§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the reason he had risen on this occasion was not for the purpose of entering into what might be called an academic discussion, but for the purpose of bringing forward again a very practical and pressing question, which was briefly alluded to in the earlier part of that day's Sitting, but which he thought it was necessary they should press upon the consideration of the Government. The question to which he referred was the position of the condemned man, Suleiman Sami, in Egypt. He had received information, on which he could place entire reliance, that this man was not only under sentence of death, but that the sentence was to be carried out to-morrow—or, he believed he might say, seeing that it was past 12 o'clock, that day. He understood, from communications he had received, that the entrance of the Khedive into Alexandria was to be delayed on account of the execution that was to take place, as it was desired that the Khedive should not enter that city until the execution was over. He did not desire for a moment to express any opinion in regard to the justice of the sentence after it was passed. He was quite prepared to believe that everything that had been done had been done rightly and properly. He knew nothing of the case that would induce him to form another opinion; and if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to say they had reason to believe that all was right, and that everything that had been done had been done in accordance with justice, he should, of course, accept such a statement, founded on their own responsibility. But he must point out that, under the circumstances in which he stood, and in the peculiar relations which this country had now adopted towards Egypt, it was not for us to shut our eyes and to say that it lay with the Egyptian Government, and that we had nothing, as a British Government, to do with it. It could not be denied for a moment that the whole system of Egyptian administration at present rested upon the support of Her Majesty's Government. It might, or might not, be right that that should be case; but if it was the case, as he believed it was, Her Majesty's Govern- 110 ment must be prepared to accept the circumstances of that position, and be prepared to be challenged and to meet the challenge when any question was raised as to the administration of justice in Egypt. They had now altogether passed the time for inquiring whether the original Expedition to Egypt was or was not necessary, or whether the events that occurred there might or might not have been avoided by a different course of action. They had passed all that; but they had practically before them the question of the relations which the Government of this country now bore towards the Government of Egypt. They knew that that Government had no strength of itself, but that it stood on the support of this country; and, therefore, there was a responsibility attached to this country for anything that might take place. The information he had received was to the effect that the Khedive had postponed his departure for Alexandria until Saturday. His Highness had intended to make the journey to-morrow; but it had been decided that the execution of Suleiman Sami should take place to-morrow morning, and he did not wish to enter the town on the same day as the execution. A petition for the pardon of Suleiman was presented to the Khedive by the counsel for the defence, but rejected. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) wished again to say that he knew nothing about the merits of the case, and he was not at all prepared to deny that there might not have been a perfect reason for the rejection of the petition of Suleiman's counsel for a pardon; but either Her Majesty's Government had something to do with the matter or they had not. The House ought to know which it was. They ought to know on what footing the Government of Egypt rested. It was a crucial case, in which they had a right to demand that Her Majesty's Government should acknowledge their share of responsibility, and state their opinion and the conclusion at which they had arrived in regard to the matter.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, no one would, he was sure, think for a single instant of complaining that the question had been mentioned again that day; because the moment at which his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was able to raise the question at the Morn- 111 ing Sitting precluded anything beyond a very brief conversation, which was, no doubt, of an unsatisfactory character to everybody concerned. It was, therefore, desirable that there should be a fuller discussion of the question. In regard to this man, Suleiman Sami, whose case had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) wished to make it perfectly clear to the House that he was not one of those who were known as political prisoners. He felt it necessary to say that; because he found, from conversation with several of his hon. Friends, that an impression existed that he was to be classed in the same category as those persons of whom the well-known Arabi was chief and Toulba another. Owing to that impression, a considerable amount of sympathy and attention had been excited which otherwise would not have been the case. Suleiman Sami was not one of the political prisoners at all. The facts were these. The main charge against Suleiman Sami was a charge of arson and plunder, committed on the day, and subsequent to the day, of the attack on Alexandria. After that event, Suleiman Sami and certain other persons escaped to the Ottoman territory, to a place from which they were surrendered by the Ottoman Government, and the charge brought against Suleiman Saud on his return was that of ordinary crime—a charge of arson and plunder—and his name figured in the lists of various prisoners who, a short time ago, were awaiting trial, under the procedure ho had described the other day. Now, he thought it desirable once more to dwell, if only for a moment, on the character of that procedure. They must, he thought, in a case of this kind, however repugnant it might be to them as Englishmen, make up their minds to detach themselves from the prevailing notions, however dear to them, in regard to their own jurisprudence. They must make up their minds that, in dealing with the facts of the case, they were dealing with a foreign procedure, and a procedure which, partly from national prejudice, was objectionable to the feelings of this country. Nevertheless, it existed over a large portion of the civilized world. There were preliminary proceedings before one Court, and the final stage was before a 112 another Court. What took place was this. At the preliminary proceedings, witnesses, both for the prosecution and the defence, appeared and were examined, but counsel was not admitted. The preliminary stage was similar to that which was called in Franco the making of an Acte d' Accusation. After the Court had fully heard the whole case, it made out what we should call an indictment, but, as it was called in Egypt, a dossier, and that dossier was used as the basis of the proceedings in the higher Court. The proceedings of this higher Court were the proceedings of a Court Martial sitting at Alexandria. It was presided over by an Egyptian in whom, he was informed, every person who had been brought into contact with him had every reliance—namely, Riouf Pasha—and the President was assisted by two Europeans, men of solid reputation—Morice Boy, an Englishman, and Fanedirigo Boy, an Italian. That Court Martial had the evidence before it which had been given at the preliminary proceedings, counsel were admitted, and the examination and cross-examination of witnesses were allowed. Counsel, excluded from access to the prisoners at the preliminary proceedings, had, at the second trial, access to their clients as a matter of right, so as to be able to prepare the defence. The prisoners had also the right to ask that further evidence should be produced; but the Court was not obliged to give permission, unless it considered the demand to be really bonâ fide, and not made simply for the purpose of delay, and to prevent justice taking its fair and natural course. It appeared that Suleiman Sami, even before his witnesses or dossier were prepared, was deserted by his counsel. As to what the reason was, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had no information, nor could he say that the course thus taken necessarily told in favour of the prisoner, because it might be that the counsel for the prisoner saw that the case was a perfectly hopeless one. Suleiman also wished to call certain additional witnesses; but the Court considered, either that the demand was one which it should not accede to, or that it was not made in a bonâ fide manner. But the most important point for the House was, that not merely this trial, but all the trials, had been watched by English officers. This particular trial 113 had been watched by the gentleman, whose name he had mentioned the other day—namely, Major Macdonald, a gentleman of great reputation, in whom Lord Dufferin had the greatest confidence. He had had the assistance of certain gentlemen, well acquainted with Oriental languages and Egyptian legal affairs, and acquainted with the technicalities of the law in that country; and their general instructions had been to report, either to Lord Dufferin or to Sir Edward Malet, if they saw anything at these trials which they considered an infraction of justice, or anything to show that the prisoners had not had a fair trial. Major Macdonald had watched the proceedings, and he had not reported to Sir Edward Malet that there had been any infraction of justice. They had, indeed, received a telegram from Sir Edward Malet stating that Suleiman Pasha had been condemned; but he did not state the exact day fixed for the execution. