruments under them. These are the views which I have formed from all that I have seen and read and heard of what occurred in this campaign. I have dealt with the subject imperfectly, because I cannot anticipate what may be said either in attack or defence on the matter. But I have laid down some general considerations; and I conclude by saying that, from these general considerations I see in neither of the criticisms which have been applied to this vote anything of such proportion or gravity as can he set against the undoubted claim of Lord Kitchener to our grateful recognition; and therefore I shall support, and cordially support, the vote before the Committee.

With much that has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury and by my right honourable friend I am glad to find myself in very considerable concurrence. The First Lord of the Treasury stated that in September we were watching the close of the great Soudan drama which had attracted attention and even absorbed it for so many years. I wish—and it is the only remark that I will make on this aspect of the matter—I could believe that we had seen the fall of the curtain on the fifth act of the Soudan tragedy. But here is another point on which I am in absolute agreement with the right honourable Gentleman—to-night is not an occasion when we can justifiably enter upon considerations of policy in any aspect whatever. In all that the right honourable Gentleman said on that branch of the matter I fully agree. Whatever we may think of that policy, Lord Kitchener was the instrument—the able and powerful instrument—of a policy imposed upon him by the Government of this country and by this House; and therefore, whatever we think of that policy ought not to, and cannot, stand in the way of our appreciation of Lord Kitchener's military merits. Upon the question of military merits it would be ridiculous for me to offer any opinion, and I do not propose to do so. I accept from those who are competent to pronounce on military matters all that has been said by the right honourable Gentleman; though perhaps the reference to Cannot as the great organiser of victory was a little overdrawn. But I will not dwell on that point. Now, I hope the House of Commons—which, after all, is an assembly that loves fair play and manliness—will believe that to nobody in the Committee could it be more disagreeable than to me to use any language or take up any attitude which might seem to deprive an act of grace of some of its graciousness. But there are other things to think about besides graciousness; and in my judgment the topic referred to and dwelt upon by my right honourable friend is one of those topics which, as he admits, cannot escape notice and criticism in the Committee to-night. Upon that point I dare say I shall find myself obliged to dissent from the majority of the Committee; but I believe the majority of the Committee will agree that their praise of Lord Kitchener would be worthless if they were not willing to hear points of criticism and objection. The topic to which my right honourable friend began by referring was the destruction of the tomb of the Mahdi, and the exhumation and dispersion of the Mahdi's remains. From the rather impatient manner in which in some quarters my right honourable friend's introduction of that topic was listened to, sonic honourable Members would appear to have forgotten what my right honourable friend reminded them of—the extraordinary feeling of shock and disgust which was aroused. [Cries of "No."] The honourable Gentlemen who say "No" forget that from no quarter was there more disgust, more vividly expressed, than from some of their honourable friends below the gangway. The honourable Member for Leamington the other day made a speech in which he regarded what had been done with disapproval. It was in consequence of the demonstration of feeling in the House and the country that the Government applied to Lord Cromer to send his own views and to send Lord Kitchener's defence and justification of what had occurred. I want to argue this matter in a way which will not offend anyone; but we must recognise that upon this House there is no responsibility, among all those which weigh upon us, which weighs more heavily than the responsibility of supervising and keeping a strict and vigilant watch upon what is done by our agents abroad. Years ago an eminent public writer said that the Government ought to support its agents, in difficulties always, in errors sometimes, in crimes never. I am not going to argue that I would describe this particular transaction as criminal; but I do regard it, not as one of those errors into which a wise and good man may accidentally fall, but as one of those errors against which this House is called upon by its most supreme duty to register an emphatic and formal protest. I do not belong to the school—if school there be—which would deal out honours and emoluments to good public servants with a grudging and parsimonious hand, and I am not one of those who are not inclined to make allowances for men called upon to take important decisions in moments of emergency. On the contrary, I will make all allowance for men in positions of that kind; but this was evidently not such an occasion. I want to ask the Committee and the First Lord of the Treasury whether they hold that there is no kind of military action for which the plea of political necessity is not a good defence. Is there no kind of military action which could impair the title of such an eminent man as Lord Kitchener to a special mark of honour from this House? That cannot be contended, and I will give an illustration, and it shall be an African illustration. It has often been alleged that in the Congo State there is a resort to cannibal forces—that the Government of the Congo State employs, or has employed, cannibals to make war on the enemies of that Government. I will not insult the First Lord of the Treasury by asking him whether if it had been brought home to a British general that he had employed cannibal forces, he would propose that this House should give a mark of special honour to such a general. I am not going for a moment to embark the House on a discussion upon a discriminating scale of outrages upon humanity or upon natural piety, but I can suppose that to a Belgian, at all events, the exhumation of a dead enemy's remains is quite as inhuman, quite as great a violation of natural piety, as the employment of cannibal forces. I do not say that is my opinion, but I think I can imagine a Belgian making it a fair defence. He would say, "We are engaged in a great civilising and humanising task; in the execution of that task the resort to cannibal forces is indispensable; in the execution of that task what is indispensable is justifiable," and therefore his syllogism is concluded in his own favour. I do not say that, but the Committee will agree with me that there are military acts which no plea of political necessity can possibly justify. Let us look for a moment at what this plea of political necessity on the papers amounts to. The first authority quoted is Lord Cromer. I have no wish whatever to disparage the authority of Lord Cromer, but I would point out that all Lord Cromer can know upon the political necessity of this act must be from representations made to him by the military authorities. He was there himself for a very short time—but he committed himself to the view that there was a political necessity for the destruction of the tomb. I would ask the Committee to listen to another authority, who is not inferior to Lord Cromer nor to Lord Kitchener himself upon this matter. That is a gentleman well known by the name of Slatin Pasha, or, as he is now, Sir Rudolph Slatin. I see to-day that Sir Rudolph Slatin has slightly changed his view, but in an interview which he had in March with a representative of some London newspaper—(cries of "Name ")—the London Echo. That is a detail; but, be that as it may, the authenticity of the interview is not disputed. "May we take it," Slatin Pasha was asked, "that the desecration of the Mandi's tomb, about which so much has been said in England, is likely to give the last blow to the religious faith of the people in the creed of the dead prophet?" Sir Rudolph paused a moment before answering. "I don't think," he said slowly, "that the interference with the bones of the Mandi was a necessary act." Therefore, when the Committee naturally is very much affected by the authority of Lord Cromer, pray let it bear in mind that Slatin Pasha, whose authority is higher than Lord Cromer's, expresses dissent from his view—higher as to the frame of mind of the people who lived there.

—I beg to ask for the name of the correspondent.

—It is not a question of correspondent; it is a long interview.

Does Slatin Pasha admit it?

It is not denied at all. I have already stated to the Committee that my attention has been called to a statement of Slatin Pasha's in which he rather withdraws from that position, but not I think categorically. I am not going to press that point further. But look at Lord Kitchener's own position, and this is, after all, the pith of the matter. It is the only aspect of the case which I shall at all attempt to present pretty fully to the Committee. Lord Kitchener says, in the despatch which he telegraphed to Lord Cromer in consequence of the rise of feeling in this House, that he destroyed the tomb for two reasons. These two reasons may, for all I know, have been perfectly good ones. The first is that it was politically advisable, considering the state of the country, that the Mandi's tomb, which was the centre of pilgrimage and fanatical zeal, should be destroyed. The second reason, which he had not mentioned before, is that the tomb was in a dangerous condition, owing to the damage done by shellfire and might have caused loss of life. I am not going myself to dwell on the destruction of the tomb, but Lord Kitchener mentions later that:—

"In consequence of advice given to me after the taking of Omdurman, by Mahometan officers, it would be better to have the body removed, as otherwise many of the more ignorant people of Kordofan would consider the sanctity with which they surrounded the Mandi prevented us from doing so."

I may just call attention to one rather remarkable circumstance, namely, that this so-called "removal" was taken apparently not because Lord Kitchener thought it a political necessity, not because Lord Cromer thought it a political necessity, but because Mahometan officers thought it was politically advisable. Therefore, when you come to testing the authority upon which this revolting proceeding took place, do pray hear in mind that it was on the authority of Mahometan authorities. Has it come to this, then, that on a matter affecting our standard of civilisation this House is to take the standard from Mahometan officers? I have no prejudice against Mahometans, but I confess I think it would mark a deterioration of the highest principles that have animated public life in this country fur a very long time if that is to be accepted which hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to desire. The Mahdi set a better example. I do not know whether any right hon. Gentleman on the front bench will put me right, but I am told, and I believe it is true, that Sir Herbert Stewart, who met his death in the expedition of 1885, was buried in the Mahdi's territory, and that the remains of Sir Herbert Stewart are to this day absolutely intact. Therefore, the Mandi and his people paid some respect and veneration to the tomb of a brave enemy, which I deplore Lord Kitchener did not think it necessary to do. Let the Committee test the political necessity. It may have been politically advisable to make a deep impression on the ignorant people of Kordofan, as these Mahometan officers said. It is rather remarkable that they are not supposed to have been impressed by the Maxim guns, or by the slaughter, or by the vast exhibition of British power and energy. But this removal of the remains of their own dead prophet was to make an impression. If that is so, a very plain question arises. If the object was to impress the minds of these people, why was the operation conducted in stealth?

No.

The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, is well informed, and be says it was not conducted in stealth. Then all the reports I have had access to—and I have consulted all that are available— are misleading on that point. But here Slatin Pasha remains exactly where he was. He, at all events, like the rest of the public, conceived that this operation was done secretly. I should he glad if some member of the Government would by-and-by explain how far I am mistaken on that point. What Slatin Pasha said was this—

"The wrong thing about it was that it was done secretly. If it was held desirable to do this the emirs and sheikhs who still believed in the Mandi should have been summoned, and then, with the utmost publicity, and in the presence of all, the bones might have been removed from the tomb and buried elsewhere, showing them that their prophet was nothing but an ordinary man. But to do the thing secretly was a great mistake."

I do not dwell on the phrase "removal." It is a smooth and almost elegant expression for what really happened. And here I do not think there is one gentleman in this House—I am certain not one soldier—who will get up and say that he approves or that he does not disapprove and even abhor the actual proceeding taken, whether there was a valid political necessity or not, of mutilating the body of the Mahdi. (Ministerial cries of "There was no mutilation.") Was his head not cut off? (Cheers.)

No.

What does Lord Kitchener mean when he says, "When I left Omdurman for Fashoda I ordered the destruction of the tomb. This was done in my absence, the Mandi's bones being thrown into the Nile"? Surely, then, there was mutilation. "The skull only was preserved." I should be only too glad if the Government are able to say that the head was not severed from the body.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to suppose, on the strength of the phrase which he has just read out, that the head was severed from the rest of the remains with which it was connected; but, as a matter of fact, there was a mere collection of bones which had fallen to pieces by natural processes before exhumation took place.

This is a gruesome topic! Yes, hut you are not to escape gruesome topics if your commanders indulge in gruesome proceedings. If there was no deliberate mutilation—and, of course, I accept that and am heartily glad to accept it—I have no desire to blacken anybody's character—it cannot be denied that on Lord Kitchener's own assurance "the skull of the Mahdi was preserved and handed over to me for disposal." I think the act of digging up the remains of a dead enemy and dispersing them—and that is not denied—and the appropriation as a kind of trophy, a horrible trophy, of the skull of your dead enemy is one of those things I need not discuss. It has happened in history in two or three cases, I can only recall two or three, or perhaps four. The French Revolutionists in their frenzy went to the Church of St. Lazare and fired into the tombs of the Kings and threw their bones to the winds. The Kings of France did not perhaps deserve much better. One of them, and the greatest of them, had himself perpetrated an act of this kind, because at a monastery—with the teaching of which he happened to disagree—an exhumation was carried out to the tune of 3,000 corpses. So Louis XIV. did not get worse treatment than he meted out to others. Then our own journals contain a famous order of the House directing that the carcases of Oliver Cromwell and others should be taken from their graves. ("Hear, hear" from the Irish benches.) I can understand our friends from Ireland objecting to put up a statue to Oliver Cromwell, but I pm amazed that they should think it is a good thing to take up his carcase.

If the right hon. Gentleman alludes to me, I did not say it was a good thing. I thought it a good exemplification of the savage temper of this House in those days.

Now I have one or two questions which the Government, in vindication of Lord Kitchener himself, must answer. When Lord Kitchener left Omdurman for Fashoda, what instructions did he leave behind? Did he order the casting of the remains into the Nile? Did he direct the body to be decently interred elsewhere? When the skull was handed over, was it carried off as a trophy? Where was it carried to? Lord Cromer says it is now buried at Wady Halfa. When? Was the reinterment in consequence or not of the feeling shown in this House and the country? Sir, the House may think these are slight incidents. I venture to think it will be a very bad day for this House and the country when such ignoble proceedings are treated in this House as trivial arid when it is felt that they require no justification. This is the question—and here is where I venture, with the utmost reluctance, to differ from my right hon. friend who sits near me—ls this House or not to have an opportunity of protesting against this ignoble proceeding? I do not at all call a perfunctory parenthesis a protest on the part of the House. We want something more than that. You send your soldiers to civilise savages. Take care the savages do not barbarise your soldiers. What is more important a great deal, take care that the maxims, standards, and feelings of this House are not barbarised. The more you extend your Empire—and the Colonial Secretary will be the first man to agree with me—the more need is there, the more imperative is it, that this House should exact from its agents abroad the same standards of conduct which we exact at home; and it will be a had day indeed if we have one conscience for the mother country and another conscience for all that vast territory over which your eye does not extend. We must be slow in entrusting power far away from our control and observation. We must strongly insist that that power shall be used in conformity with our own principles of humanity. When I used some language—which I abide by—on this transaction the right hon. Member for Manchester rebuked me. It was a kind of rebuke, I fancy, that was heard in a neighbouring country, or has been for some months past, when anyone ventured to criticise the General Staff.

