HC Deb 08 June 1883 vol 280 cc81-4
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I wish to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which I gave Notice at the beginning of the Sitting—namely, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered and ascertained if it is in their power, and if they ought to take any steps to interpose in the matter of Suleiman Sami?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (for Mr. GLADSTONE)

Her Majesty's Government have been informed by Sir Edward Malet that Suleiman Sami, who had been accused of burning Alexandria, was sentenced to death yesterday by the Court Martial held in that city. The trial has been watched by Major Macdonald, a distinguished officer, enjoying the full confidence of the Government. In a Report, dated April 30, he informed Lord Dufferin that he had full confidence in the composition of the Court appointed to try Suleiman Sami; and, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering, unless on the request and recommendation of Major Macdonald, and that has not been made.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked, whether Major Macdonald had been watching the trial on behalf of the prisoner; whether ho had any legal knowledge; and, if it was true that Suleiman Sami's counsel had left the Court, because he was not allowed to call certain witnesses for the defence, therefore being unable to obtain justice for his client?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

Sir, Major Macdonald, as I think I explained the other day, was watching this trial, as he has watched the others, in the interests of justice and humanity. He was appointed by Her Majesty's Government, with certain other gentlemen who have special legal knowledge, to watch these trials generally. As to the report of the abandonment of the case by the prisoner's counsel, we have, as yet, no information; but, naturally, neither Her Majesty's Government, nor the Egyptian Government, are in any way responsible for the action of the counsel in question.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked, whether the noble Lord would inquire whether it was not the fact that Suleiman Sami's counsel wished to produce fresh evidence before the Court, and that the Court refused him permission to do so?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, that he could give an answer at once. So far as he knew, Suleiman Sami himself, after the trial, wished to bring forward 25 now witnesses. These were entirely new witnesses. The Court had the power of admitting new evidence at the trial, beyond that which bad been given before the preliminary Court of Instruction; but they did not consider that there was any necessity for allowing these new witnesses to be brought forward. ["Oh, oh!" and Mr. HEALY: Green Street.] [Cries of Order!"] Let him explain that these were entirely new witnesses, and the evidence on both sides had been fully gone into, in the first instance, at the preliminary proceedings; and then, according to French law, it had been examined and cross-examined upon at the Court Martial.

MR. O'KELLY

asked, how it was possible that the witnesses could have been examined and cross-examined, if their evidence was not admitted at all?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he was not referring to the new witnesses.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

asked, whether any day had been fixed for the execution?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

No, Sir; there is no mention of any day.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Can the noble Lord say positively whether Suleiman Sami produced before the Court Martial any witnesses for the defence who were examined and cross-examined?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

Certainly. I understand distinctly from Lord Dufferin that he had the right to examine the witnesses in open Court. Whether he actually exercised the right I cannot, of course, know.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to abandon this man to his fate, when the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tells us that the examination of witnesses brought forward in his defence is not allowed?

MR. GLADSTONE

What I understand to be the case is this, Sir. There is, in every trial, a time appointed for those who conduct the prosecution and the defence to give in their lists of witnesses. The list of witnesses in this case was regularly and properly given in; and, so far as we know, the examination of all these witnesses was regularly and properly conducted and dealt with; and that when that was over the defenders claimed to bring in a number of new witnesses. Well, now, I believe that it is in the power and practice of a Court Martial and of Courts of Justice to judge when it is, and when it is not, proper to bring in new witnesses. I give this information, of course, subject to correction, according to such further accounts as we may receive from Egypt; but, as at present advised, I believe that to be a true and correct statement of the case.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into the matter?

MR. GLADSTONE

Certainly.

MR. HEALY

asked, if the Government were in such a hurry to hang the gentleman that they would not allow these 25 witnesses to be called?

[No reply.]