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), however, had informed the House that the execution was to take place to-day. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not in a position to state that that was not so; but what he wished to put before the House was, that there was no reason to suppose that, in this case, there had been any miscarriage of justice or infraction of justice such as ought to lead Her Majesty's Government to intervene. If, because a particular man had been sentenced to death, the Government were to consider it their duty to telegraph to Egypt to stop the proceedings, it seemed to him that the Government would be logically involving themselves in an interference with every trial in Egypt. Her Majesty's Government clearly could only act in a case of this kind—a case which was one of ordinary and not political crime—upon the report of the gentlemen who had been deputed to watch the case, that they considered there had been some miscarriage of justice; but there was no reason to suppose that there had been any miscarriage in this case. Nevertheless, when the telegram came from Sir Edward Malet, stating that Suleiman Pasha had been condemned, Lord Granville did consider it desirable to telegraph for fuller information owing more particularly to certain statements in the newspapers which were likely to cause an early inquiry here; and a telegram 114 had been sent to Sir Edward Malet, specifically asking whether there was anything in this case to leave in his mind any doubt as to whether Suleiman Sami had, or had not had, a fair trial. That was ono of the many proofs which might be adduced of the great anxiety of the Government, by their own example, to set an example in Egypt of that love of justice which it was, above all things, necessary to instil into the minds of the people of that country. But there was yet another point which he wished to urge; and that was, to place clearly before the House the essential distinction which there was between the case of Suleiman Pasha and the case of Arabi Pasha. Neither he, nor anyone else upon the Treasury Bench, had spoken against Arabi Pasha as they had been said to have spoken. What had been said against Arabi was, that he and certain of his associates raised a great movement, which they proved themselves perfectly unable to control or direct, and that thereby they were producing—nay, that they had produced—a condition of anarchy in Egypt, and that taking advantage of that anarchy various men, of whom Suleiman Sami was one, indulged their own vices, and committed acts which would be wrongful, where-soever and by whomsoever committed. These men stood in a totally different position from that of Arabi Pasha, Toulba Pasha, and those other prisoners who were now at Ceylon. Those prisoners were political offenders, and it was for that reason, and also to a certain extent because Arabi Pasha and his battalions had surrendered themselves to an English General, that the Government considered it their duty to lay down, in regard to their trial, certain rules, and to obtain for them certain securities; but they had not considered it their duty to claim the same rights and privileges for prisoners such as Suleiman Sami and others, who were accused of ordinary crime—of massacre, of murder, of pillage, of plunder, and of arson; and he did not believe that it was the wish of the House that they should do so—that they should intervene in these cases; and that for two reasons. In the first place, because, by the intervention of such men as Major Macdonald and the other officers, whose names he had mentioned, who were watching the 115 trials, they were able to secure a substantially fair trial; and, further, because it was the wish of the House, consistently with the general lines of their policy, to limit rather than to extend the sphere of their intervention in Egypt. What he wished to point out—and he hoped he might be able to do so in a friendly and courteous spirit—to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and those who were acting with him, was, that if they attempted to make the Government responsible for every blow of a courbash, and every stroke of the lash, and for every incident of every trial, they would be running counter by that action to what they in this House, and even more out of this House, were calling upon the Government to do—namely, to limit, rather than extend, the sphere of their operations in Egypt. He addressed that observation to the hon. Baronet, and not to the worthy Alderman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler), because he believed that, on the other side, there was a bonâ fide desire to force the Government to extend the sphere of their operations in Egypt; and, therefore, he could make no complaint of the worthy Alderman and his Friends, if they took every means they could to force the Government into that position. But he thought he had a right to complain of the hon. Member for Carlisle, for asking them to do one thing, and then, by their action, forcing them to do exactly the opposite. He thought this a fair opportunity to make these observations; but he hoped the hon. Baronet would believe that he made them in a perfectly friendly spirit. He felt that it was a great misfortune to have to differ from the hon. Baronet; but if they were to agree to differ, it was well that there should be some understanding as to what it was upon which they differed, and that he should not be met one day by a demand to go forward, and on the next day a demand to go back. With regard to the case of Suleiman Sami, he had now placed the facts fairly before the House; and he thought hon. Members would see that, both with regard to this trial, and to the other trials, the Government had, by the action of Major Macdonald, secured that there should be a fair trial for the prisoners, and that the Government would be acting most dangerously and most unwisely, if, not having received 116 any Report whatever from their Representative at these trials to lead them to suppose that there had been any miscarriage of justice, they were suddenly to take proceedings and thereby commit themselves to a dangerous course, the ultimate result of which it would be impossible to foresee or describe.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had travelled over a much wider ground than the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). This was not a question of the blows of a courbash; it was the question of the sacrifice of a human life, which he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) himself believed had been promoted by the authorities in Egypt for the sake of hushing up their own delinquencies. The noble Lord said they were to rely entirely on Lord Dufferin and Major Macdonald. No one had greater respect than he had for Lord Dufferin; but, notwithstanding the very vague and ambiguous denial given on hearsay by the Prime Minister as to Lord Dufferin's proceedings, he had every reason to believe that Lord Dufferin did refuse to look into the evidence which implicated the Khedive in the massacre at Alexandria.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEHe says, "No."
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would accept the right hon. Gentleman's word; but he wished to have it from Lord Dufferin himself.
MR. GLADSTONEasked, whether the hon. Member (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was in Order in impeaching the statement of a responsible Member of the Crown, and casting an imputation upon his veracity?
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether the hon. Member (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had not a perfect right to question the representation of the views of another person which had come from the Prime Minister?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is bound to accept the explicit statement of the Prime Minister.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he accepted the declaration of the Prime Minister; but he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had received the denial from Lord Dufferin's own lips?