What I complained of was that the right hon. Gentleman condemned Lord Kitchener when he had been told inquiries were being made.

We were not then assured of Lord Kitchener's share in the transaction, and I expressly disclaimed any wish to censure Lord Kitchener on that occasion. So the right hon. Baronet is completely wrong. I do not know whether many will agree with me or not, but this is an occasion, in my view, if ever there was an occasion, when, in a form that cannot be mistaken, this House should show it is capable of expressing what I believe to be, and I believe you will find to be, the real voice of the conscience of this country and those who send us here; and it is because I think that, and think it most profoundly, that I for one, whatever others may do, must "No" to this Vote.

I rather hesitate to rise again so soon after addressing the House, but the right hon. Gentleman has put some questions to me. He has appealed to me, as representing the Government, for some view of the transactions to which he has referredt—transactions, I may say, which, in my judgment, whatever view the House may take of them, have been thrown into most undue and disproportionate prominence by the course which the right hon. Gentleman has thought it fit to take. Let us at once agree that the idea that any British officer, with our concurrence or approval, direct or indirect, should use his power to execute vengeance upon a dead enemy is absolutely repulsive to all the instincts of civilised men, whether they be soldiers or civilians. But I do not believe that the element of vengeance entered in the smallest degree into the motive or action of Lord Kitchener, or coloured with even the faintest colouring the policy which, on public grounds and public grounds alone, he thought it is duty to follow. The right hon. Gentleman talked—and I have heard some people talk elsewhere—as if the Mahdi was a man against whom Lord Kitchener was fighting, as if he was the general conducting the force we had opposed and defeated, and, the general of our enemy having been killed, vengeance was taken on his dead remains. I need not remind the Committee that the Mahdi had been dead twelve years, and that, as far as I know, Lord Kitchener had never been brought into military conflict with him. He did not represent the military element against which we were fighting, thought he did represent the military force. Let me add, to make the case with regard to vengeance complete, that I believe the Mahdi's family, his son-in-law, and other relatives, have been treated by Lord Kitchener and the British authorities with the utmost consideration, and if vengeance had been his motive and animating impulse he would not have associated the action to which the right hon. Gentleman objects with the treatment of those most nearly connected with the dead false prophet. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into error on another point. He believes the operation was secret. I am informed, on the contrary, that it was done publicly, and that publicity was an essential part of the policy which originally prompted it, and that it was deliberately carried out—I believe there were British officers present—but it was deliberately carried out, by Lord Kitchener's orders, by the native officers and men of the Soudanese regiments. The reason they were selected for the duty was in order that they might know and transmit the knowledge throughout the length and breadth of the Soudan that the Mahdi was after all not the Heaven-sent prophet they imagined him to be, but belonged to a temporary, false, and dying creed. The right hon. Gentleman has criticised not only the motives of Lord Kitchener, but the strength of the considerations which induced him to take the course he did take. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, for us sitting here comfortably in an English June to estimate the political and religious considerations which animate the savage superstitions of the black population of the Soudan, but I desire to remind the House of what, I think, they have forgotten—of the army of occupation, the 20,000 men whom Lord Kitchener took with him to Omdurman and Khartoum, about a third only were British troops, and that third had to he immediately removed. You practically left, and intended to leave—it was your policy to leave—at Khartoum no more white men than were necessary to command your native levies. Of whom did those native levies consist? In part of Egyptian regiments, who also, I believe, were removed, but they were largely Soudanese not only so, but they were largely composed of men who at one time of their lives had been disciples of the Mahdi, and, more than that, they largely consisted of men who had fought for the Khalifa at Ferkeh, Atbara, and Omdurman; they were among the men who had rushed up to our rifles with that splendid courage which has been the admiration of all who have read authentic accounts of the military transactions of the campaign. This handful of British officers were going to be left alone in the midst of this vast and seething mass of native Soudanese, who, up to the very eve of the day when the last of these transactions took place had been fanatical and devoted followers of Mahdism. Was it not the first duty of the man responsible for the safety of these officers that he should, if possible, cut at the very root of that fanatical superstition which had been the strength of Mahdism for fifteen or sixteen years? The right hon. Gentleman, among others, may think that the means were ill contrived to attain the end, but that it was a matter of first necessity that the end should be attained no hon. Member who understands the real position in the Soudan then and now can possibly doubt. Recollect that, though we had destroyed, as a fighting body, the vast array of 60,000 men shattered outside Omdurman, there remained in Kordofan, Darfur, and elsewhere in the Soudan garrisons of the Khalifa the vast tribes who had been devoted followers of the Mahdi, and who were wavering in their allegiance to the Khalifa. Lord Kitchener was of opinion, and I believe is of opinion, that had he not pursued the course he did pursue these tribes, instead of throwing in their lot with us and accepting our rule, would have continued to follow Mahdism, with consequences, not to this country only, but to Egypt and the Soudan, which will suggest themselves to the mind of every man who has followed the history of the great Nile basin during the last 20 years. This great fabric of the Mahdist tyranny rested on two bases. In the first place it had a military basis of armed strength, brutal and unceasing cruelty and tyranny, which never for a moment relaxed its grip; and, on the other hand, it rested on the superstitious belief of a most superstitious population in the supernatural character of the prophet who had brought this phase of Mahometanism into being. We shattered the first of these foundations at Ferkeh, at Atbara, and Omdurman; we shattered it at a cost of many valuable lives of our own countrymen and allies, we shattered it at the cost of an appalling slaughter—appalling but necessary slaughter—of those arrayed against us; and is Lord Kitchener to be blamed because he destroyed the other foundation of Mahdism, without inflicting a wound on a single individual—without, so far as I know, doing anything which can be described as hurting the religious convictions of any human being—without battle, without slaughter, without inflicting death, pain, suffering, or loss upon anyone? If it be true, as Lord Kitchener believed and believes, that the course he then took—a course not dictated by vengeance or hostility to a dead foe, but a course simply intended to preserve the future of the Soudan from that which had been its curse in the past—if he is right in supposing that that policy did produce its effect, and that it is owing to that policy that at this moment Darfur and Kordofan are faithful to British and Egyptian rule, and that at this moment the Khalifa, instead of making fresh head and leading new troops against our men, finds himself the leader of a rapidly diminishing body of discouraged followers—if, I say, that was the result, will any man get up here and blame him? It is very easy, it is a very simple matter, in the name of civilisation and morality, and in the security of Britain, with the ease and conditions of civilised life around us, to blame one who in a critical moment took a decision of which you disapprove. You have no responsibility now for the safety of the English officers to whom you committed the charge of the Soudan; it is not on your shoulders the blame would fall if by a recrudescence of this bloodthirsty superstition all these men had been sacrificed. Recollect, there is but a step from the recrudescence of Mahdism to the absolute destruction of every white man from north to south of the Soudan. That was the problem Lord Kitchener had to face. All that could be done by successful fighting, by brilliant feats of arms, by undaunted courage, had been done, and for the moment the forces of the Khalifa were shattered and flying. He had still to deal with that more subtle malady chronic in the Soudan—the superstitious malady which easily believes in the prophetic mission of some bloodthirsty pretender to religious eminence, a belief which, when it once gains head, can only be crushed, as we have crushed it, at a vast cost of life, labour, and money. I can hardly imagine the right hon. Gentleman the member for Montrose having to take a decision in face of the living reality with which he had to deal; but if I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman being told after the fall of Khartoum that he had to choose between the disinterment of the Mahdi's body on the one hand and with it the destruction of the superstition which the Mahdi created over a vast area of the Soudan, and, on the other hand, a possible recrudescence of the difficulties from Which we have suffered so much, and as a consequence of those difficulties the probable destruction of men of our own blood and country who had served us long and well, and whom we had left there in the midst of an alien population to bring to them the blessings of peace and civilisation—if, I say, I could conceive the right hon. Gentleman having to decide then and there what line he would take, I greatly doubt whether his policy would have widely differed from that Lord Kitchener adopted.

I would have returned the remains to the ground.

The right hon. Gentleman says he would have put the remains in the ground again, and possibly that might have been a better course; but let it be remembered, when the right hon. Gentleman talks as if these bones had been tossed with every circumstance of ignominy into the first receptacle that could be found for them, that that was not the case. There were no circumstances of ignominy, and from such information as I have obtained I learn that no such impression of ignominy was pro- duced on the native population. I believe that anything in the nature of cremation, which to other ideas would probably have been more desirable, would have been regarded by them as the last insult that could have been offered, but as I am informed what was actually clone had no such result. But, after all, the distinction does not appear to be so great as the right hon. Gentleman supposes, and even were it greater than it is are we in a debate intended to do honour and confer reward for long years of faithful, responsible, and anxious service, carried out under unexampled difficulties with unexampled skill, to dwell at this disproportionate length upon what, even in the corrected view of the right hon. Gentleman, would appear to have been a mere error of judgment? I hope I have in the argument I have developed said something which will not only bring back the discussion to its true proportion, but will also show that in the course he adopted Lord Kitchener was animated by none of those mean, contemptible motives too rashly, and surely most foolishly, attributed to him. Sir, rightly or wrongly—as I believe, rightly— he took a general survey of the whole situation in the Soudan as he found it, and, with the tremendous responsibility on his shoulders of seeing that the lives of our officers left there in command of Soudanese troops were not again to be sacrificed as too many lives have in the past been sacrificed, he took a decision, not one, I well believe, agreeable to himself, but dictated by a high sense of his duty to the country he served and to the country of which he was the conqueror. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who I fully recognise has performed a task which to himself must have been extremely disagreeable with all moderation, will feel that enough has been said upon this topic and that we may with every advantage now proceed to the termination of the discussion and a decision on the Vote.

If there is one thing more deplorable than another in connection with the perpetration of these barbarities by an army commanded by a British general, that is that they should be defended by the Leader of the House. The excuse which has been made amounts to this, that because we were making use of barbarous instruments we therefore must have recourse to barbarous methods. The country ought, in view of the further use of Soudanese troops, to know that such is the consequence of the employment of savage troops in the service of the British Government. The leader of the Opposition has admitted that there are two grave matters which we ought justly to consider in connection with this Vote: one, the treatment of the tomb and body of our dead enemy, and the other the treatment of our wounded enemies on the field of battle. My right hon. friend has said, and justly said, that as far as the British troops are concerned no very grave charges of inhumanity had been brought against them. I hold and believe that that is the case, although there were isolated cases of inhumanity, established on their own testimony, as some of them have written letters on the subject which have been published in this country. I think that even in these isolated cases things were done which we must all regret. But there is a far graver question, and that is the conduct of those native troops on whom we largely relied in this campaign and upon whom we have apparently come to entirely rely in order to hold the country. No one can suppose that this is a pleasant subject to raise in this House, or that anyone would raise it out of lightness of heart or from any political or party motive; and the leader of the House will do me the justice to believe that in speaking of it I am not actuated by any such motives. But the House is entitled to know, so far as can be known, what did happen in regard to this grave, this terrible matter. I do not pretend to be able to lay the whole facts before hon. Members—it is quite impossible for any private person to do so—and all I can attempt to establish is that there is a strong case for inquiry, and that, in face of the facts they already knew, the House should not be asked to confer a signal mark of honour and favour in respect of the conduct of the campaign until it has caused the matter to be sifted to the very bottom. It is admitted on all hands that the wounded were killed in the course of the battle of Omdurman, as probably they have been killed in every battle in the Soudan since we have been engaged with this savage and relentless enemy. No rational man would for a moment contend that in no circumstances is it justifiable to kill a wounded man. If a wounded man has arms and is resisting, or shows clearly that he intends to resist, he is a combatant just like any other, and must be treated as such; but when the wounded were killed, not because they had weapons and showed that they intended to use them, but simply because they were lying in the way of advancing troops, then that is taking a very great and terrible responsibility, and it is a matter which needs to be hedged round with the greatest possible care and precaution by the commander of the force, who must make the utmost possible effort to let the troops understand clearly what is expected of them, to prevent them going beyond the border-line of what is an extremely slippery slope, and who must also take care that there is a sufficient supply of officers thoroughly instructed in their duty to restrain the very unruly and barbarous material under their command. Was that done on this occasion? Sufficient proof that it was not done can be brought before the House. When I some time ago asked what orders were given I was informed that no orders were given on that occasion different from those given on other occasions. That does not carry us very much further, and we have not been able to learn what were the orders or what was exactly expected of the officers and of the troops. We ought to know. I believe it is the fact that no general order was given in regard to the treatment of the wounded. That has been stated by General Gatacre, and that fact is part of my complaint. An order ought to have been given, remembering the troops that were employed and what had occurred on previous occasions. But that some orders were given was proved by statements in the private letters of our own soldiers, and although I am not prepared to take the word of these men—many of whom are not men of education, and are not used to weigh their words very carefully—as to the exact nature of the order, this, at least, emerges as absolutely certain, that even our own soldiers did not understand clearly that they were to discriminate, as they ought to discriminate, between a wounded enemy who was dangerous and another who was not. The House should remember that the letters from which I am about to quote extracts were written, not for any ulterior purpose, but simply as repre- senting the impression produced upon our troops by the orders they had received. Lieutenant Fison, presumably a man of education, wrote:

"Previous to the advance the Sirdar hail issued orders that all wounded dervishes passed over had to be killed."

Private Pendlebury, of the Lancashire Fusiliers, wrote:

"The order was to bayonet every one, dead or alive, as we passed them."

Private Barlow, of the same regiment, wrote:

"As we advanced we were ordered to kill all the wounded that we met."

