sent, because that may be an uncivilized country, but sacred to the country which sends him out, and essentially sacred when that envoy is placed in a position of peril in a distant land. The fear to go to war in support of an envoy is a certain indication of a decaying empire, and the abandonment of an envoy by a British Government, with the sanction of a British Parliament, is the sure sign of a falling state. The right honorable gentleman says that in October he would consider this question again-a very reasonable allowance of time to procure the information of which the Government stands in need; and he imagines that by October, having obtained that information, the Government will be able to devote their attention to the rescue of General Gordon. Does he think that England will wait till October to hear what he is going to do? If so, how low an estimate must the Prime Minister have formed of the countrymen who so long have worshipped and put their trust in him! Such is their reward for the devotion of many years! If the Prime Minister thinks that the British people will wait till the month of October, does he think that the Mahdi will wait till then? Because, whatever may be the qualities of the British people, the Mahdi has shown qualities which will enable us to calculate the rate of his advance. Does not the right honorable gentleman propose to take any steps to guard the inhabitants of Lower Egypt against the incursion of the Mahdi until the time when he says climatic influences will not endanger the health of the troops? If the right honorable gentleman does not propose to take any steps for that purpose, I cannot believe that the decision of the Government will be indorsed by the House of Commons. Very little would be necessary now to arrest the Madhi-a slight movement of troops, a slight movement of ships, a little more energy, a little more common-sense, a little more consistency in your foreign despatches, and the thing would be done. But now the Prime Minister is going to meet the powers of Europe in conference. He is going to meet after this debate-if he survives it he is going to meet in conference on the Egyptian question powers represented by standing armies numbering millions of men. I like conferences, and advocate them under certain conditions. But I will illustrate my meaning. Compare the position which Lord Beaconsfield occupied at the Con gress of Berlin with the position which the Prime Minister will occupy at the conference which is now to take place. The one, by a mere movement of the fleet, and by movement of troops, had arrested the advance of the Russian army at the very threshold of the goal to which for a century they had been approaching; the other appears before the conference as having been afraid, and as having stated his fear in this House, to arrest the march of a barbarian and to rescue an English envoy. I should like to know whether the Government can appear on terms of equality with the other powers in such circumstances as these. The Government go to the conference having done a dishonorable act. The conference will not be so much a conference for the consideration of European affairs, of powers meeting on terms of equality, as a tribunal called together to pronounce judgment on the crimes of a delinquent and recreant nation. The Government denounce the motives of those who bring forward this vote of censure, and say that it is dictated not by a love of country, but by a spirit of party. The Prime Minister has had fifty years of parliamentary experience, and I ask him to tell us, from motives of intelligent curiosity, whether he ever knew a vote of censure which had not for its object and for its end a transferrence of power, and, if that is the general character of a vote of censure, why is the particular vote of censure which has been moved by the right honorable gentleman on the front Opposition bench so vile? The right honorable gentleman says that the Opposition is ambitious and unjust. I should like to know, when the Prime Minister conducted in 1877 that agitation which electrified the country, whether he was not ambitious and whether he was not unjust? Were not these adjectives applicable to him when he boasted at Oxford that for a considerable time he had rested neither night nor day in his endeavors to thwart the policy of the Government of that time? What does this transferrence of power mean which the Prime Minister says is so mischievous and pernicious? So far as I can make out, it means the immediate rescue of Gordon, as opposed to the autumnal and uncertain rescue of Gordon in six months' time; it means the restoration of order in Egypt, as opposed to the continuance of anarchy; it means the repulse of the Mahdi, as opposed to a general Mahommedan rising; it means, I believe, taking Egypt under English protection, and extending the might of Britain over that disturbed land for a time. That is what I believe the transferrence of power means in regard to Egypt. May I ask what it means at home? For the Whigs it means a cessation of voting day after day that black is white. What does it mean to the Radical party? It means that, after abandoning for four years every principle on which they came into power, they will at length be able to reconcile their principles with their votes. But we are told that there must not be a transferrence of power because it is necessary to pass the reform bill. Well, reform is no longer a party question, and a treatment of the question by the Opposition proves that it would be dealt with by them on a more complete and larger basis. The object of this vote of censure is a transferrence of power, and the sooner that comes the better for the country. The Government, when they went to Egypt, abandoned every atom of principle which they possessed, and Egypt has been their Nemesis, and I believe will be their ruin. But the whole question is at last, thank God, presented to us in an intelligible form: Will you or will you not rescue Gordon now? Answer, "Ay" or "No." The people of England and Scotland and of Ireland also say "Ay.” The Prime Minister and a few Radical fanatics alone say "No"; but, great as is the Prime Minister's power, long as has been his career, dazzling as is his eloquence, and undoubtedly glorious as is his name, on a question such as this the odds are so overwhelmingly great that even the Prime Minister himself must either submit or resign. HENRY DRUMMOND 1851-1897 Henry Drummond was especially the product of an era in which the most extreme doctrines of scientific agnosticism had become popularized, and by being popularized had often been misunderstood to a degree that was in danger of destroying faith in Christianity, if not in all religious theories, commonly so called. He was born in Stirling, Scotland, in 1851, and was educated for the ministry, taking university courses at Edinburgh and Tübingen, and subsequently passing through the Free Church Divinity Hall. On his ordination to the ministry, his mind was widened during his incumbency of a Presbyterian mission in the island of Malta. He became lecturer and afterwards Professor of Biology in the Free Church College at Glasgow, in 1878, and subsequently travelled through the United States, Africa, and Australia, lecturing on the sociological, scientific, and moral aspects of Christian religion. His religious enthusiasm and charming personality made many friends and admirers, and his influence among young and earnest men was remarkable. His study of biology had naturally made him fully acquainted with the theories of Darwin and Huxley, and his wish to reconcile evolution with a notion of psychology that would not militate against the assumptions of Christianity prompted his work, “Natural Law in the Spiritual World," which, while it did not meet with the assent of the scientific world, was undoubtedly of much use in strengthening in their religious belief many of the readers to whom the volume was addressed. The popularity of this treatise is proved by the fact that it has been translated, after passing through many English editions, into French, German, Dutch, and Norwegian. There can, however, be no doubt that Drummond was on much safer ground when he produced his inimitable treatise, The Greatest Thing in the World." This work is a most acute and practical enlargement of St. Paul's celebrated chapter on charity, or rather love. Clearness and simplicity of style, glowing devotion, and a certain strain of intense enthusiasm, which sometimes rises into eloquence, characterize this essay or address, which appeals to mankind at large, without distinction of nationality, intellectual prepossession, or religious sect. It is a work which must be accepted without challenge as a clear and vivid expression of humanitarian sentiment, perfectly in harmony with the highest Christian idealism. Drummond had early associated himself with the evangelists, Moody and Sankey, who induced him to accompany them from time to time on their preaching circuits. While he lectured on strictly scientific subjects during the week, he addressed large audiences, principally of workingmen, on Sundays, when he dealt with themes undoubtedly nearer to his heart. One fruit of his travels was his volume" Tropical Africa," but he returned to his religio-scientific line of thought in his "Ascent of Man." His last work was "Pax Vobiscum." He died in 1897, in his forty-sixth year, of consumption. His early death, due doubtless, in some measure, to his indefatigable labors, was deeply deplored through the length and breadth of Christendom. |