MR. GLADSTONEI have heard it from the lips of my Colleagues, who 117 heard it from Lord Dufferin, when I was engaged in this House. I make myself responsible for that declaration, in as full a sense as if I were speaking from what I had myself directly heard.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he fully accepted the right lion. Gentleman's explanation; but still it was hearsay, and he wished to be able to cross-examine Lord Dufferin on this question. The question was this—Suleiman Sami, it was generally believed, was to be executed, with the view to getting out of the way important evidence against some of the higher authorities in Egypt. [A laugh from Mr. GLADSTONE.] The right hon. Gentleman laughed; but he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did not think the right hon. Gentleman really knew what the opinion in Egypt was. What he said was, that the Government were colluding — he would not say intentionally, but practically—with the authorities in Egypt, in the execution of the man who had in his power the means of bringing formidable evidence against the Khedive as to the massacres. He did not think the Government were quite free. He did not mean that they were guilty, but a very great responsibility rested upon them with regard to the massacres. On a former occasion, he had asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether Lord Alcester, who was then Sir Beauchamp Seymour, had been reproved by the Government for not taking further steps on the 11th of June, with a view to saving life and property in Egypt? He was met by the hon. Gentleman with an imputation that he was casting an aspersion on Lord Alcester; and yet he had reason to believe that after he had received instructions on the 15th of May to land troops in the event of disorders in Alexandria, Lord Alcester had received counter-instructions from the Government on the subject. Upon that, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, with that promptitude of denial which so distinguished him, told him he was within a measurable distance of calumny. On the 15th of May, the following despatch was addressed by Lord Granville to Lord Lyons:—
I have to state to your Excellency that the following are the instructions which have been sent to the British Admiral with regard to joint 118 co-operation of the Naval Forces of the two countries in the present crisis in Egypt:—'Communicate with the British Consul General on arrival at Alexandria, and in concert with him propose to co-operate with him, with France, to support the Khedive and British subjects and Europeans, landing a force if required.'On the 11th of June, Lord Alcester did not land troops, and it was on that occasion he put a Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty. What did Lord Granville write to our Representatives at Vienna, St. Petersburg, Constantinople, and other capitals? Lord Granville wrote—Foreign Office, May 23rd, 1882—As my telegram of the 15th instant has informed you, the two Governments of France and England have sent a Squadron to Alexandria. The events which gave rise to this determination were so sudden, and the danger which seemed to menace our countrymen were so pressing, that time was absolutely wanting for us to come to a previous understanding with the other Powers. Since then a reconciliation has taken place at Cairo; but, besides that it did not appear durable, the news did not reach the two Governments until their ships were already on their way. No one can have mistaken the character and the objects of this demonstration; the declarations made to the British and French Parliaments have prevented all doubts in this respect. The English and French Governments have gone to Egypt not to make a selfish and exclusive policy prevail, but to secure, without distinction of nationalities, the interests in that country of the several European Powers, and to maintain the authority of the Khedive, such as it has been established by the Firmans recognized by Europe. They have never proposed to land troops or to resort to a military occupation of the country.On the 15th of May, Lord Alcester was told to land troops; but, on the 23rd, the Foreign Representatives were told that the Government never intended to land troops; and, in the face of such evidence as that, the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) stated that, because Major Macdonald had not reported that the trial had not been properly conducted, the Government would not interfere. [Mr. WARTON: He has not reported.] No; he had not reported that it was not a correct trial; and, notwithstanding that evidence had been refused, and that the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had stated that the execution was to take place to-day, the Government had taken no steps to prevent the execution. It was said we were not bound to look into the question. But we were bound not to allow injustice to be committed in Egypt. We went to great expense in 119 conducting the late war, and we were still responsible for the condition of affairs in Egypt; because we had our troops there, and if a life was to be sacrificed on account of any oversight on the part of the Government, ho should hold the Government responsible for the loss of that life. He considered that the responsibility of the massacres at Alexandria, which the right lion. Gentleman at the head of the Government treated with so much levity, rested to a great extent upon the Government itself. On the 11th of May, 1882, he asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who, at that time, was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps had been taken for the protection of British interests in Egypt in view of recent events? That was one month before the massacres. The right hon. Gentleman gave one of those very able answers which he used to give, but which really furnished no information at all. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was obliged afterwards to ask for something more explicit, and to threaten to move the adjournment of the House, unless he got a satisfactory answer. [A laugh.] He did not see why the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) should jeer, and treat the matter with great levity, because the hon. Gentleman was really quite as responsible as any other Member of the Government. On the 11th of May, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to his (Sir H. Drummond Wolff's) inquiry, said—I have already stated—in fact, I volunteered the statement before I was pressed upon the subject—that the protection of both life and property was the most pressing matter in connection with the present state of things in Egypt, and that it had engaged the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that no delay in regard to it had been caused by the French Government, although communications had taken place. I think hon. Members can read within the lines of the statement; and I may add that Her Majesty's Government have not received up to the present time from Sir Edward Malet any request for the immediate sending of assistance.That was the kind of information they received at that time from the right hon. Gentleman. On the 15th of May, he again asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could state what steps Her Majesty's Government had taken to 120 protect the lives and property of British subjects in Egypt during the crisis then existing; and the right hon. Gentleman then said—The English and French Fleets have gone to Suda Bay, on their way to Alexandria. Orders have already been sent to Suda Bay that they are at once to proceed to Alexandria.Once more, on the 26th of May—only a fortnight before the massacres at Alexandria—he asked the right hon. Gentleman what had been done by the Government; and the right hon. Gentleman said—We have taken every step recommended by the English and French Agents at Cairo; but we have not received any information from them to the effect that they consider there is any danger.In the absence of information from these Agents, the Government allowed the massacres of Alexandria to take place without any effort to prevent them; and now, a year after, the Government were allowing the life of a man to be sacrificed on the same negative evidence—that was to say, their Agents did not inform them that there was any reason for the execution to be stayed. What he asked the Prime Minister was, whether he really intended this man to be executed upon negative evidence? He was also desirous to hear from the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) when the telegram was sent to Sir Edward Malet? The noble Lord took good care not to inform them on that point.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had already stated that it was sent that day.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked at what hour it was sent? Was it sent before or after the question was raised in the House? The noble Lord would not answer.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was ready to answer. What he said was, that a telegram was being sent, and that he hoped the House would see that the determination of the Secretary of State was quite independent of the discussion in the House. Of course, the Secretary of State felt that his action was greatly strengthened by what occurred in the House.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he could not say, because he did not know.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked if the telegram was sent before or after the discussion in the House? He thought he had a right to an answer to that question.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he thought he had already answered it. He had said that the determination of the Secretary of State to send a telegram was arrived at before the discussion in the House; in fact, he might, perhaps, inform the House that one of the reasons why he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not present at Question time was, that there were no Foreign Office Questions on the Paper, and he was at work on this very matter. He came to the House in the hope that he might state what had been done. He arrived, however, just after the discussion, and then he went back to the Foreign Office and reported to the Secretary of State (Earl Granville) what had happened, and the telegram was then sent.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he was, therefore, to understand that the telegram was sent after the noble Lord had reported to the Secretary of State what had occurred in the House?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) not to misrepresent what he had said. What he had said was, that the determination to send a telegram was arrived at independently of the discussion in the House. When he said a decision was come to, independently of the proceedings of the House, ho had no wish to be discourteous to the House. The Secretary of State very naturally felt strengthened in his determination to make inquiries, when he heard what had occurred in the House. As a mere matter of time, he admitted that the telegram was sent subsequent to the meeting of the House.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he now understood that the determination of the Secretary of State was arrived at at an unknown period, but that the telegram was forwarded after the discussion in the House. Why did not Lord Granville, when he had determined to send a telegram, send it at once? He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) maintained that there was no telegram seat until the House insisted upon it. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) sought to draw a distinction 122 between Arabi and the other Leaders of the Egyptian National Party, and Suleiman Sami. In the first instance, Arabi and his comrades were accused of complicity in the massacres of Alexandria. But what took place was this—that, on condition that they confessed their guilt of the political offence, they were let off any trial on account of the Alexandria massacres. Suleiman Sami, however, who happened to have in his possession, as he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) believed, the most compromising evidence against the Khedive and some of his Counsellors, was, in order that the evidence against the Khedive might be concealed, to be hurried on to death, without any interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government, except after discussion in the House. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) appealed to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) not to insist upon knowing everything about the Court of Trial. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) considered that was a question in which the honour of the Government and the honour of the country were at stake. The Government were allowing a man to done to death without inquiring into the circumstances—without receiving any information from the Agents who had been appointed to inquire into the case itself?