Then a soldier, in his diary, published in the Birmingham Angus, said—

"The order was given that all wounded dervishes met with were to be shot or bayoneted";

while theChronicle thus quoted a letter from a private soldier:

"Before the battle began they gave the order out, and as we advanced they were lying underneath the bushes. You ought to have seen the men bayonet them."

TheWestminster Gazette quoted the following from a soldier's private letter—

"After the battle we advanced over the battlefield, when we had to walk over the dead and wounded enemy. the enemy who were wounded were quickly bayoneted."

From such perfectly spontaneous testimony the House must conclude that at least there was a very considerable negligence, a very considerable want of precision, a very marked want of forethought, on the part of those who should have thought of the wounded on the battlefield. I hope the time will never come when the House will idly treat this matter, and think that because we are waging war with barbarous enemies, who would give no quarter if they were victorious, we should treat them when they are defeated after their own barbarous methods and refuse them the privileges we would grant to a civilised enemy in similar circumstances. I am willing not only to admit but to claim that there were on the part of our own troops many cases of signal humanity, and that many dervishes who showed that they had thrown away their weapons were allowed to pass harmless through the British lines; but that fact does not do away with the other evidence of acts which all must regret. But what was the impression produced upon the native troops by the orders that were given, and what was their conduct? If it is the case that we are to depend almost exclusively upon these black troops, the conduct of these men in the field. becomes a very serious matter, and so also does the question of how they are to be restrained from pursuing their natural instincts of brutality and barbarism. As to their conduct at the battle of Omdurman, the only evidence obtainable is that of officers and correspondents who were present. The first that I will quote is Mr. Cross, who died shortly afterwards from the effects of enteric fever in the Soudan. He was a very brave and very trustworthy witness. Mr. Stevens, iii his book on the Soudan campaign, has described him as "quiet, gentle, patient, brave, sincere—the type of an English gentleman." Such a mini was not likely to bear false witness in a matter in which the reputation of his own country was concerned. But he said:

"It was about 8.15 when the light at the zareba was over, and about nine o'clock orders were given for the zareba to he opened and a general advance made in the direction of Omdurman. One of the chief features of this advance was the conduct of the black camp followers, who hurried out in front of the lines and hastily looted the dead and wounded. They took good care that the latter were soon numbered with the former. It was a shameful sight to see them shooting down the stricken dervishes at such close quarters that many of the bodies were set on lire, and the smell of burning flesh was added to the horrors of the battlefield. SO careless were they in their shooting that one ran as much risk of being shot by them during the advance as by the enemy. At least four men in the Wawicks were struck by these reckless shooters, who continued their, grisly task throughout the day, stripping on the jibbehs, rifling the pockets, and gathering sheaves of spears and swords. Many a jibbeh which will be exhibited in triumph after this campaign has been bought at the price of the life of a wounded man. In a few eases a revolver was necessary in self-defence, but the wholesale slaughter that was carried on by the blacks was indefensible."

That statement relates only to the black camp followers, but some precautions ought to have been taken to keep these in hand and prevent their bloodthirsty and brutal instincts bringing discredit on the army. I asked a question on this matter, and was promised an answer, but none has been given, Lord Kitchener having never referred to that part of the subject. If, however, it is only a matter of camp followers it would be a comparatively small matter, but I am sorry to say that is very far from being the case. Mr. Maxwell, the special correspondent, after describing what happened immediately after the repulse of the attack on the zareba, said:

"Some of the Sirdar's Soudanese were cautiously making their way across the field of battle, their duty being one which, however hateful it may, seem to the theoretical humanitarians, warfare against a savage horde like the followers of the Khalifa makes imperative. There is no need to dwell on such incidents, as the Sirdar's black troops were doing what had to be done to make a safe path across the scene of conflict."

Then Mr. Charles Williams, one of the most cool-headed and most experienced of correspondents, included in his telegram to the Chronicle describing the battle a passage which was deliberately struck out by the censor. Mr. Williams subsequently wrote:—

"A most material passage in my description of the affray—for one must sacrifice all sense, of proportion to call the affair of September 2nd a battle—was suppressed without the slightest intimation of the fact being communicated to me. When I am asked, therefore, why I omitted such a striking incident, it is necessary to explain that I did not. After the first phase of the fight the Sirdar, with his staff, moved to the right, and I accompanied them. … While I was going on a staff officer of the British division called out to me, 'Come along; we're off to Omdurman. So I started by a short cut to join the British division, a few minutes before the dervishes made their second attack, which so seriously threatened Macdonald's brigade. I witnessed this from a commanding position on the hill. But in reaching that position I had crossed a portion of the slaughter-ground in the first phase, and had witnessed within a few yards of me the way in which native soldiers were killing all the dervishes wounded in that part of the field, because some of the wounded had thrown spears or javelins at the troops. Moved by indignation (though at Abu Klea I had a spear thrown at myself, and the man who threw it had his head blown off by a Grenadier Guardsman) I was about to appeal to some senior officer, for I saw no British executive officer with the Ghippies, when a medical officer advised me to retire, as the bullets were flying about recklessly. My description of the scene was excessively mild —but it was suppressed. I do not say the slaughter after the fight was wholly unprovoked. I do say it was excessive, and ought to have peen checked."

There was only one other statement I will read to the House. It fills ill the details of the occurrence. It is an extract from a private letter, and I shall be glad to give the name of the writer to the Leader of the House if he desires it, as proof of my good faith. The letter was not written for publication, but it was sent to a friend by the writer, who was present throughout with the native brigades. He said:

"After attack on zareba the fire zone was scattered with dead and dying dervishes. When the force advanced inechelon of brigades from the left the British brigades happened to pass over ground which was practically clear of bodies, but the natives of Maxwell's brigade, whom I accompanied, marched in a broadish formation (column of double companies) across that part of the ground where the attack had been most of all pressed home. … I rode out of the zareba, just ahead of this native brigade, in order to look at some of the dervishes. I trotted out slowly, but immediately found myself under a heavy fire from these men in my rear, and, turning round, I saw that the front ranks of Maxwell's brigade, in a fairly well-preserved formation, were shooting independently—i.e. each man shooting as he thought good— at dead and dying dervishes. I turned round, and came in circuitously behind the ranks, and went across the field with them till I was sick. Men dropped out of the ranks here and there and potted men who were dying and then striped them. They as a rule before stripping them both shot and bayoneted them, to make sure they were dead. If any heap of dervishes was in the way, four or five men would fire a volley before approaching it. One or two of the wounded screamed and crawled up and begged to be let off, and that was excruciatingly heartrending to see, because the Soudanese then jabbed them, with a noisy laugh. I stopped about fifteen to twenty minutes, and I must have seen a great many men killed like that in that time. Behind the ranks came a fringe of camp followers, who were shooting and looting everywhere, and who positively made it dangerous to be anywhere near them. They over burdened themselves with all sorts of loot, which they dragged oft the dead dervishes. I saw no single live dervish at any point within 300 or 400 yards of the ground over which Maxwell's brigade advanced after they had passed by. I talk solely of what happened under my own nose, and I only speak of those things of the occurrence of which 1 am as positive as that I breathe. You may say that it was necessary for the safety of the advancing troops. That is a matter for discussion. I only mention the fact that from about 8.15 to about 9 practically the whole of the front ranks of Maxwell's brigade, with whom I was, were engaged close by me in shooting and bayoneting every wounded loan they saw; that I saw some fall out of the ranks to do so, and driven back, non-commissioned officers swearing at them, &c., and that behind there was a crowd of excited camp followers doing what I have said. I left these natives at about 8.40 and rode eastwards towards the river. The shooting went on just as much for the, next twenty minutes at least some half-mile to my right rear, but I was not actually with them then.

"After the second phase of the battle, which you know about, I was with Lewis's brigade. These were formed at one time at right angles to Macdonald's. Subsequently the two brigades were in line, with their backs towards the river, and in that formation they advanced westwards, when the attack had been repelled, for a distance of about 1½ mile. All this ground was thickly covered with dead and dying dervishes. I accompanied Lewis's brigade. I was shoulder to shoulder between two battalions, who were deployed in the firing line throughout. There was no conceivable reason for excitement or angry ferocity on the part of the men. They had never been in any danger so long as they went on shooting, and they knew it. Therefore there was no excuse for the way they behaved when we passed over the ground when everything was over. When there were thick clumps of bodies (as there were repeatedly) in our way the regiments were halted and made to fire a volley. Except for that, I heard no order to kill the wounded. It wasn't necessary, for these men—and I noticed the 15th battalion especially—fell out of the ranks in order to stalk wounded dervishes, and crept up behind them and potted them in the small of the neck. Officers swore, but the men saw red and wouldn't stop—paid no attention. I saw an officer hit a man with the flat of his sword for this. I went and kicked one myself back into the ranks, because it wasn't tolerable to see. This went on till about twelve o'clock, and then the order to cease fire was given. I don't speak of any other brigades, because I was only close with these two at those times, and it was not possible to give evidence which is absolutely indubitable in every detail unless you are quite close."

Now I venture to say, after such a narrative with regard to the conduct of these troops, no one could possibly defend deeds of that kind. Everybody must regret such conduct, and everybody must feel that things of this kind could only happen if the whole of our Sudanese warfare was thoroughly rotten, and if the general in charge of the troops had given up any attempt to restrain this kind of excesses. At any rate, I think that this House, before it is called upon to give the Vote which it is now asked to give, is entitled to have these matters sifted to the bottom, that it is entitled to know who is responsible for these things, and to have some assurance, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that every possible precaution will be taken in the future that unhappy events of this kind shall not happen again. There is one other matter which I think is almost as painful as the treatment of the wounded upon the battlefield, and that is the failure to bring them adequate succour when the battle was over. I am aware that something was done, but it was quite insufficient, to bring succour to the wounded. Lieutenant Churchill has described how, three days after the battle, he went over the field and found these wretched wounded men crawling down at the rate of some 300 or 400 yards a day, and crawling across the river without anyone to help them. Even a week after that, he went on to the battlefield again, and there some of these wretched men were still suffering these agonies. I think that is a terrible state of things, for these men were not just a few here and there isolated cases, but the correspondents who went out a week after the battle saw hundreds of these poor men on the banks of the river crawling about and trying to get what little shelter they could find, and they were doing their best to sustain life. Considering that a single steamer would have sufficed to have brought all these men to Omdurman, I think it is deplorable that a steamer was not set aside for this purpose, and that a more systematic and organised effort was not made to bring these men back and properly provide for them. I asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he considered that these men should be treated on the same terms as the wounded soldiers or civilised armies, and whether the convention as to the conduct of war did not provide that the wounded of all nations should be brought in. The right hon. Gentleman replied that as much as possible should be done in that direction, but my complaint is that it was not done in this case. Many of the steamers I know were wanted for other purposes, but I think the claims of humanity ought to have come before these other necessities, and at least one of the steamers might have been spared to bring succour to these miserable men. I should not have taken advantage of this occasion to bring forward this subject, and I should have been glad to have brought it forward earlier upon the Supplementary Estimates for the service in the Soudan, but I was told that it could not then be raised because Lord Kitchener was not paid out of those Estimates; and I was told that this was the stage when the matter might be brought forward, because Lord Kitchener, as the Sirdar, was paid out of Egyptian and not out of British money. I think I have at least shown that there is matter here for the gravest possible consideration of this House. We are probably now only at the beginning and not at the end of our Soudanese troubles. I believe that we are probably at the beginning of a series of conflicts with savage enemies as fierce probably as those we were engaged in upon this occasion. This is of vital importance in the future when we are employing troops which are not our own, and not animated by the traditions of the British Army, and which are probably very much under-officered by white officers. Therefore it is of the most vital consequence that steps should be taken which will render it impossible that things of this kind shall happen again. I shall perhaps be told that I am attacking the honour of the British Army, but I do not think that the honour of the British Army has anything to fear from an investigation of the facts as to what was done on this occasion, or upon any other occasion. I do think, however, that we should take great care that nothing shall be done at any future time which may bring discredit upon our arms. I claim that none of us, at least on this side of the House, are called upon to vote for this grant until this matter has been sifted to the bottom, and until it has been shown that we have some guarantee that the deeds which followed the battle of Omdurman will not occur in the future.

I am at a loss to conceive why my right hon. friend the Leader of the House wants to close this debate so soon. This question has excited great interest in the country, and not only that, but it is a question which affects the honour of the British Army. I should have thought, therefore, that my right hon. friend would have rather encouraged the debate on this matter so as to have thoroughly cleared up the question; and if the debate goes on I feel perfectly certain that Lord Kitchener will be found to have done the right thing in regard to this question. Now the two points which I should like to touch upon, and which are interesting the country so much, are these: Was it necessary to disentomb the Mahdi, and was the disentombment done in an honourable manner? With regard to the second point, I quite agree with my right hon. friend the Leader of the House that it might have been done in a very much better manner. For my part, I should like to have seen the remains not only taken away and buried somewhere else, but taken away with some sort of ceremony and respect for the dead, which sentiments everybody ought to hold. That is the point which woke up the British public, because the chivalry of our country does not like to think that the remains of a man who had fought against us have been treated with some sort of spite. Then there is another point, and it is as to the manner in which the disentombment was carried on. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was no silence or secrecy about it, but that it was done publicly by the men under Lord Kitchener's command. As far as the act of disentombment is concerned, I am certain that every military and naval man deplores the way in which it was done, for it was not done according to our own traditions of English chivalry. Now as to the point whether it was necessary. Remember, Lord Kitchener, as I understand it, gave the order for the disentombment of the Mahdi, and I hold most strongly that Lord Kitchener was absolutely right in giving that order, and I will endeavour to show the Committee why, if hon. Members will be good enough to listen to me. Lord Kitchener gave the order for the disentombment, but he did not see it carried out, and I say that they did not carry it out on the lines which the British people desire that it should be carried out. Lord Kitchener, however, takes the full responsibility, and by so doing he adopts the old chivalrous method of our military people—he takes the full responsibility of all that happened, although he had absolutely no connection with the way in which it was carried out. I believe that Lord Kitchener just as much regrets the way in which his orders were carried out as everybody else does who has studied the question. Now, as to the point of necessity. The disentombment of the Mahdi's remains was necessary simply to secure that there should be no revival of that religious fanaticism which undoubtedly would have occurred if the Government had allowed the Mandi's remains to remain where they were. In the East, when once the Mahometan people make a holy place, or make a saint of one of their leaders, his tomb becomes a place to which they go for the purpose of raising fanaticism in the times that may follow, and everybody knows that that is the case. Now I wish to take, most respectfully, issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose upon this point. I say this with great respect and with great earnestness that, so far as I can judge from the right hon. Gentle- man's writings and by his teachings, he is no judge of religious fanaticism whatever. I say this with respect because, as I understand what he has written, he does not regard religious fanaticism as anything that can ever be powerful, because he says himself that he does not understand the question at all. That being so I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman as a guide as to what should be done to check this religious fanaticism. With regard to the reason why Lord Kitchener disentombed the Mahdi, the First Lord of the Treasury has already pointed out that half his army were old Mahdists, and that was a very important point. Remember that these men and the Mahometan officers serving under Lord Kitchener were the men who went to Lord Kitchener and proved to his satisfaction that unless this false religion and this false prophet were proved to be false these risings would continue, and they told him that the only way he could prove it was by disentombing the Mahdi. They pointed out to Lord Kitchener that they would have the greatest difficulty in the future in governing the Soudan if this were not done, because fanaticism must be revived. Then as to the tribes. Lord Kitchener has not had very easy work—and he is not going to have very easy work—in governing all these tribes. Most of these tribes I knew myself in the Soudan, and they have all been nearly decimated under the banner of Mahdism. You may say that the Mahdi did not do it, but the Khalifa decimated them in the name of the teachings of the Mahdi, and all these tribes would naturally wish that it should be proved that the Mahdi himself was a false prophet, and that could only be done by disentombing him. On the one side I entirely sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's views in respect to the treatment of the dead; but, after all; it is only a theory and a sentiment. On the other side, however, you have the hard practical fact that this fanaticism would rise again if this was not done, because the people told Lord Kitchener so, and they would not have told him so had they any doubt in their own minds as to whether in the future this man might not be regarded as a saint in this holy place. There is nothing in history that I have ever read that can exceed the horrors and the terrors that went on in the Soudan before the brilliant victory at Omdurman. There was only one man in history who even approached the atrocity, the bloodshed, and the murders that went on in the Soudan under the direction of the Mahdi and the Khalifa, and under the guise and religion of the Mahdi, and that man was Ibrahim Pasha. The tight hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose does not believe in the power of religious fanaticism—

The noble Lord cannot have read my writings, or else he would have seen that fanaticism was one of the things I have written most about.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to argue that religious fanaticism was so absurd that he could not admit its power, but I am not a literary man. Let me give an instance of religious fanaticism which occurred when I was in the Soudan. There was a great sheikh captured, and he was brought into the presence of a distinguished general who questioned him about the Mahdi. The general said to him, "Is this man a man of God?" "Certainly," replied the sheikh. "And how do you know?" asked the general, and the sheikh answered, "Because he performed miracles." "Does he?" asked the general. "What miracles has he performed lately?" "Well, he came down to Khartoum and he wanted to go to Omdurman and he had no boat. He prayed, and an alligator came up out of the Nile and carried him to Omdurman." "And did you see it?" asked the general. "Oh, no," replied the sheikh; "but all the people told me, and they saw it." That man actually believed this story. But there is a comic side to this question, for the general happened to have a glass eye, and he said to the sheikh, "If I take out one of my eyes, throw it up in the air, catch it, and put it back again, don't you think I ought to be a Mahdi?" "Yes," said the sheikh. The general took out his glass eye, threw it up, caught it as it was falling, and put it back again, and the shiekh fell on his knees before him and said, "God is great; you must be the Mahdi." I quote this as an illustration of what I mean by religions fanaticism. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is in a very peculiar position in regard to this question, and he ought to be consistent. The right hon. Gentleman is a trustee of the British Museum, and there can be no such object lesson with regard to the desecration of tombs than there is in the British Museum, for there are mummies not only of distinguished kings, but of people who were worshipped and prayed to as gods in the old days, and the right hon. Gentleman as a trustee of the museum, is more or less responsible for that state of things. I wish to carry out this matter to its logical conclusion. Suppose, a thousand years hence, another right hon. Gentleman of the same views as the right hon. Gentleman opposite may be in the same position; he would think nothing of having dug up the Mahdi, and bringing home to the British Museum those remains for everybody to look at. I do think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be consistent about this question. If you dig up a man who may have been buried some two or three thousand years ago, you may preserve his skull as a relic of the past; but if you dig up the remains of the Mahdi, you are doing a thing that is atrocious. With regard to what Lord Kitchener did, I feel perfectly certain that he did the right thing. He was noble and big about it; it was not done in the way that he wished it to be done; but he gave the order and he took upon himself the whole and absolute responsibility for everything that was done. My right hon. friend the Leader of the House also mentioned the question of revenge. How could there be any question of revenge? It was a question of sheer political necessity for the future administration of the Soudan. If we wanted to be revengeful, why did we not imprison the Mahdi's two sons? We took them prisoners, but Lord Kitchener gave them land and liberty because he wished to show that he did not desire to exhibit vengeance but sympathy for them, and thus show respect for the man who had ruled the country for so many years. In some respects I am sorry that this question has been brought forward in the way it has, although I believe that the more it is discussed the better will people see that nothing has been done which is discreditable to the great General we had out there. By his conduct of the operations in the Soudan Lord Kitchener has not only commanded the admiration of all of us, but he has also commanded the respect of every single nation in Europe, for he has shown himself to be a brilliant administrator and a most uncommonly good financier. For these reasons I am sorry that there should have been one word brought forward with regard to his qualifications for the graceful act that this House is asked to make towards him. On the other hand, I am very glad indeed that the subject has been brought forward, and although I differ from my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury as to the advisability of fully and thoroughly debating this question, I believe that the more it is debated the more credit and the more respect will be given to the great General who upheld our honour in the Soudan.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to imagine that the opposition on this side of the House to the Vote is due solely to certain acts that were done by Lord Kitchener. I am free to confess that if the wounded at Omdurman had been well treated, and if we had never heard one word about the Mahdi's tomb and the Mahdi's body, I would have voted against this grant. It seems to be thought that up to the present time, when a grant has been proposed for some successful General, it has always been accepted with acclamation by the House. That is a mistake. In the case of the grants to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, afterwards Lord Alcester, and to Lord Wolseley, I challenged a Division upon them, and had a small measure of support on this side of the House. Will any hon. Gentleman tell me why, in the name of goodness, when a public servant belonging to the Army or Navy fulfils his duty efficiently, a Vote of public money is granted to him? Why is a grant never offered to men in the Civil Service? Can hon. Gentlemen opposite tell me of one single case in which any great statesman or prominent civil servant has been granted, during this century, a Vote of money for exceptional services? And yet there have been statesmen who have done acts for the benefit of the country compared to which the deeds of naval and military men were small. Take Egypt, for instance, where Lord Cromer has distinguished himself for as many years as Lord Kitchener, and has done quite as great service to the country; and yet no one has suggested that Lord Cromer should be given a grant of £30,000. (Cries of "Divide.") Unless the closure is put on, we mean to carry on this discussion for some time, and hon. Members opposite may safely go away to dinner, and put themselves out of their misery. I can perfectly understand that in such a case as the battle of Waterloo or the battle of Trafalgar, on which the fate of the entire nation might depend, you might vote the victorious general or admiral a sum of money; but that is one of the exceptions that prove the rule. I have no feeling against Lord Kitchener, but I contend that no such element entered into the Soudan campaign. Besides, there was not that equality between the combatants which is necessary to make a great, important, and serious victory. The First Lord of the Treasury has praised Lord Kitchener, and I am quite willing to agree to everything he said in regard to Lord Kitchener's military capacity. But I ask, does the First Lord suppose that we are so poor in generals, that if the task had been given to one of many other generals he could not have done it equally well and effectually as Lord Kitchener? I want to point out that it was not by the efforts or by the genius of Lord Kitchener that this victory was effected, but because he had the men and the means at his disposal. The task was not exceedingly difficult from a military point of view. His objective was Omdurman; he had time and means at his disposal; he went forward with his army; he encountered no serious military resistance all the time; and naturally he arrived at his objective point. I have always observed that when some deed of arms has been done the Government which is in power at the time invariably takes an exaggerated view of it, because they consider that if the deed of arms is creditable it reflects some special honour on themselves. Lord Kitchener has already been largely benefited by what has occurred. He has been made a peer, which is a distinction I do not myself appreciate, although he may; he has had promotion, awl he will, whatever occurs, with the credit due to him, have a good billet. We were told that the whole Army will rejoice at Lord Kitchener getting this money; but it does seem to me that, if you have an army that suffered largely from the climate and disease, you would do far better to give something to the widows and orphans of the soldiers who died, or to those who survive but whose con- stitution has been wrecked. This habit of giving grants of money to successful generals is exceptional to this country. In no other country would it be done. Take America, for instance. Admiral Dewey has covered himself with honour, and I saw recently in an American newspaper that a subscription had been organised for him; but there has been no idea or thought of the United States Government proposing a vote of money for him. Take, again, Major Marchand; the French Government do not intend to reward Major Marchand by a money grant. But by marching without an army through a country peopled by vast numbers of savage tribes he performed a more distinguished feat than Lord Kitchener did marching with his army to Omdurman. ["Oh! Oh!"] The result may not have been greater, but he did more. It seems to me he is a very brave man. If hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot hear the name of Major Marchand without murmuring, I will take the name of the hon. Member for Lambeth. I hold that that hon. Gentleman did a greater deed by advancing through all those forests, with a few men under him, to the relief of Emin Pasha, than Lord Kitchener did in advancing on Omdurman. ["Oh! Oh"] Well, that is my opinion. On general grounds I should oppose this grant, and I am perfectly consistent in doing so, because I have opposed grants before now to men equally distinguished. But undoubtedly there are special reasons why Lord Kitchener's grant should be opposed. There is the case of the wounded. My hon. friend behind me read extracts from the newspapers in regard to the killing of the wounded Dervishes. It was stated that if they had not been killed they would themselves have killed those who came to help them. The number of those who were killed is exceedingly remarkable. If we acquit the English soldiers of killing the wounded, yet there were a large number of savages in the army who killed the wounded whenever they got the chance. Major Stuart-Wortley, a distinguished officer, wrote an article in Scribner's Magazine in regard to the operations of the Arab Irregulars which he commanded. These Arabs were ordered by the Sirdar to clear the west bank of the Nile in order to enable a battery of howitzers to shell the Mahdi's tomb, and to clear the way for the entry into Omdurman. How did these Arab Irregulars conduct themselves? When about 500 yards from the mud houses they halted, and after a few minutes resumed the advance, firing all the while. Then they rushed into the houses and slaughtered every soul in them. That was not an account by newspaper correspondents, but by the commander himself. The fact is that this is a constant practice in African wars; and it is one of the reasons why so many of us on this side of the House specially object to those African wars. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition said he hoped that what occurred at Omdurman would be a lesson to our officers, and that in future there would not be the same destruction of wounded men. I expressed that hope in regard to the Matabele campaign; but in vain. I asked "Where are the wounded?" and could get no reply. The real reason was that all the wounded had been killed. Until this House takes very serious notice of what goes on in these wars, our officers will find it difficult to restrain savages. While you employ savages abominable atrocities will take place. I think it would have been much better if the Mahdi's tomb had not been destroyed. It is not the habit of modern nations to destroy any monnment of the enemy. When Blucher, on the occupation of Paris by the Allies, after Waterloo, wrote orders to blow up the Bridge of Austerlitz, the Duke of Wellington interfered to prevent it. Then, about the body of the Mahdi. The First Lord said that the head was not decapitated. Very likely the head was not cut off: I understand it was simply taken from a quantity of bones, and that the rest of the bones were thrown into the Nile. The right hon. Gentleman says that was done decorously. But I cannot understand how you can take up a lot of bones decorously, and throw them into the river. My right hon. friend quoted the case of Cromwell, and the Irish Members on that occasion said that the English Government were quite right. The only case I remember which is exactly on all fours with that of the Mahdi is that of Thomas àBecket. At that time there was a change of religion and there had been large pilgrimages to certain shrines. What did that unmitigated ruffian Henry VIII. do?— ["Order, order")—I confess that I did I not think anybody would complain if I called Henry VIII. an unmitigated ruffian. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like us going on with this debate; but the longer we go on the better it will be, because we will bring home to the country what actually did take place. Well, Henry VIII. ordered the tomb of Thomas a Becket to lie desecrated, and his remains thrown to the winds. Every historian—even Mr. Froude, who had a passion for Henry VIII.—disapproved of that action. Since those other ruffians, the cavaliers of Charles II., rifled Cromwell's tomb there has been no case of political desecration in this country. If hon. Gentlemen refer to The Times of this morning they will see letters protesting against and denouncing the desecration which has taken place in a certain parish in Southwark, because certain corpses have been taken up to be buried elsewhere. That shows how strong is the opinion in this country in regard to these matters. I say again it was a most unsoldierly act on the part of Lord Kitchener to desecrate the tomb of the Mahdi, and to destroy his remains. ["Oh! oh!] Whether necessary or unnecessary, it was an unsoldierly act. I knew when I said that it was an unsoldierly act a good many hon. Gentlemen would say "Oh! oh!" I laid the trap for them. But I suppose they would accept General Wolseley as a proper specimen of a soldier, and Sir Henry Brackenbury. In 1873–74 General (then Sir Garnet) Wolseley advanced to take Coomassie. His military secretary, Sir H. Brackenbury, published an official narrative of what took place. When the army reached Coomassie there was a discussion as to whether it was desirable to blow up and to destroy the monuments of the old kings of Coomassie; and Sir Henry goes on to say that "the rifling of the tombs of the dead, even though these dead were the savage ancestors of a barbarous king, is an act that does not appeal to the instinct of a true soldier." That is the opinion of a gentleman who, I think, has as good an idea as to what a good soldier is as any gentleman on that side of the House. There is nothing new in this. It has been the opinion of civilisation for years and years. Charles V. was a soldier, and what did he say when it was proposed to destroy the bodies of the Reformers? He said: "I do not fight with the dead; I fight with the living," and he would not have anything to do with such a thing. What are the pleas that are put forward for this destruction of the Mahdi's remains? The First Lord of the Treasury told us that Lord Kitchener held that there would be pilgrimages to the tomb, and that the cult of the Mahdi would continue unless these remains were scattered to the winds. I should imagine myself that this action with regard to the remains would strengthen "public opinion" against us. The First Lord of the Treasury also said that it was absolutely necessary, because we were leaving white soldiers there, and that it was to protect their lives that we put an end to the Mahdi's remains. Now, does anyone suppose that, if the people of the Soudan were not frightened by the execution we did on them, they would be prevented from breaking out into rebellion simply because of the fact that the remains of the Mahdi had been thrown away and his tomb rifled? The noble Lord the Member for York said that Lord Kitchener had nobly and honestly taken upon himself the responsibility for that which he was not in reality responsible for.