MR. STAVELEY HILLasked, whether the Government knew what were the contents of the dossier, and what was the charge on which the man was to be killed?
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had adopted a habit which was somewhat odd in one so young in Office. Whenever the noble Lord was asked a Question in the House, especially with reference to Egypt, he rose in his place, and, instead of replying to the Question, turned to his interrogator, who was probably much older than himself, and delivered a lecture to him, much in the style of a Professor in a College—for instance, when the noble Lord turned to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson), and asked him to avoid any further Questions respecting the Government's policy in Egypt. He (Mr. Molloy) was afraid that neither the hon. Baronet nor any other hon. Members would be likely to comply with the 123 noble Lord's request. In reference to the peculiarity of the noble Lord, to which he (Mr. Molloy) had already referred, he might refer to another matter, and it was quite pertinent to the question now before the House. It might be in the memory of hon. Members that he (Mr. Molloy) asked a Question some time ago in regard to Mr. Sheldon Amos. He received no satisfactory answer; but he repeated the Question. At last, the noble Lord came to him privately, and gave him the information, or, rather, offered to give him the information he wanted. The noble Lord would remember that the answer he (Mr. Molloy) returned was—"What use is it now that the whole matter is over?" The matter had then been before the country for weeks and weeks. ["Question!"] Hon. Members would find it was the question. The whole matter had been before the public for weeks and weeks. He had asked the Question with a particular object; but that object, however, was destroyed by the unwillingness of the noble Lord to answer his inquiry. In point of fact, a telegram was sent out, and when the other matters became public, the noble Lord very courteously offered him information in his (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice's) private room.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) had just said a telegram was sent out. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) told the hon. Member a telegram was despatched, and that they were waiting for an answer. The Question was merely whether Mr. Sheldon Amos had been employed in a particular manner. The hon. Gentleman was under the impression that Mr. Sheldon Amos had been employed to carry out, in certain districts of Egypt, the new Constitution; and he thought that Mr. Sheldon Amos was a very improper person to employ in such a matter. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) never believed the facts were as stated; and he did not think it was a sufficiently important matter to put the country to the expense of a long telegram. An ordinary despatch was therefore sent; and, as hon. Members were aware, despatches took some little time in transmission. As soon as a reply came, he at once communicated with the hon. Member, and said if he wished him to answer publicly he would 124 do so. He must remind the hon. Gentleman that it turned out that what he imagined was the case had never happened at all; Mr. Sheldon Amos had simply had certain drafts submitted to him.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he merely stated the fact that they could not get information from the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). He considered that much of the difficulty that had arisen was due to the unwillingness to give information on the subject of Egypt which had been exhibited during last Session and the present Session by Members of the Treasury Bench. Now, after lecturing hon. Members in the House, the noble Lord gave an exhibition of inaccuracy which he (Mr. Molloy) thought must have astonished the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and all hon. Members who took an interest in the matter. The noble Lord sought to draw a distinction between the case of Suleiman Sami and Arabi. The noble Lord said the offence of Suleiman Sami was not of a political, but of a criminal character; and then he said that no one on the Treasury Bench ever stated that Arabi Pasha was guilty of crimes which had been laid to the charge of Suleiman. He (Mr. Molloy) would not wonder to find the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle astonished when he heard that statement. Some time ago he (Mr. Molloy) asked a Question of the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) regarding Arabi; but it took him (Mr. Molloy) and other hon. Members two months to ascertain from the right lion. Gentleman what the charge against Arabi Pasha was. After the distinction which the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had tried to draw between the cases of Suleiman and Arabi, it might, perhaps, be somewhat interesting to the noble Lord if he (Mr. Molloy) read an extract from a speech of the noble Lord's Predecessor in Office (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The speech in question did more, he would venture to say, to obtain the consent of the House to the prosecution of the war than any other speech which was made at that time. He drew the noble Lord's attention to the following words of his Predecessor:—
There is no doubt, I fear, that that leader"—that was Arabi Pasha—"was guilty of com- 125 plicity in the preparations for the attack upon the Europeans in Alexandria on the 11th of June.At the time he said it, no doubt, he believed it. He (Mr. Molloy) was not imputing to him a desire to give false information to the House; but the fact was pertinent to the case. The hon. Baronet, at that time, certainly questioned the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, and Lord Dufferin had since examined into the matter, and had stated, on his own part, that Arabi was not guilty. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] The Prime Minister said "No, no!" But he (Mr. Molloy) would venture to say that those who read the statement of Lord Dufferin could only come to one conclusion — namely, that he believed Arabi was not guilty of the massacres of the 8th of June. If he was guilty, and the Government believed him to be so, why was it they followed the course they did? If Lord Dufferin had admitted that Arabi was not guilty, why had the Government prosecuted him, and why, having prosecuted him, had they not pardoned him? These two cases ran in an exact parallel. In the case of Arabi, the Khedive, with that miserable duplicity which had marked him during the whole of his career, first induced Arabi to take the action he did, in defending his country against us, and then, taking the hand on which he could win, threw Arabi over, and left him to be condemned by the authorities by whom he was tried, and by whom he would have been executed but for the intervention of this country. What was Suleiman's case? It had been stated not only in this House, but by the highest authorities outside, and it had, practically, never been denied, that Suleiman had in his hands evidence that would be awkward in the last degree to the Khedive. He knew that the Khedive was as particeps criminis in what had taken place as Arabi was. The Government had taken up a new line of policy in this matter, because, last year, when he had put a Question about it, the Government had said it was understood that Arabi would not be executed without the full consent and approbation of the British Government; and now, this year, they said Suleiman had been tried by an Egyptian Court Martial. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had not informed them by whom the 126 Court Martial had been appointed. Had it been appointed by the Khedive? If it had been, ho should like to ask the further question, was it likely that the Khedive would appoint one which would deal out that equal justice that everyone was entitled to? The statements which had been now made had been made not only in the House, but all over the country, and in every foreign country—namely, that the Khedive was the man who had appointed the Court Martial to try the man who was believed by many to have in his possession knowledge which, if it were made known, would be very disagreeable to the Khedive. It was all very well for the noble Lord to say it was not for the Government of England to interfere in the affairs of Egypt; it was all very well for him to say, "This is a matter for the Egyptian Government alone." It was folly to say this and to talk about the Khedive having authority in Egypt. He wore the Crown, and enjoyed a golden repose; but who pulled the string? There was no doubt at all that he was the nominee of this Government. It was as well known in Egypt, as in this country, that the Khedive had no power except that which received the approbation of the British Government. The whole point of the case was this—that during the events which occurred in Egypt accusations of the wildest character were made on all sides; but that it had been stated, and never denied, that evidence of a very disagreeable character was in the possession of Suleiman Sami. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister laughed at this, and may be it was not true; but, whether that was so or not, it was believed by most people. It was believed in the Khedive's own country; nay, he would go so far as to say that it was believed in the Khedive's own family. The point he wished to put before the Government was this—and he did not wish to attack them, or offer obstruction to a policy with which some hon. Members disagreed—whether they ought not, at the eleventh hour, to take a course which many believed they ought to have taken a long time ago—namely, to lay the evidence taken at the Court Martial before the proper authorities in England, so that if the execution took place it would be with their full knowledge of the circumstances.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he was sure a great deal of time had been wasted in this matter. What the House desired to know was, whether the Government would not telegraph out to Egypt to stop for a few days the carrying out of the sentence? The matter was one of life and death, and there could not be any doubt that if Her Majesty's Government sent such a telegram, their request would be granted. Earlier in the day the Prime Minister said ho would make some inquiry into the case; but, since that time, they had never had any statement from the Government, as to what steps had been taken.
§ MR. WARTONOh!
MR. GLADSTONEThat is so. An hon. Member says "Oh!" He contradicts me by saying that, and he has no right to do so. He goes beyond the limit of controversy in doing so.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he did not desire to contradict the right hon. Gentleman; but he was sure he was right in saying that the Prime Minister had stated that some inquiry would be made.
MR. GLADSTONEI said we would use the utmost diligence in placing ourselves in the fullest possession of the facts of the case.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he was speaking to Gentlemen of common sense, and he asked what could that mean but that the Government would make inquiries? How could the Government put themselves in possession of the facts without making inquiries? There was no doubt that the Government could, if they chose, stop the execution. They had said they would inquire into the matter—that was to say, that they would use the utmost diligence in placing themselves in the fullest possession of the facts. But was there much use in doing that when the man was dead? They had done nothing more than telegraph to Sir Edward Malet. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: No.] He believed they had done so; but the House had very little information upon the matter. The noble Lord had said the Government had not got the terms of the telegram; but it was obvious, from the little that had been said, that the Government must doubt somewhat of the justice of the proceedings. They might not have 128 very strong doubts, but they clearly had some doubt as to the regularity of the proceedings which had brought about Suleiman Sami's condemnation. They had hoard from the noble Lord himself that there were doubts existing on this point.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI said I had seen it stated in the newspapers. I know nothing about it.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDcontinued, that it was also broadly hinted that Suleiman had wished to bring forward evidence in his defence, but had not been allowed to do so. He was not saying whether the proceedings were regular or irregular; but there was no question that the Government had had some doubt about it. All they had asked from the Government, and all they desired to hear from the right hon. Baronet who was about to address them was, why the Government, having this feeling, and having taken one step in telegraphing to Sir Edward Malet, had not taken the further step of asking the Khedive, not to stop the execution, but to delay it for a few days in order to give time to consider whether it should be carried out?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe step the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland) advises would be a new departure, and would virtually be the undertaking, on our part, of the control of the affairs of Egypt. Our interference in the case of those prisoners who were captured by the British arms—Arabi Pasha and his companions — was a wholly different matter. If we were to undertake to reverse the sentence or suspend the execution of a man who was concerned in pillage and incendiarism, we should be undertaking an interference in the affairs of Egypt which we have not done hitherto. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) says Her Majesty's Government are careless and indifferent in this matter. Well, the telegram from Sir Edward Malet, saying Suleiman Sami was to be executed, was dated 4.30 p.m. yesterday afternoon, and was received in London at 4.35 p.m. It was received by the Permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and it was suggested to the Secretary of State that Sir Edward Malet should be communicated with, and questioned as to our relations with the Government of Egypt on this case. Lord Dufferin was seen 129 late yesterday evening, and consulted as to the form these questions should take, and a decision to communicate as to whether there was a case for inquiry as to matters of fact was arrived at late last night or early this morning; but it had no reference whatever to the proceedings of the House here at 2 o'clock.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFWhy was not the telegram sent out at once?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIt was sent out as soon as it could be; but the lion. Gentleman has sufficient knowledge of telegrams, surely, to know that they mostly require to be sent in cypher, and that cyphering is a slow process.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFYou have a largo staff of resident clerks to do it.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI say the telegram from Sir Edward Malet was received very late in the afternoon, by the Permanent Under Secretary; that Lord Dufferin was seen about it last night; and that Lord Granville's decision was taken upon it at the commencement of Business this morning. Surely the House will be prepared to accept that statement, as showing that there was no unreasonable delay in the matter. The hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) asks me on what charge Suleiman Sami was tried and condemned? The charge was that of incendiarism and pillage. The hon. and learned Member asks—"Had we any reason to believe he was guilty of these crimes?" Well, Major Macdonald watched all these cases—cases of a political kind, and of murder, pillage, and incendiarism, growing out of the disturbances in Egypt — to see justice done. He watched this case, and if the charge not been proved he would have seen Sir Edward Malet, and we should have known Sir Edward Malet's opinion of the matter. But we have had no statement of that kind from Sir Edward Malet. The hon. Member has suggested, that which has found a place in almost all the speeches of hon. Members who have addressed the House against the Government—namely, that Suleiman Sami is in possession of evidence that would implicate the Khedive in some of the unfortunate events which occurred in Egypt. Now, that is a repetition of the monstrous charge against the Khedive made in this House in the 130 course of another debate this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) seemed to wish that Lord Dufferin could appear at the Bar of this House to make a statement. Lord Dufferin is a Member of the other House, not of this.