What I said was that Lord Kitchener had taken the responsibility of giving the order, although he was not responsible for the way in which it was carried out. The way in which it was carried out must have been as repugnant to his feelings as to those of the hon. Gentleman.

The noble Lord comes here and tells us that Lord Kitchener privately told him—

I assure the hon. Member that Lord Kitchener has never told me anything at all. I said so distinctly. I did not know he was in England.

I thought the noble Lord said so. But the noble Lord has used as an argument that, although Lord Kitchener officially says he was responsible for the way the orders were carried out, he was not in reality responsible. He must have heard that from someone. Lord Kitchener has taken the full responsibility in respect to all that was done, and he rightly did so for as General he was responsible for all that occurred. In any case we must remember that the Mahdi was not a common man. He was a great ruler, imagining himself to be a prophet. He was the Sovereign Of that country for a considerable number of years. He had driven out the Egyptians from the country, and put himself at the head of those men who, Mr. Gladstone said, were "brave Wren, rightly struggling to be free." As to his pretensions to be a prophet, I do not much believe in prophets myself, but he must have been regarded by his people as a national hero, and although his government was bad he was a patriot, and not only his immediate adherents but the country must have been indignant at the way his remains were treated. The noble Lord the Member for York said that the Mahdi was a scoundrel and a barbarian; but he should remember that this scoundrel and barbarian had built up a great city in his reign in which there were 10,000 people, not in any way connected with the Soudan, pursuing their avocations without let or hindrance. The desecration of the tomb of the Mahdi is an individual act for which Lord Kitchener is responsible, and if we vote this sum of money to him we shall make the country responsible for it. That is why I object to the Vote. I object to it on general grounds, and as an outrage on every sanction of modern civilisation. I have no doubt some Liberals will leave the House without voting, and that some will vote with the Government; but I do hope that there will be found a sufficient number of Liberals who will vote against the grant in order that it may be shown that the Liberals as a party are against it. The First Lord of the Treasury answered several questions put to him by my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose, but he did not answer the questions, When was it that the skull of the Mahdi was handed over, whether it was carried off as a trophy, and, if so, where to, when was it buried at Wady Halfa, and was that in consequence of the disgust and indignation excited in England? The right hon. Gentleman did not answer these questions. Wady Halfa is 1,400 miles from Omdurman, and we ask that the matter should be investigated and some explanation given as to how the skull appeared at a place 1,400 miles from where it was taken. Was it given to Lord Kitchener, was it in his possession for some time, or was it given to somebody else?

My only excuse for rising at this time of the evening, when the most important business of the day is coming on, is that I think I am the only Member of this House who has had the rather questionable pleasure of being at Omdurman, and of having inspected the Mahdi's tomb with the Sirdar himself, although the Mahdi from no fault of his own is no longer there. Moreover, I should have felt ashamed of myself had I sat here and listened silently to accusations being made against gallant British and Egyptian officers, amongst whom I have lived for four or live years, and many of whom I am proud to regard as my friends. I was afraid when I came to the House that I might have been betrayed into offending against proper rules by the accusations brought. I am glad to say, however, that there is no need for that, because the accusations, so far as I have heard them, remarkably resemble nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman who first protested talked about what cannibals might have done under certain conditions, and what Belgian officers might have done. He also quoted the opinion of Slatin Pasha as having more weight than the opinions of Lord Cromer and Lord Kitchener combined. The right hon. Gentleman has inveighed against the Sirdar for following the advice of his Mahometan officers in the disposal of the Mahdi's body; but surely the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that for no inconsiderable portion of his life Slatin Pasha was a Mahometan himself. Now, Sir, the arguments about the wounded, and about the bones of the Mahdi, have been repeated ad nauseam, and I do not propose to say anything more about them. The question I desire to put to the Committee is, Did the Sirdar as a general do what he was asked to do? The task set before him was to retrieve the Soudan from the most shameful tyranny which has ever existed. He had to do that with the least possible loss of life and treasure to his own side. Did the Sirdar do that, or did he not? I say unhesitatingly that he did, and that by his decisive action at a most critical point in the world's history he did more to maintain the peace of the world than a dozen Peace Conferences. He showed that in the cause of justice England's right hand had not lost its strength nor her brain its cunning. I do not think it is going too far to say that by the success of the British and Egyptian Army on that occasion he showed that England was prepared for all emergencies, and that if she wanted peace, as she now desires, she was strong enough to enforce it. Sir, I have said that at this period of the evening I do not wish to detain the Committee very long; my only claim to speak is that I speak in the name of many of those who take a most lively interest in this debate, but are not here to speak for themselves. I may speak, I think, in the name of the small band of English soldiers aid civilians who, in thirteen short years, have raised Egypt from the gutter and put it on an equality with the most prosperous nations of the world. It is in their name, Sir, that I ask the Committee to listen to me when I beseech them to unite as one man to inscribe upon the glorious roll of English heroes a name which will, I am sure, gather glory in years to come and be no less respected than those which precede it on the roll. I ask, Sir, that there may be no division, but that we may elect as one man to inscribe on England's roll of glory the name of Kitchener of Khartoum.

Sir, I should not like to give a silent vote on this question. I quite recognise, and fully appreciate, many of the excuses which may be justly urged for some of the things which in calm moments we deplore the necessity of doing, but which are the necessary accessories of war. But, passing over those acts of inhumanity which are essential to all warfare, I am bound to say that I am unable to follow my political chief in the vote which I shall give this evening. Sir, I have listened, and anxiously listened, to the speeches which have been made this evening, to see if I could find some way of recording my vote, however humble, in recognition of the undoubtedly gallant services of a distinguished public servant. But, although the apologists have been many, and although the apologies have been diverse and manifold, I have been unable to find any sufficient vindication for the action which is abhorrent to the conscience of civilised mankind, the desecration of the tomb of the Mahdi. It was urged by the not undistinguished son of a very distinguished man, who, if he had been in this House now, would have been the first, I feel convinced, from my observation of his character, to have repudiated and stigmatised in just language this action on the part of the chief of the Egyptian Army—it was urged by Mr. Winston Churchill, in a speech which he made in the Midlands the other day, that Lord Kitchener was not responsible himself for this barbarity, but by an act of chivalry took upon himself the responsibility, in order to stand by his comrades. Now, I have known, in the history of military achievements, cases in which a general officer has thought it right to shield the error or mistake of a subordinate; but I have never yet read of a general officer who took upon himself, in the interests of the profession to which he belonged, to be an apologist for an actual wrong. If Lord Kitchener had repudiated the act, what would have been the result? It would have been the act of an individual Englishman. Lord Kitchener's vindication of that act, his acceptance of the responsibility of it, transforms the act of an individual Englishman into a deliberate act of the English nation, unless the English nation, by its Parliamentary representatives, seizes this opportunity to repudiate the act. But why is it that these officers, when Lord Kitchener is responsible for the mode of operation of removing the Mahdi's remains, have not thought fit to step forward and vindicate the character of their chief by saying that the chief gave the order to remove the body, but did not give the order for the desecration to be carried out in the way in which it was? No, Sir, I do not think that that contention, supported by the high authority of the noble Lord who spoke from the other side of the House, can be accepted. The second line of defence which has been adopted is, that there were reasons of public policy why this course should be adopted. I believe that there has been no crime committed by a foreign Power which has not been justified by contemporaries on the plea of public necessity; but for my part, I can only say that—whatever may be the judgment in the heat of the moment and in the enthusiasm, perhaps, of the adventure with which that particular deed is associated—cold, calm criticism will refuse to see those grounds of public policy which should be adequate for such an act. What is the ground of public policy upon which this act was committed? It is said that you prevent a recrudescence of Mahdism by holding up to the fanatical followers of the Mahdi the illusion of the idol which they have hitherto worshipped. Sir, to my mind there may be another motive. There may be a motive which is stronger even than religious fanaticism, and that is, vengeance for the outrage which has been inflicted upon their chosen leader and religious chief. Is that a justification? Are we not strong enough; are we not sufficiently great and powerful as a nation, having put down our foot, to withstand a fanatical force? Is it not an indication of weakness to the fanatical followers of the Mahdi that we have to destroy two or three of their religious chiefs in order to prevent the necessity of having to cross swords with them a second time? Now, Sir, although public policy may be successfully urged—I mean public policy from the low, narrow, and sordid standpoint in which it has been urged to-day—there is a higher public policy, and that public policy is, to maintain the standard of civilisation and humanity which ought to belong to this country. I cannot help asking myself, when it is our boast that we go forth to conquer these savage tribes to bring to them the blessings of religion, to tame their ferocity, and raise them up to a higher moral standard—I cannot help asking myself what they will think of our boasted civilisation and its pioneers when they know that that religion countenances body-snatching and the desecration of tombs. Therefore, although it is with great pain and reluctance that I shall record my vote against the grant of this money for what is otherwise so well deserved, I feel not the smallest shrinking in the performance of my duty, and I hope that those who are true to the traditions of English Liberalism and the great principles of humanity and civilisation will take the same course.

I merely wish to add a few words to this debate, because, like my hon. friend who has spoken behind me, I, too, was in Egypt at the time of the campaign, and heard a great deal about what took place. The hon. Member for the Leigh division has quoted numerous extracts from newspaper reports and also from private letters. He quoted, to begin with, a letter from a lieutenant who, I am sorry to say, has since died, and whose explanation with regard to the correspondence cannot therefore he obtained; he quoted also extracts from letters written by numerous private soldiers. I do not think much of them, and I do not think the correspondents of newspapers, especially in Egypt, loved Lord Kitchener. When I was in Cairo I came in contact with several of them, and they seemed to think they ought to be permitted to run riot over the camp, and see everything that was going on at the front. I think, therefore, that any information from such sources ought to be taken cum grano. With regard to the privates, they would surely not get full information about an action which extended over a large area of country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be most anxious to decry the merits of our military brethren, and to wish to prove to the hilt this charge of cruelty. I will not allude to the so-called desecration of the Mahdi's tomb; that has been sufficiently dealt with already. But so long as the Mahdi was treated with veneration and superstition it was absolutely desirable that his bones should be scattered to the winds. I look upon that not as a matter of revenge at all, but as a matter of necessity. That I conceive to be the main ground of defence. Revenge has been described by Bacon as a kind of wild justice, and he went on to say:

"Some, when they take revenge, are desirous that the party should know whence it cometh; this is the more generous. For the delight seemeth to be not so much in doing the hurt, as in making the party repent.'

But let me allude for a moment to the second charge, namely, the alleged cruelty on the battlefield. Now, as home testimony is not always estimated at its highest value, let us go for evidence abroad. I will take the evidence of two foreign military attachés, representing on the staff of the Sirdar two great civilised military nations, Germany and Italy. The German attaché wrote a letter, which appeared in the Times of January 16th, absolutely refuting the charges. Last December, as I was returning home from abroad, I met Major Luigi Calderari, of the 40th Infantry Regiment, the Italian attaché. I had a long conversation with him, and asked him particularly with regard to the alleged cruelties on the part of the Anglo-Egyptian Army on the battlefield. He repudiated the idea of any such charge, and later, seeing that this question was being worked up for political reasons—because I must say that I cannot but think that this cry about the desecration of the Mahdi's tomb and the alleged cruelty on the battlefield has been raised chiefly for political reasons—I wrote to him and asked him if he would allow me to quote the conversation, or, at all events, would put in writing that which he had said to me, in order that I might not misrepresent him in any way. He did so, and he has supported absolutely the despatches to which allusion has been made to-night. And what did he say? He said this:

"I am very glad to have an opportunity to put in writing what I stated to you verbally in Milan as to the manner in which the Dervish prisoners at the battle of Omdurman were treated, and to deny in the most absolute way that any cruelty was practised towards the prisoners. I rode on the field of battle in various directions, and everywhere I saw hundreds of wounded lying alive, notwithstanding that the ground had already been traversed by the Anglo-Egyptian troops. I happened to be for a while at the head of the troops in their advance after the attack on the zareba had been repulsed, and then again I was able to convince myself that the wounded were not in any way molested. If an occasional wounded man was killed it was only in legitimate defence, because, as is well known, it is a custom with these peoples to pretend to be dead and then to fire on the enemy as he passes, or, worse still, to ask for water and help and then treacherously to kill those who are succouring them. I do not write these things in order to defend Lord Kitchener: he is so far above such accusations that merely to waste words in denying them would be an insult to him. I can only repeat that I am very happy that an opportunity presents itself for me to give a denial to statements which are untrue. It was, moreover, my duty to do so, especially as some Italian newspapers have copied and republished such statements."

I may perhaps be allowed to quote two lines from our military Poet-Laureate, Rudyard Kipling, in which he describes the Dervish as "Fuzzy-Wuzzy," who is

"All'ot sand and ginger when alive,

And generally shammin' when 'e's dead."

These are the men with whom our regulars have to deal, and I am quite sure that, so far as my information goes, there never was any cruelty at all with regard to the wounded on the battlefield. All this outcry is not genuine. It is not what is called in Lancashire "jannock," it is not real. There is a political ring about it, and the opposition to the Vote is, in my judgment, simply initiated with the object of obtaining a political cry. We have always had Gordon on our consciences and in our hearts, and Gordon has been avenged at last. (Opposition cheers.) I will withdraw the word "avenged." Gordon was the last man who would have wished for vengeance. I would rather say that rapine and torture have been crushed out of the Soudan by such men as Wolseley and Kitchener.

The First Lord of the Treasury has stated that we who stay at home are placed in a very invidious position to judge the actions of men who bear the brunt and are exposed to the hardships of a campaign. It is, no doubt, a fact that those who follow my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose will have the imputation—a false imputation—cast on them of niggardliness, and of adopting a cheeseparing policy; but although, for this reason, such a course is a hard and a difficult one, it is, to my mind, the course dictated by duty. I have listened very carefully to the whole of this debate, and I have heard nothing but praise for the organisation, the economy, and completeness with which the work was carried out, and I hope the whole House will be unanimous in the vote of thanks which will be proposed next Thursday to the general, the officers, and the men who took part in it. I look, however, upon this request for a grant as giving an opportunity as much for a criticism of the Government as of the individual to whom we are asked to vote the money. If any honour is done to a general officer commanding, he regards it as an honour to the army composing the expedition, and from them it is extended to the Government which organised the expedition, and in the same way condemnation and criticism of the individual must also extend to the Government. I believe that, apart from the question of policy, the whole spirit animating the Government since the news of the Soudan victory reached this country constitutes one of the strongest arguments in opposition to this Vote. I think the Government have lost all sense of proportion in this matter, and to this complete loss of proportion, and the corresponding excess of praise which has been meted out to the expedition, is traceable to a great extent the opposition which has been displayed this afternoon. The First Lord of the Treasury took some pains to defend Lord Kitchener's action as regards the Mahdi's body as not having been animated by any spirit of revenge. In my opinion that is entirely beside the mark. The First Lord of the Treasury would be entirely right if there were any such accusation, but no one has accused Lord Kitchener of being animated by a mere spirit of paltry revenge against the Mahdi; even to imagine such an accusation against a British general is somewhat derogatory to a true soldierly instinct. But where I find fault is that, owing to the action of Lord Kitchener, and the exaggerated importance and praise bestowed on the expedition, and the way in which—to employ a word felicitously used the other day with regard to Empire—the expedition was "boomed' by the Government, the nation has been impregnated with the spirit that the outcome and result of the expedition had been "Gordon avenged," which is a very different thing from any personal feeling of revenge between Lord Kitchener and the Mahdi. That spirit has been far too prevalent in this country, and I think it is the duty of this House to do what it can to disabuse the nation of it. It is a lowering and a false spirit of the right conception of war. There are two ways from which this point may be looked at: one from the political point of view, to which I attach very little importance; the other from the moral point of view, which is far more important. As regards the first point, I will dismiss it by merely saying that ignorant and unscrupulous people throughout the country, with whom any means are justifiable to influence votes, should remember that at the time of the fall of Khartoum the Duke of Devonshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were Members of the then Government, and also that the Soudan Expedition of 1885 was required to be recalled owing to the Pendjeh incident. We should then hear less of the cry "Gordon avenged." On the moral side of the question I have a much greater quarrel with the Government. I think anything that encourages that cry, amt some public men have made use of the very words, is lowering the conception of war. To show the extent to which it has permeated the nation, the sister of the great man about whom the cry was raised had to write to the Press repudiating it, and stating that her brother would have been the last man to have approved or tolerated it. Surely, such an incident is a matter for shame to any right-thinking nation. It might have been more excusable had the force against whom we waged this so-called war been a foe more worthy of ourselves. For many years, since 1870, certain of us have been casting reflections upon a neighbouring nation for harbouring a spirit of revenge against a former foe. It would be well if we could sometimes see ourselves as others see us. If this neighbouring nation does harbour a spirit of revenge, it is against her equal, instead of, as was our case, against a foe comparatively contemptible and beneath our notice. I think very likely why such a spirit exists is due to the fact that now for two generations this nation has not known what real war is, and I hope it will be many more generations before she does; but all the more important is it to keep a high level of soldierly feeling. It is instructive to go back through those generations, to either the Crimean war or the Indian Mutiny, and to see the proportion in which the men who waged those wars were rewarded by this House. In connection with the Crimean war, I think I am right in saying not one peerage was conferred. Lord Raglan died during the progress of the war, and no successor of his was ennobled. The men who bore the brunt and stress of the Indian Mutiny were comparatively unrewarded. Lord Clyde, it is true, was ennobled and received a life pension, but it came out of the Indian Exchequer, and it is a moot point whether Lord Kitchener, being in the pay of Egypt, the Egyptian Exchequer ought not to be asked to find the money for the grant. Since these two wars we have been pursuing a progressive course as regards rewards. We have been almost prostituting honours, and it seems to me that the less worthy the foe the greater the reward. It is because I feel it our duty to check this system, and believe that unless it is checked we will go on from bad to worse, that I for one will vote with my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose. The unchivalrous action of Lord Kitchener in destroying the Mahdi's tomb brings the expedition down to the same low level as a punitive expedition against, for instance, the King of Benin and has lowered its whole tone. I gladly join in praise of the manner in which the expedition was carried on as regards our loss being at a minimum; but the blunders with regard to our own wounded at Atbara and Omdurman, and the hospitals at Alexandria, should not be glossed over, and it would be better if the chiefs of the Army showed a greater readiness to censure when fault has to be found on big issues. This debate has divided itself into two main questions, the treatment of the wounded dervishes and the disentombment of the Mahdi's remains. I would not be doing my duty, and it is a duty which I do gladly, if I did not state that I differ from the views of my hon. friends with reference to the treatment of the wounded dervishes. I think the House ought to recognise that war cannot be waged with white gloves, and, with some slight experience of Soudanese fighting, I say that any British general would have been wrong to have risked the life of one of his soldiers even if it were necessary to clear the ground of the wounded enemy; and I say, as this question is attracting attention, that it is the history of these Soudanese fights that before many hours the ground occupied by the Soudanese is taken possession of by the British, as a rule very early in the day. The British have to advance, and if they are exposed to, say, a dropping fire from the Soudanese wounded, the British general is entitled to clear the ground, even if he has to sacrifice the enemy. If the people of this country are shocked, as they naturally must be, by such action in waging war against uncivilised savages, the better for the country that the necessary horrors of such wars should be realised, and I hope it will have that effect. It has also been said that we employed an unusually large number of Soudanese soldiers, and that therefore, perhaps, the horrors must have been greater than they otherwise would. With that I agree, and the lesson this outcry will teach will be that greater need of control must be exercised over the Soudanese troops; but on the whole question of the wounded I join with those who are vindicating Lord Kitchener, where, however, no vindication ought to be required, as he did nothing that was not necessary. Now I come to his action with regard to the Mahdi's body. I must say I cannot defend that action in any way. The noble and gallant Member for Yolk seems to think that it is a sufficient excuse that the Mahdi's reign was one of unexampled savagery and barbarity. If that is the case, I would ask hon. Members to remember the answer given by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs last Friday as regards the number of foreigners who lived in Khartoum during the whole of the Mahdi's reign.

The hon. Gentleman only asked me how many prisoners had been released.

But the admission was that upwards of 11,000 alien men and women lived in Khartoum during the whole of the Mahdi's reign, and the right hon. Gentleman differentiated between what he called first-class Government prisoners and another class employed in Government work. When we see Italians, Greeks, Syrians, and other foreigners living in Khartoum, I think it is an answer to the argument that the Mahdi's tomb had been destroyed because of the fanatical population. I look upon the defence of this action as an aggravation, and I think it would have been nobler and would have redounded more to the credit of the Government and the nation if they acknowledged that a mistake had been made, and bravely faced the consequences. From another aspect I cannot see how we Liberals can support this vote. We are pledged to do away with the existing power of the House of Lords. In the opinion of my constituents the existence of the House of Peers is a direct obstacle to the freedom, prosperity and progress of this country, and I am in complete accord with that opinion myself. That being so, I fail to see how I can hold that opinion and at the same time support a grant which will subsidise and perpetuate a peerage. It would have been more logical to have obtained the grant before giving the peerage. I would remind the Committee of the great danger of this constant increase in rewards and honours of this sort, and I hope it will be remembered that this system must be checked. Let me read to the Committee an extract which ought to be taken to heart by both parties. In Condorcet's "Life of Turgot," a book described by John Stuart Mill as "one of the wisest and noblest of lives, delineated by one of the wisest and noblest of men," Condorcet writing of his friend says:

"Turgot never bestowed a patent, no medals or other minor orders by which the art of the charlatan seeks to reward vanity. His object was to encourage, not to corrupt, and he believed that in all his transactions it was the duty of a statesman to reform mankind and not to strengthen their failings, even though it might be possible to derive temporary advantage from their weaknesses."

It would also be useful to go back to the last occasion on which the House discussed a similar grant, and I will quote what the late Lord Randolph Churchill stated on the subject of the Sir Garnet Wolseley Annuity Bill in 1883. He said it was his intention to support the second reading of the Bill, because he understood the Leader of the Opposition expressed his intention of supporting the Prime Minister, but he was bound to say that if the Leader of the Opposition had seen his way to have voted against the Government he, and some members below the gangway, would be prepared to strengthen his hands. That is an opinion with which I entirely agree. I associate myself with my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose in opposing this Vote. I will put one question to the Committee. The whole nation admires the character and life of General Gordon, and all I ask is, Would Gordon have acted in the same way as Lord Kitchener with regard to the Mahdi's tomb? There is only one answer—he would not.

The hon. Member who has just sat down has stated that the campaign is regarded as one of vengeance, especially in connection with the death of Gordon. None of us can forget the circumstances under which General Gordon died, and, although that page cannot be blotted from our memories by the noble and distinguished conduct of Lord Kitchener, we are grateful to the man who has given us something to set in the balance. We have no feeling of satisfied vengeance, but we have a feeling of gratitude, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite speak so warmly about their sense of duty in opposing this Vote, I think we are entitled quite as fully to express our gratitude, and we believe, as the hon. Member believes, that in introducing the apparently irrelevant issue of the House of Lords, he is doing his duty to his constituents, that we also are representing our constituents when we say that we give this Vote from our hearts, and with the greatest pleasure and most complete conviction that in doing so we are pleasing and satisfying those whom we represent. Various grounds have been attempted on which to oppose this Vote. The broad ground was that taken by the hon. Member for Northampton, who says we have not had value for our money. He will find very few to support him in that view. There will also, I conceive, be little sympathy in the country for the men who have greedily swept together every libel they could gather against their countrymen fighting their battles abroad. The hon. Member for Aberdeen went so far as to say that we had gone on and on in the prostitution of honour. I consider language of that kind monstrous when it is applied to the man to whom we are expressing our thanks to-day. But I must thank the hon. Member for disassociating himself from the charge with reference to the treatment of the wounded, and I am glad that a man who has held Her Majesty's commission has declined to join in it. I have no knowledge of military matters, but it only requires common sense to know that in the heat of battle you cannot control every single camp follower. No one supposes camp followers are the kind of people whom you would ask to stay a week with you in the country, and it is monstrous to attempt to take away the character of Lord Kitchener because camp followers may or may not have committed excesses on the field of battle, and from a man who considers this Vote a prostitution of honour we have the assurance that clearing the ground of the wounded, sooner than risk our own soldiers, is justifiable and proper, and conduct of which no general officer need be ashamed. I think it has been made perfectly clear to the people of this country that all proper humanity was shown and all proper care taken. Anyone who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire could not have failed to come to the conclusion that there had been wanton and cruel destruction of the wounded, and yet a few sentences later he tells us that 3,000 or 4,000 Dervishes were crawling about on the field. Why were they not murdered also? The second statement appears to be contrary to the first.

I only referred to that portion of the field over which the two native battalions passed. Of course, there were a number of wounded left in other parts of the field.