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI did not say what the right hon. Baronet imputes to me.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI say the hon. Gentleman seemed to blame the Prime Minister for not making a statement on behalf of Lord Dufferin. Lord Dufferin is a Member of the other House of Parliament; and, no doubt, will make his statement there. As to the monstrous charge that Suleiman Sami is in possession of information which would implicate the Khedive, I can only say that Major Macdonald has been in frequent communication with Suleiman Sami, and that if Suleiman Sami had been in possession of such information he would have given it, and such a remarkable piece of intelligence would have been sure to be reported to Her Majesty's Government. There has never been any such information, or we should have heard of it. I was talking to Lord Dufferin this afternoon, while the debate was going on; and he said that, in his opinion, he had never heard more absolute nonsense than the charge that the Khedive himself was responsible for the massacres of Alexandria. He pointed out to me that, at the time the massacres occurred, the Khedive himself was virtually a prisoner in Alexandria, and was in daily fear for his life; that his life had been almost attempted by mutinous soldiers; and that his wife and children were in the hands of mutinous soldiers. So far from being able to instigate massacres, he was not exercising authority at the time, but was a prisoner in the hands of Arabi; and, if nothing else could clear him of the charge, the fact that his own position would have rendered it impossible for him to have exercised authority of that kind would do so. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) has asked that the evidence in this case should be brought before the British authorities. Sir, the evidence in this case has been brought before the British authorities. An agent of the British Government has always been present at the trials— 131 at all the trials that have recently taken place—and has reported what has occurred to Lord Dufferin and Sir Edward Malet. The evidence as to these trials, therefore, is in the hands of the Government at the present moment. If Major Macdonald had reason to believe that Suleiman Sami bad evidence in his hands that would have been awkward to the Khedive, Major Mac.donald, no doubt, would have reported the circumstances to Her Majesty's Government. But the thing is altogether absurd and ridiculous; and I cannot help thinking that for a charge which is known to be absurd and ridiculous, both in England and Egypt, no matter how it is brought forward, to be raked up here to-day, must be productive of evil effects upon the future Government of Egypt. I cannot express to the House the regret which I myself feel—and I am quite sure I can also speak for Lord Dufferin—at having heard this charge made in the House of Commons. In foreign countries, and especially in Eastern countries, there is a difficulty in discriminating between charges made in one quarter and the other in the House of Commons. I fear that not only the personal position of the Khedive, but the position of the Government of Egypt, and the general fabric of society in that country, will be weakened by the charges which have been made. I cannot but think that hon. Members will feel the weight of the responsibility resting upon themselves, when they make lightly, and with no evidence, charges of actual complicity in murder, and charges of murder against a man who, by his misfortunes, has been recommended to our consideration.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he had no intention of taking part in this debate when he came down; but after the speeches of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he felt bound to state what he had long wished to state, and could state upon his own personal knowledge. The noble Lord had said there was a broad distinction between Suleiman Sami and Arabi Pasha; because the one was charged with criminal offences, such as arson, murder, and pillage, while the other was charged simply with political 132 crimes. Last autumn he (Lord Henry Lennox) was in Cairo; Arabi Pasha was then on his trial, and his life depended on the English Government; and he having said ho wished to see a Member of the British Parliament, if there was one in Cairo at the time, that request was conveyed to him (Lord Henry Lennox) by Mr. Napier, the English counsel in charge of Arabi's defence; and, in consequence, he wrote that he could give no opinion on any question connected with Egyptian affairs; but, if Arabi wished to see him, he would be willing to wait upon him. He went to the gaol; but he was informed, in writing, by the Minister for War in Egypt, that he could not allow him to have an interview with Arabi, because ho was not a political prisoner, but was in prison on a charge of such crimes as arson, murder, and pillage. He had that intimation now, and he also had, in Arabi's own writing, a statement of his regret that he 'had not been allowed an interview with a Member of the British Parliament, seeing that he was on trial for his life. Therefore, he thought the noble Lord was rather mistaken in drawing a distinction between Suleiman Sami, who was condemned to death for the massacres in Alexandria, and Arabi Pasha who, when he (Lord Henry Lennox) was in Cairo, was expected to be sentenced to death, not only for what he had done against the Queen's troops, but for what he had done in Alexandria.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, ho thought it was seriously to be regretted that this solemn question, upon which a man's life was hanging, should have been made the occasion for an heated Party attack both on Her Majesty's Government and on the Egyptian Government. This remark he made upon the action of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and in no degree upon the question raised by-the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), who was entirely within his rights, for he had raised the matter in a perfectly fair spirit. At that time of night, he (Sir George Campbell) should not discuss the several points involved in the statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice); but he wished to make a suggestion to the Government. The House had been in- 133 formed that inquiry had been made of Sir Edward Malet, as to whether he thought this prisoner had had a fair trial or not, and whether he had been fairly condemned; but he would suggest that the Government should take steps to stay the execution of this man, if Sir Edward Malet expressed any doubt upon the matter.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that, according to a report in an evening newspaper, the Prime Minister had said that the Government had received a telegram, stating the facts of the condemnation of this person. They had not yet got any information from their own Representative on the spot, which would enable them to arrive at any decision on those facts; but every inquiry would be made.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSthought that, in a question of this kind, with a man's life pending, the Government ought not to shelter themselves behind distinctions which were not differences. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in answer to a Question put to him last year, had referred to Arabi Pasha as having been guilty of crimes which took him out of the category of political criminals; and if that was the case, it seemed to him that the case of Suleiman Sami and the case of Arabi Pasha were on all-fours. He could not see the distinction which the Government drew, especially as the trials had been the same. The right hon. Baronet had drawn another remarkable distinction, for he had said that Arabi Pasha belonged to the category of prisoners who had been captured by the British Forces, and was not in the same position as Suleiman Sami, and others who had been taken prisoners by the Egyptian police. If that was so, by what right had the British Government allowed a British officer to be present at the trial of Suleiman Sami? By that course, they had assumed the same responsibility as in the case of Arabi Pasha; and it was a pitiful exhibition to see them taking shelter under such a distinction, at a moment when the rope was round the neck of this unfortunate man.