I accept the hon. Member's explanation of what he said, but I will point out that from his own account this destruction of the wounded was only partial, and I fully believe it was only done where it was considered essential to the safety of our own soldiers, and only in isolated cases. I will turn for a moment to this question of the desecration of the Mahdi's tomb. Upon this point I cannot share the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I think the life of one single child is worth a wilderness of dead ruffians. We have been told, on excellent authority, that it is in the interest of the safety and security of this country in the future that that tomb should have been desecrated, and for my part I am very much obliged to the man or the men who desecrated it. Hon. Members opposite talked as if it was an extraordinary thing to disentomb a body, but when the St. Pancras Railway Station was made thousands of tombs were desecrated, for the convenience of the living. If thousands of the tombs of respectable Englishmen in London are to be desecrated for the convenience of those now living, why should we object to desecrate one tomb in the Soudan, when it is done for the safety and security of the faithful servants of this Empire who are serving us abroad when it is a question in which their lives are involved? It seems perfectly ludicrous to draw a comparison between the safety and security of English soldiers, and the question of sentiment which is involved in the desecration of the Mahdi's tomb. The hon. Member for Northampton sought to draw an invidious contrast between Sir Garnet Wolseley's action at Coomassie and the action of Lord Kitchener in this case. He said that Sir Garnet Wolseley had declined to disturb the tombs of the ancient kings of Coomassie. But the hon. Member for Northampton must know perfectly well that there is absolutely no comparison to be made between the two cases. The desecration of the Mahdi's tomb was done not for the purpose of punishing anybody, not for the purpose of private vengeance or of public vengeance, but for the safety and security of that country which we are morally bound by the action we have taken to do everything in our power to keep sound and secure. When we come to consider these facts I do think we may brush aside such a controversy as to whether the decomposed bones of the Mahdi ought to have been thrown into the river or buried somewhere else, or as to what has become of his head. Personally, I really think that I should be indifferent myself what happens to these bones after this human machine ceases to work. As I am indifferent as to what happens to these bones of mine, I am still more indifferent as to what happens to a bloody ruffian who is now fortunately dead.

A great deal has been said this evening about the Mahdi's tomb, but I never expected to hear such a long defence in this House of body-snatching as I have heard to-night. If it was bad to cut off the Mahdi's head, surely it was a great deal worse to go into the Soudan and kill 10,000 people at the battle of Omdurman. It appears to me to be very horrible to invade a country like this and cut down these people without rhyme or reason, and it seems infinitely worse than cutting off the head of a man who has been dead for some years. But I am not going to attack Lord Kitchener, because he was only carrying out the orders of the nation. He was not to blame for all he did, whether bad or good, for the nation was responsible, and as a humble member of the nation I think I am entitled to give my opinion upon it. The whole point with regard to this question is—is it desirable, beneficial, and creditable that we should vote this large sum of public money for this purpose? As I said before, I do not think that Lord Kitchener is to blame for what he did. He effected the object he had in view. He lost very few men in capturing Khartoum, and he did it very cheaply. That seems to be the reason why credit has been bestowed upon him in all the speeches I have read—that is, how very cheaply he killed these men. He performed a feat which had never been done before in battle, for he killed more men than had ever been killed before in the same time. Mr. Charles Williams, who is one of the oldest and best known war correspondents we have, gave a very vivid description of the slaughter, and the net total came out at 10,800 killed within four hours. It must be remembered that the battle did not last more than four hours, and there were several intervals. Nothing like this slaughter has ever been recorded before. I am at a loss to know what we are going to vote this money for. I am ready to admit that the proceedings in the Soudan gave immense delight to a very large number of British newspaper editors, poets, City aldermen, and distinguished statesmen, and these I admit form an influential section of the community. These proceedings gave immense delight to those people who considered that this battle was the finest thing that had been done for generations. Lord Rosebery has stated that this campaign was more far-reaching and beneficent in its results than any which history has recorded, and it has added lustre to the memorable name of British arms. What we did was to shoot down people at a long range to which they could not reply, and that is looked upon as one of the greatest achievements of British arms. If Lord Rosebery is right, then I feel a little nervous and anxious, because we are getting enormous armies and navies together, and they must be to fight somebody, and I wonder what will happen when we fight with somebody who can fight, and not those poor Dervishes. What will happen when we fight with the Russians, the Chinese, and the Japanese altogether? In my opinion Lord Kitchener has already been rewarded, for he has been called up to the House of Lords to sit there along with bishops and brewers, and that is a great honour. After all, in this matter Lord Kitchener only did his duty, and it was a duty for which he was engaged, and I do not see why we should give Lord Kitchener this money. I think it is a bad system, for it is only blood money. I believe there were some 10,000 people killed, and you are proposing to give him £30,000; therefore he gets £3 per head for every man killed. Why should this blood money be paid, and why should Lord Kitchener have this gift? Because a soldier has done his duty, why should he be put upon this pedestal above all other public servants? Why don't you, when a judge conducts a case with great skill, ask for a Vote of money for him? If a bishop gives a brilliant charge to his clergy, why don't you ask for a Vote for the bishop? A Cabinet Minister works a Bill through this House the same as the President of the Local Government Board did the Vaccination Bill, but you do not give him anything. When a fireman goes to a great fire and performs some heroic deed, you do not vote him any money, although the deed he performs in my opinion is more glorious than the deeds of war. I should like to discuss for a moment whether this is such a magnificent victory as it is supposed to be. What is there glorious about it, and what were the reasons for undertaking this expedition? I hardly know the real reason, because I have heard so many. We were told at first that the Khalifa might come down upon Egypt. Lord Cromer said a few months before the expedition was undertaken that there never was a time when there was so little danger to the people of Egypt. Of course, if ever you want to persuade people to vote money you can do it by putting in a word or two about slavery. But why don't you stop slavery at Zanzibar? The next reason given was, to stop the cruelty of the Khalifa, and that sounds a grand thing. If you are going to stop cruelty, why didn't you stop the cruelty of the Sultan? I am trying to find out why this money is to be voted, and what is the glory and the honour of this victory. If it was to put down cruelty committed by the Khalifa, was it not more cruel still to shoot them down and leave them to die in misery on the desert? We have heard something to-night about avenging Gordon's death, and Lord Rosebery said that by our victory wo had paid off a debt which for thirteen years had been near the heart and conscience of every Englishman. The Chaplain at Windsor once stated that for every drop of English blood that had been shed at Khartoum rivers of blood of those who slew Gordon would flow. I would rather be a heathen than a Christian like that. I think that from that point of view this expedition has not been satisfactory, for what is it we have conquered? Lord Cromer says in his report that the Soudan is a great howling desert. What trade are we going to get out of this place? I have been driven to the conclusion that the reason for undertaking this campaign at all was that we were ashamed of the great scandal of our remaining in Egypt and of breaking our pledges to other European Powers. We wanted some excuse for staying a little longer, and so we invaded the country of the Khalifa, and we said that now that Egypt had got the Soudan back again we would remain there to protect the two countries. To carry out this policy we invaded the Soudan and slaughtered and mutilated some 30,000 people. We have had numerous banquets where statesmen have poured out streams of maudlin bunkum in honour of this policy, for which we are called upon to grant this Vote. I confess that I do not think there is anything noble at all about our proceedings in the Soudan, for they are about as ignoble as they can possibly be, for this kind of Imperialism is nothing more than organised selfishness. I read the other day some lines which are applicable to the Jingoes. They are:

Of all the human family

I love myself the best;

Kind Providence take care of me,

And Sambo take the rest.

This is not the opinion of the Little Englander. I say that this policy is nothing more than sordid selfishness, and it will end in the degradation and ultimate destruction of all the nations which yield to it. It is because it is proposed to-night to endorse this kind of Imperialism that I shall give this Vote my most strenuous opposition.

I shall neither follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his endeavour to find salvation in the Mahdi's tomb, nor shall I attempt to deal with his criticisms of Lord Rosebery. One of the charges against Lord Kitchener is that he has polluted the pure waters of the Nile by throwing in it the body of the Mahdi, which may probably have given that river its peculiar brown tinge. I only wish to say a few words to-night in defence of that Service to which I am proud to belong, and in defence of my own comrades who served in that campaign. There are two charges against Lord Kitchener. The first is that of the desecration of the Mahdi's tomb and the throwing of the Mahdi's body into the Nile. The second charge is the treatment of the wounded after the battle of Omdurman. As regards the first charge, the hon. Member for Northampton gave the Committee an illustration of Lord Wolseley's behaviour at Coomassie, where he told us that in that case the general in command did not allow the tomb of the kings to be disturbed. I might perhaps remind the hon. Gentleman that the result of that was that we had to have another expedition. But, after all, the whole of this matter is one of common sense. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose to look at this matter from a commonsense point of view, and I would ask him if he would rather have his throat cut or allow these bones to be thrown in the Nile? As regards the charge brought against British soldiers of killing the wounded Dervishes on the battlefield, I have seen wounded Soudanese, after a brother officer has given them water, turn round and shoot the man who gave them that water. I would ask the hon. Member for the Leigh Division, and others who have spoken on behalf of the wounded Dervishes, what they would do if, after they had taken water to these Dervishes on the field of battle, they turned round and shot at them. I have seen that myself, and if some hon. Members opposite would go and see things for themselves on the field of battle I am sure they would hold a different opinion. When we consider that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth was a Member are responsible for the whole of this war, they must take the blame for all these atrocities which have happened in the Soudan, for the blame does not rest upon Lord Kitchener, or the present Government, but it rests upon the party opposite and their friend the Mahdi.

I rejoice to say that upon a question of this kind the voice of Ireland will be given by a decisive majority against this Vote. The voice of the majority of the Irish Members has always been on the side of justice and right, and had it not been for the Irish vote you would have had very few great reforms in this century. There is one point on which I most heartily agree with the First Lord of the Treasury. In his opening remarks, in eloquent and powerful language, he pointed out to the Committee that in discussing this question we were not entitled to consider the merits of the policy on which this expedition was based. He pointed out—I think with absolute truth—that Lord Kitchener and the officers and men who served under him were not entitled to ask whether the policy was a justifiable one or not. They were soldiers, and they were bound to obey. If I were an English Member, and if it were simply a question of the skill and gallantry with which this expedition was carried out—no matter how much I condemned it—I should vote in support of this Vote. When I listened to the eloquent language used by the First Lord of the Treasury, when he drew a picture of the sad condition of this country, my memory was carried back to a day of great excitement in this land, when the Commander-in-Chief stated that if he was ordered by the Government and the Queen to keep the peace against the Loyalists of Ireland, he would rather break his sword than obey those orders. I only hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will apply the same principles, without fear and favour, to Ireland as he is now applying to the Soudan. If it were only a question of the merits of the policy, I would vote in favour of this grant; but there is something to be said with regard to the conduct of Lord Kitchener after the battle. Even in the ranks of hon. Members who sit behind the Government there has been manifested a wide divergence of opinion on this question, and the hon. and gallant Member for York declared that every man in England—whether civil or military—was disgusted and horrified at the method by which the Mahdi's tomb was desecrated. He stated that he had had no communication with Lord Kitchener, but he declared it to be his conviction that Lord Kitchener, while he gave the order for the removal of the Mahdi's body and the destruction of the tomb, was in no other way responsible for the method by which the remains of the Mahdi were outraged, and he expressed the greatest possible regret for the circumstances which attended that act; and that regret is evidently shared by a considerable number of hon. Members who sit on the Government benches. But in the second speech of the First Lord of the Treasury there was not a single word of regret. On the contrary, he declared that he had no regret to express; and he seemed to think that everything that was done in connection with the outrage upon the remains of the Mahdi, the desecration of his tomb, and the disposal of his remains was not only necessary, but was also decently and properly done. In that respect the right hon. Gentleman differs toto cœlo from the Member for York and the hon. Member for the Leigh Division, who expressed their compassion for those who would be called upon to defend this act in the House. We did not want to wait long for another instance of considerable divergence of opinion on this occasion, because one hon. Member got up and expressed his gratitude to Lord Kitchener for having given this country some revenge for the death of Gordon; and it is idle after that for the First Lord of the Treasury and the noble Lord the Member for York to deny that there are numbers of men on the opposite benches who looked with pleasure on the desecration of the Mahdi's tomb because they looked upon it as a piece of vengeance for the death of Gordon, and that is a common-place in this country and this House. I am pretty familiar with the writings and the life of Gordon, a man for whom I always had the greatest respect, and it is enough to make him turn in his grave at the insult levelled at him, whose whole life was founded on the teachings of the Founder of his religion. I hold that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose is discharging a public duty in protesting against the proceedings of which complaint is made. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be defeated, and that the money will be voted. Yes, but the value of the protest will not pass away, and many a man who votes for this grant will, as an Englishman, feel humiliated at the acts which have been done in the name of this country. At all events, I am glad to know that the name of Ireland will be free from any complicity in this business. It seems to me there has been great cruelty and oppression, and I speak on this matter with some knowledge. We, having suffered from the same evil, have learned to sympathise with the oppressed, and we are not ashamed to come here and say so. The treatment of the Mahdi's tomb has been so fully treated that I do not propose to travel over the ground again, but I do ask the Committee to consider one aspect of this question, and that is this—the chief and only defence which has been offered to-night for the destruction of the Mahdi's tomb and the throwing of the remains into the Nile with ignominy is that the Mahdi was a prophet in the eyes of his people, and that his tomb might be the centre of reverence and superstition. If that argument were logically followed it would lead to a very strange conclusion. If we are ever to accept the principle, which I thought was consigned to the evil past, that because we differ from people and regard their convictions and faiths and beliefs as superstitious, we are entitled to outrage and degrade the tombs of the men whose memories the people venerate, we will travel upon a road which promises to lead to strange conclusions indeed. You are going to arrogate to yourselves the right to destroy and desecrate all tombs in India which may incite fanaticism. India is not without its fanaticism. You had fanatical risings there a few years ago. Do you believe that the Indian saints are any better than the Mahdi? If you carry this policy to extremities we may be led into further difficulties. A letter written to The Times by the Marquis of Northampton points out that because the Mahdi was regarded by the orthodox Mussulmans as a heretic, then it was a necessity, for which we must take the responsibility, that his tomb should be destroyed in order to put a stop to the fanaticism of the Soudanese. It appears to me from all the arguments that have been urged that you are attempting to establish the position that in dealing with savage peoples you are justified in having recourse to any measures which your military commanders recommend as necessary. The hon. Member for Leamington said the other day that we ought to have recourse to all methods of civilised warfare in these matters; if we have not, we shall be dragged by irresistible compulsion to this position, that we are to crush and humiliate and break the spirit of the people with whom we have to deal. That is the spirit which is given expression to to-night. I do not forget that we too have our sacred places, to which we at times make pilgrimages. What would be said for the Mahometans if they desecrated and destroyed those holy places? In this respect the Mahometans put us to shame, for, although they do not believe in the teachings of the Founder of Christianity, because He is venerated by a great section of the human race they also venerate Him. I also believe—I am convinced—that on the field of Omdurman there was an unnecessary, brutal, and wholesale slaughter of the wounded, and I was struck by the contradiction of Lord Kitchener to the charge brought forward. The contradiction given by Lord Kitchener was no contradiction at all, and there is no doubt that the troops under his command, whether British, Egyptian, or Soudanese, had wantonly killed many wounded. He said he hardly thought it likely that the men who brought the charges would find an exponent of their views in Parliament; but if they did he categorically denial that the troops under his command did any such thing. The contradiction was too much, because it was idle to deny that the troops did kill the wounded. It is a well-known fact that in all these Soudanese battles it has been the habit to kill the wounded. There was no more humane man than Gordon himself ever sent out by the people of his country, and I have read in two works that he was always of opinion that this evil might be remedied. He said "If you go to help them, these people will try and kill your men." (Cheers from the Government benches.) Yes, that is so; what is the use of denying it? Of course, they have all been killed, you cannot have it both ways. My point is, What is the use of sending home a telegram saying that the wounded have not been killed when, as a matter of fact, they all have been killed? You may talk as you please about going into countries like the Soudan under the idea of bringing civilisation to them. You do not do so. The Leader of the Opposition gave it as his opinion that nothing was gained by the unnecessary horrors of these expeditions and these battles. You have been at it now 25 years, and you have not brought civilisation yet. You have turned a comparatively peaceful country into a desert waste. At all events, whatever its condition at one time, there has been ten times the loss of life, misery, degradation, and horror of every kind, since Europeans set their feet in that country under the prostituted name of Christianity, carrying in their train murder, rapine, whisky, disease, and—the Bible. That is the civilisation you have given them. I must do this justice, however, to the men responsible for the present Government. Certainly, We do not hear from them that they are carrying on these wars for the purpose of spreading Christianity. They are carrying them on for the extension of trade, and it is mockery and hypocrisy to say that the object of these wars is the good of these unhappy races and the spread of Christianity, for every act done has been in direct opposition to the principles enunciated by the Founder of that religion.