§ SIR R ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had quite understood the words of the Prime Minister at the Morning Sitting, in the sense in which they had been taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). Just 134 before 7 o'clock, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had asked the Government to undertake that further inquiry should be made; and he understood from the Prime Minister that that would be done. He, however, entirely agreed with what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had said. They were now discussing this very intricate question; but, in the meanwhile, Suleiman Sand's life was hanging upon a thread; and what he wanted to know was, whether the Government would do their best—although it might, perhaps, be too late—by at once sending a telegram requiring that, if our Representatives in Egypt had any doubt as to whether the trial had been a fair trial, the execution should be deferred? Would they do that, or would they not? If they would not, and the trial should turn out to have been unfair, the blood of this man would be upon their heads.
MR. GLADSTONEAfter the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), it is, perhaps, right that I should ask leave to say a few words. I have no doubt whatever about the words that I used. Undoubtedly, I stated that we would make further inquiries; but I understood the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst Sir Henry Holland) to refer to some supposed pledge of mine that there should be further inquiry made in Egypt. [Sir HENRY HOLLAND: I did not at all mean that.] That is distinctly what I gathered, and I stated that we would take measures to put ourselves in a position to answer any questions on the merits of the case. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) says that the cases of Suleiman Sami and Arabi Pasha are upon all-fours. I hold that they are fundamentally different. The case of Arabi Pasha was that of a man who surrendered himself to our troops, and was by us handed over to the Egyptian authorities.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSWhat I said was that, according to the statement of the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Duke), the cases were on all-fours, because he said that Arabi Pasha was guilty of a criminal offence.
MR. GLADSTONEMy right hon. Friend said exactly the reverse of that. We evidently had a direct and an immediate responsibility with regard to 135 the methods of procedure adopted towards those of whose persons we had become possessed in the course of the military operations, and who never could have been brought to justice by the Egyptian authorities at all except through our agency; and with regard to those we had a responsibility totally different from any responsibility that could attach to us in respect to persons who were arrested by the Egyptian Government in the exercise of their functions, without any assistance whatever from us. It is quite true that Major Macdonald, in whom we have every confidence, had been charged—I will not say with the supervision, because that implies authority, but with the consideration of the circumstances which have been described in regard to the trial; but the business upon which we went to Egypt was to restore the Egyptian Government. That was a work which did not take place by a single formal act; it was to be effected by several steps, governed by good sense and judgment. I think we may fairly argue that we did not think it right to ignore our consideration and observation of the prosecution of criminal justice in Egypt in matters connected with the war, although we stand in a totally different footing with regard to Suleiman Sami from our position in regard to Arabi. With respect to those whom we had delivered into the hands of the Egyptian Government, we deemed it our duty to lay down positive conditions under which a fair trial was to take place. With regard to the present case, I do not greatly complain of the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote). He carefully guarded himself against asserting any doctrine of positive interference. What he stated was that we could not divest ourselves of all responsibility. To that extent I am disposed to go with the right hon. Gentleman; but the limit of our responsibility, as we view it, is this—that we are not to interfere, except in cases where there was, or had been, either a palpable departure from the rules of justice, or some strong presumption that there has been a miscarriage of justice. On all these questions we shall form our judgment mainly through the representations of our able and trustworthy agents in Egypt. These considerations are distinctly applicable 136 to the present case. We know that Major Macdonald is cognizant of the whole of these proceedings, and that he is a man who we know would perform his duty; but he would have grossly departed from his duty if, observing a miscarriage of justice, he had not reported that miscarriage to us. Major Macdonald and Sir Edward Malet we consider as standing in the same position; they are bound to communicate with one another upon all the important interests that are involved in questions of this kind; and the evidence we derive from the statements of Sir Edward Malet is precisely to the same effect as that which we draw from the fact that Major Macdonald takes no objection to the proceedings in this trial—namely, that there is no presumption of a miscarriage of justice in this case. That being the case, my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is, that while we would freely interfere, if we had reason to believe that there had been a violation of the rules of justice, we distinctly decline to interfere when the information which we receive from our agents on the spot is to the effect that there has been no such miscarriage of justice. And this I must say, in corroboration of my right hon. Friend, is from no selfish or idle idea of exempting ourselves from responsibility. It is from a deep consideration of what is necessary for the welfare of Egypt. We have given certain assurances to the Government of Egypt, and to all the world at large. We have stated that our intervention in Egypt is limited by the necessities of the case, and that we have not gone there to make ourselves governors of the country. Our object has been to re-instate the Government of that country in credit, security, and stability. If we are to redeem that pledge which we have given—and that is as much required by sound policy as by honour and good faith—we must beware of taking such measures as would be suggested by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and of pursuing a course which would paralyze the Government of Egypt, and, upon grounds which we think most frivolous, discredit that Government in the eyes of its own subjects; and revive all the difficulties and dangers which it has cost this country so much to neutralize and put aside, and cover ourselves and the whole country, in my 137 opinion, with the discredit of well-deserved failure. That is the line which the Government have determined to to take. It appears to us that our duty is marked out clearly by considerations on the one side and on the other, and we are by no means disposed to apply any abstract doctrines to this case. We shall be governed by those motives which sound policy and justice dictate; and, acting on that principle, we say that, because we do not find any evidence to show a miscarriage of justice, we decline to interfere with the discretion of the responsible authorities in Egypt.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the conduct of the Government in this matter was wretched and revolting in the extreme; and the verdict of all rational and impartial men would be that this Liberal Government chose that this unfortunate human life should be sacrificed that morning, rather than materials should be given in that House and the country to call in question their miserable policy. Suleiman Sami must be shot or hanged that morning, rather than the world should know the inner circumstances and facts of the policy of the Khedive, and of his backers and champions in England. There had been two men chiefly concerned in that business—Arabi Pasha and Suleiman Sami. They stood before the Government of Egypt precisely in the same position; they were both guilty, practically, of the same offence; and this miserable Government, the Government of that puppet in Egypt, sot up by a Liberal Administration in England, got rid of one inconvenient person by putting him out of his native country; and now they proposed to get rid of another inconvenient person by putting him out of life. Was it by the bullet of the platoon, or by the rope of the hangman, that this Liberal Government hoped to preserve its character? Major Macdonald had not reported that there had been any infraction of justice. Who was this Major Macdonald? Was the conscience, and honour, and position, and power of a great Liberal Government in England to be placed in the hands of an obscure and unknown Major of Infantry? Major Macdonald knew his business too well to report anything which might in any way show that Suleiman Sami and Arabi were the political agents of the Khedive 138 when he thought he could do without England. When the turn of the tide went against the Egyptian movement, Suleiman Sami, as well as Arabi, was to be given up. Major Macdonald was a regimental officer who know all the ins and outs of the Service; and he was not so great a fool as to embarrass the Foreign Office and the present Liberal Government by reporting anything whatever concerning these high matters of State policy, which, according to the common sense and belief of the civilized world, rested in the hands of Suleiman. A miserable attempt had been made, both by the right hon. Baronet the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and by the Prime Minister, to distinguish between the cases of Arabi and Suleiman, because Arabi fell a prisoner to the British arms, and Suleiman did not. What distinction could there be between the two cases? If British arms had not gone to Egypt, if British arms had not overborne the wills of the Egyptian people and the power of the unfortunate Arabi, the dupe of the Khedive; if British arms had not gone there and destroyed the hopes of that people, into whose arms would Suleiman have fallen? Not into the arms of anyone in the world. Constructively, if not actually, ho had fallen a prisoner into British arms; and if British arms had not gone to Egypt, and if British policy did not now control the miserable Ruler of that country, Suleiman Sami, instead of dying the death of a criminal that morning, would be a Minister of State in Egypt. It was idle, it was vain, for Her Majesty's Government to attempt to get rid of the responsibility. All the difference between the possible position of Suleiman Sami as a Minister of State in Egypt and his actual position as a criminal, according to the laws of the Khedive, rested upon Her Majesty's Government's rules and upon their policy; and all the water in the seas could not wash from their hands the blood of that unfortunate man. What story was the House to believe from the Treasury Bench? Time had been shamefully lost. The Government knew, as they all knew, as the public of this country knew at an early hour yesterday (Friday) morning that that unfortunate man was to die. What course did the Government take? The House 139 had been treated to the recital of two narratives. They had had that of the noble Lord the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), and they had had that of the right hon. Baronet the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Which story were they to believe? The late Under Secretary of State informed the House that Lord Dufferin was seen last (Thursday) night and early to-day (Friday)—a curious combination—and that a Resolution was arrived at. Now, was it arrived at last night or early to-day? Or was it arrived at both last night and to-day? When the right hon. Gentleman was pressed as to the hour at which the telegram to Egypt was despatched, he informed the House that the telegram had been drafted, that the clerks had been assembled to place that single telegram in cypher, that that occupied a considerable time—how many minutes or hours he left hon. Gentlemen to speculate. The right hon. Gentleman would have the House to believe that the action of the Foreign Office was taken before the good feeling and humanity of the House interfered in the matter; he would have them believe that the delay in the despatch of the telegram arose not from any vacillation or indisposition in the mind of the Foreign Office, but because of the incapacity of the clerks of that establishment to put the telegram into cypher. The noble Lord the present Under Secretary of State informed the House that he was absent from the House at half-past 2 to-day (Friday), because he was engaged in considering this very matter in regard to which the clerks, according to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), had been engaged all day in putting the telegram into cypher. It was perfectly evident, from the story of the noble Lord, that when he went back to the Foreign Office at 3 o'clock, Lord Granville had not made up his mind, and that the telegram was not then drafted. Indeed, it was quite plain that the Foreign Office had not arrived at any decision until the force of that House impelled it. The Prime Minister had admitted that the task of the British Government in Egypt was to restore the Government of the Khedive. It was evident to the world that the Khedive was the puppet of the British Government. It was evident that a 140 telegram from the Prime Minister, or from the Foreign Office, would respite the life of that political dupe, so far as to enable inquiries to be made. He must question the reply made by the Prime Minister to they hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). He distinctly heard the right hon. Gentleman say that inquiry would be made, and that the Government would feel it their duty to put themselves, as far as possible, into possession of the facts of the case, so that they might satisfy themselves, whether the trial had been fair and honest. From the position taken up by the Prime Minister earlier in the day and now, it was apparent that they were not in possession of sufficient facts to decide whether that man ought to be executed or not. Admitting this Major Macdonald, this obscure military gentleman, to be a competent judge of high policy, he could not admit the responsibility of the Government to be shifted upon the shoulders of this Major of Infantry; and he called upon the Government, in the name of humanity, justice, and common sense to possess themselves of the real facts of the case. He supposed it was now 3 or 4 o'clock in Egypt. If they shot that man at sun-rise, ho was now within two hours of his death. Suleiman Sami was the victim of the Government policy, and the responsibility of his blood would for ever lie on the heads of that Liberal-Radical Government.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the House would be right in dividing upon this question, as a protest against the course which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government. The question whether this man was justly or unjustly sentenced to death was one which was certainly of the greatest possible gravity, looking at the position England now occupied in Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had sought to draw a great distinction between the case of Arabi and the case of Suleiman. His (Mr. W. H. Smith's) view was that the country, at all events, would not see that there was any great difference in the responsibility of this country with regard to the trial of the two men. It might be that Suleiman had been found guilty justly. Arabi was handed over, undoubtedly, by the officers of the British Army to the authority whatever it was, which existed in Egypt; but the autho- 141 rity which existed in Egypt existed, at the present moment, by virtue of the British arms. The British Army maintained the authority of the Khedive in Egypt; and it could not but be remarked with what extraordinary rapidity the sentence upon Suleiman Sami was to be carried out. He was not aware whether it was a course which was usual in Egypt; but, certainly, it was a course which struck him as being a most extraordinary one—namely, that a man should be tried and found guilty on Thursday, and executed probably at daylight on Saturday. There did not appear to be time for Her Majesty's Representative in Egypt, assuming he was doing his duty, to satisfy himself that everything had been done that ought to be done; there was not time for the British Representative in Egypt to communicate with Her Majesty's Government, and bring to bear that influence which it was the duty of the Government to bring if wrong had been done. He was far from saying that wrong had been done; but, undoubtedly, the position which Her Majesty's Government occupied in Egypt was such that they were bound to see that wrong had not been done, and the rapidity with which the sentence was to be carried out was such as to leave a dreadful responsibility upon the Government. Under the circumstances, ho considered it was the duty of the House to divide upon the Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," simply as a protest that, in the judgment of the House, it was incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to have satisfied themselves that the verdict was a just one.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 58: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 123.)
§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to know why Progress was to be reported at that hour? Hon. Members ought to know, before the Motion was agreed to, whether or not it was intended to go on with the Lords Alcester and Wolseley Annuities Bills.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had made the Motion, because he was afraid the House would consider it too late to go on with those measures.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.