. As the hon. Member for East Mayo has spoken on behalf of one section of the Irish, I may be allowed to say a word on behalf of the other Irish.

The Anglo-Irish.

Which I think in the division lobby will show a majority. The hon. Member for East Mayo has made a speech strongly deprecative of the action of Great Britain in Egypt.

The Soudan I said.

The hon. Gentleman has made very many speeches in which he has for many years depreciated the action of Great Britain in all parts of the world, especially in Ireland. The two heroes the hon. Gentleman and his friends appeared to admire most in recent years are the Mahdi and Wolf Tone, the reason being that the Mahdi had fought against Great Britain and Wolf Tone hated Great Britain, and was also usually drunk. The hon. Gentleman was tremendously shocked at the unburying of the Mahdi's remains. What is there horrible in that? I re- Member not so very long ago that a section of the Irish people who sympathised with the hon. Gentleman desired to show their hatred for a gentleman who was the head of the police in Ireland, and they took up his wife's remains and threw them into a river. My memory may fail me, but I do not remember that the hon. Member then rose in his place and called down the denunciations of all Christian men on this abominable act. The Christianity of the hon. Member seems to be somewhat sporadic in its character. To my mind, the shooting of a so-called landgrabber, the houghing of a cow, or injuring a dumb beast, is fifty times worse than the digging up of the remains of a dead fanatic. I pass from the remarks of the hon. Member, and desire to say a word or two on the more serious aspect of the case as put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. I listened to his speech to-night, and as I listened compared it with the speech he delivered on the 25th of May, which to my mind explained the object of the speech of to-night. In the speech of the 25th of May the right hon. Gentleman brought a bill of indictment against the Government and summoned them before the bar of civilised opinion. In that speech, in order that we might judge the Vote we are discussing to-night, he read numerous letters giving an account of all the abominable cruelty and tyranny we practised. If it is true, as has been alleged, that the British are bloodthirsty and revengeful and deal cruelly with these native races, then one would expect them to be universally hated by the native races.

So you are.

I venture to say that the hon. Member who makes the statement has never been in Africa.

I have been in Africa.

Then I am sorry the hon. Member did not remain there. I have been all over these countries, and I ask anyone who has ever visited this country to look at the relations which exist in South Africa between the natives and the British. The whole of the black races are on the British side and they hate the Boers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose seemed to say that he should deal all round with the black races as he should deal with the white. I at once deny that. The ordinary black you meet with in Africa is a man with the intelligence of a child and the passions of a man. In dealing with a child you restrain him until his intellect has grown sufficiently to guide him. If he were to try that on the Upper Congo, what would he find? The first thing the natives would do would be to fatten him and then eat him. Then as to Egypt, see what the tyrannical British have done there. We have been masters of the Soudan for some time, and we intend to remain so; we are in Egypt, and intend to remain there; and what have we done? We have raised up out of the wretched people an army to which it is a credit to belong, soldiers worthy to stand by our own men. What about the Soudanese? We have only to think of them at Omdurman under British officers. So long as a nation can always produce the right man at the right time, that nation is on the rising grade. We, thank God, are on the rising grade. We are told that the whole country was shocked at this terrible act of desecration. I can only speak for myself, and I was not in the least shocked at the desecration of the tomb of the Mahdi. On the contrary, I thought it one of the wisest acts that ever was done. I do not say it was done in the right way. I think it ought to have been carried out with more ceremony, not out of respect for the memory of the Mahdi, whose acts were not calculated to inspire affection—who as a bloodthirsty tyrant has left a record which will never be forgotten—but because I think it would have been a wise thing to attract the universal attention of the inhabitants of the Soudan, in the neighbourhood of Omdurman, to the fact that we had conquered the Mahdi's country, and had taken the bones of the false prophet out of their tomb and scattered them to the winds. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burgh drew a terrible picture of our men taking up the corpse of the Mahdi and cracking off his head. This has had a terrible effect on the Liberal and Radical Federation. (Laughter, and an honourable Member: "Where's the joke?") I should look upon it as a joke if the hon. Member's head was cut off. I certainly think it would have been better, for the sake of the peace of the Soudan, if as much notoriety as possible could have been given to what I look upon as having been a very wise proceeding. It was our duty, having taken the country, to ensure its peace. Anybody who knows anything about the Mahometan world is aware that if we had allowed a sort of Mecca to grow up about Omdurman we should have seen a recrudescence of disturbance which would inevitably have led to a vast expenditure of life and money. I admit that the taking up of a dead man's bones and the scattering of them was a very unfortunate necessity—a thing one would not choose to do; and, from what I know of Lord Kitchener, it was a thing which, if he had not believed it to be an imperative necessity, he would not have done. He realised, knowing the country as he did, and knowing the nature and character of the Mahometans, that to leave there a centre of fanaticism for a fanatical population to dwell upon would have been an act of insanity. I not only think it was a wise thing to dig up the remains of the Mahdi, but I hope the tomb itself will be rased to the ground, and nothing of it left. The idea that Lord Kitchener, who knocked the Mahdi's army into a cocked hat, was animated by a spirit of revenge, is preposterous. Can anybody be foolish enough to believe that he would have revenged himself on the dead bones of a man he had never seen? The idea of revenge could never have entered into the head of Lord Kitchener or any other man with a grain of sense. It was done for the purpose of establishing peace in the Soudan, and, so far as it was done for that object, it merits the approval of this country; and I hope the maudlin sentimentality that has been showered over this act will be dissipated to the winds by the commonsense of the British people. We must remember the task we are performing in Africa. We are not there simply founding colonies, we are creating an Empire, and in doing that I believe we are fulfilling a noble destiny. We are bringing into the Dark Continent civilisation; we shall also bring peace and prosperity, and the nations of the world will do well to learn that it is a dangerous and sometimes a fatal thing to get in the way of a nation that is fulfilling its destiny.

The case against the argument of my right hon. friend has been a restatement of the tyrant's plea of necessity. But, however calculated to be useful as a matter of order Lord Kitchener's expedient might have been, it was an expedient which ought never to have been put in force. There are times when you must draw a line, and say that whatever may be gained, or whatever may be lost, across that line we must not go. I should like to ask whether the country can afford to give this grant of money. I do not think we can. I listened most carefully to the discussions on the Finance Bill, and it seemed to me that we are not able to pay our way as we go along, and that we are compelled to have recourse to the proverbial old stocking in which we have been making provision for a rainy day. If we pass this Vote we shall have to make another excursion to the garret in search of the old stocking, and take out of it a much larger sum than appears on the face of this Vote. If you are going to pay Lord Kitchener for taking Omdurman, you will have to give the army something as well, because the army, even from Lord Kitchener's own testimony, did half the work. If it had not been for the bravery of the officers and soldiers there would not have been nearly so many Dervishes killed. Dervishes, fighting in defence of their faith and their fatherland, are, I understand, tolerably formidable enemies, but our brave soldiers did not mind that. They knew that if they once got behind their killing machinery they could mow down these ridiculous enthusiasts like ninepins, at 900 and even 1,000 yards distance; and they did it bravely and splendidly. As has been rightly said, they killed more men per minute than have been killed in any previous war. In short, "it was a glorious victory," and are these men to get nothing? When the working classes, out of whose pockets a very large portion of this grant must come, consider this Vote, they will not like the differential treatment of the General and the men. "This is just the old story over again," they will say—"the aristocratic head official gets every- thing, while the poor man who risks his life and does the work gets nothing."^*—

I should like to say just a few words before this debate concludes, and to briefly refer to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose. I regret that the right honourable Gentleman should have thought it his duty to make the speech which he has made. The harm that is done by speeches of that kind is difficult to estimate; and it is the more dangerous because the attack is by inuendo and not direct. The essence of the charge is now withdrawn, and with regard to the question of policy the right honourable Gentleman says that Lord Cromer's opinion is not of the first importance. Why? Because he has not been in the Soudan. But is not the opinion of Lord Cromer as valuable, if not more valuable, than that of any other man in Egypt or out of it? The right honourable Gentleman did not cite the opinion of Lord Kitchener himself, and I can hardly imagine, next to that of Lord Cromer, an opinion more valuable than Lord Kitchener's. As to the question of policy, that should not have been dealt with in the language generally associated with great political crimes. We are conscious

^*At this point the hon. Member was apparently seized with momentary faintness. "His voice faltered, he could not read his notes or find his eye-glass, nor could he drink, or even hold in his hands the glass of water that was passed to him from the front Opposition bench. He sat down abruptly, and, after a painful pause, Mr. Arnold-Forster continued the debate."—(The Times). Mr. Wallace was removed to Westminster Hospital, where he expired at two o'clock on the morning of the 6th June—within three hours of his rising to address the House. The cause of death is stated to have been cerebral congestion.

of the danger to this country of allowing our people to get out of hand. We have known it for centuries, and have for centuries been providing every safeguard against the evil it might do; and no nation in the world, I assert, has succeeded so well or so far in this respect as we have. It is hard, when we know what our people are doing and refraining from doing, that their efforts should be minimised by such an unfortunate speech as that of the right honourable Gentleman opposite.

I should have liked very much to reply to the speech of the Member for North Armagh, but I must pay some regard to the lateness of the hour and the patience of honourable Members. With regard to the desecration of the Mahdi's body, I submit that we have no right to do what is morally wrong, even if it be politically right. England is supposed to be the elevator of nations, but in her actions towards other nations she takes a lower tone, and in this matter it is proposed to sanction a foul and disgusting outrage. It grieves me to think I am in opposition to Lord Rosebery in this matter. Lord Rosebery thinks we ought to give Lord Kitchener £30,000 on becoming a peer. I always thought it was those who received the peerages who paid. The proposed grant—£30,000—was exactly the sum of Mr. Hooley's cheque which he thought would work miracles and make him one of the gentlemen of England—a member of the Carlton Club. I am not going through the various reasons which have been given in justification of this grant. I can only say that the desecration of the Mahdi's body is a denial by a professedly Christian nation of the immortality of the soul. It is very much to be re- gretted that Lord Kitchener did not recollect and follow the words and example of Charles V., who, when urged by Catholic advisers to wreck vengeance on the tomb of Luther, replied, "I war not with the dead, but with the living."

I desire to call the attention of the Committee and the Government to the action of Lord Kitchener with regard to Christian missions. He desires the best interests of the Soudanese, and has raised £100,000 to found an Educational College in memory of General Gordon. He has, however, excluded from the subjects taught that which was the root of Gordon's strength, the mainspring of his actions, and what he most of all desired to give to the nations—namely, the Christian religion. For the establishment of a mission the funds have been subscribed and the men are ready to go, but Lord Kitchener has forbidden them to enter Khartoum, through fear, it is believed, of complications with the French. I expect that that danger has probably by this time passed away. It has been stated in the newspapers that Cardinal Vaughan is organising a Roman Mission which is to take the place of the Italian priests who had been expelled, and it seems to be time to remove the embargo on Protestant missions, and not to follow the mistaken, cowardly policy of the East India Company of excluding missions for many years, only to find that in the Mutiny the Christian converts saved India for England. I hope that the attention of the Government will be given to the subject.