§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the answer which he had just given to the right hon. Member for North Devon, In what manner the surrender of Arabi Pasha by Her Majesty's Government to the Egyptian Government was connected with the trial of Arabi by the Egyptian Government?
MR. GLADSTONEIf the noble Lord wishes it I will repeat the whole answer I have given already; but I think that I gave it in as clear a manner as possible.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLAs it appears to me that this is likely to be the very last night on which it may be in the power of any Member to bring matters even of the greatest urgency under the notice of the House on a Motion for the adjournment, I wish in a few simple sentences to show the importance of taking some immediate steps with respect to the trial of Arabi Pasha; 1318 and therefore, to put myself in Order, I beg to move the adjournment of the House. At the present moment Arabi is confined in an Egyptian gaol, under an Egyptian guard, and Her Majesty's Government cannot guarantee that his life is safe at the present moment. We know that prisoners in Egyptian gaols are treated with the greatest cruelty, especially in Provincial gaols; and I challenge any Member of Her Majesty's Government to get up and say that the life of Arabi Pasha is not in the greatest danger. Yet, knowing the danger in which he is at present, Her Majesty's Government refuse to give a day for the discussion of the question of his surrender. And why? Because they know very well that if the question is discussed in this House it would decide the fate of the Egyptian Government. ["Order, order!"] I repeat that, should the result of the discussion be to pass a Vote of Censure, the natural result of that Vote of Censure will be to force the Egyptian Government to release Arabi Pasha. And yet Her Majesty's Government, although they cannot guarantee this man's life for 24 hours, although they know he has in his possession documents which would compromise greatly not only the Sultan, but the Khedive and the Khedive's Ministers, and whose interests are to put Arabi out of the way, refuse to let the House of Commons express its opinion as to his fate. I venture to say that if this matter is allowed to be discussed a large number of Members will place upon record their opinion that the surrender of Arabi Pasha was one of the most disgraceful acts that had ever stained the British name.
DR. CAMERONI rise to a point of Order. On the 28th of June, 1881, I proposed to move the adjournment of the House in order to bring a matter which I considered of very pressing importance under the notice of the House, when attention was called by the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) to the fact that a Motion relating to the same question was on the Paper; and you, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt very properly, ruled me out of Order. Now, I beg to call your attention to the fact that amongst the Notices of Motion standing on the Paper is one in the name of the right hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) 1319 relating to the surrender of Arabi Pasha, and asserting that the House condemns it. Now, any remarks of the noble Lord condemnatory of that act, I submit, would be out of Order; and as you ruled me out of Order on the ground that I was anticipating the discussion of a Motion on the Paper, I ask whether the noble Lord is in Order in anticipating, under the guise of a Motion for the adjournment of the House, discussion of a Motion which stands on the Paper?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe noble Lord cannot, under cover of a Motion for the adjournment of the House, anticipate the discussion of a Motion which is set down on the Paper, and stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn. The noble Lord cannot advert to any point covered by that Motion. He would be out of Order.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIt was not my intention to do more than allude in passing to that Motion. What I have a perfect right to refer to, and what is not covered by any Motion on the Paper, is the trial of Arabi, and the procedure at the trial.
DR. CAMERONI again rise to Order. A Motion stands in my name on the Paper as to the procedure on the trial of Arabi Pasha.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI think it will be found that the Motion of the hon. Member does not cover the remarks lam going to make. Look at the position in which the House is placed. ["Order!"] I must appeal to hon. Members opposite to exercise for the last time in their lives a little spark of fairness. Government have taken up all the time of Parliament. It is absolutely impossible for any Member—be he sitting on this side of the House or below the Gangway, or no matter what his position may be—to bring forward Motions on any subject without the consent of the Government; and this is literally the only opportunity on which the attention of the House can be drawn to the conduct of the Government. And what is that conduct? Why, the Government had absolutely refused to meet the House of Commons on their Egyptian policy. ["No, no!"] Well, what has taken place? On one of the few occasions on which I was able to attend the House before the adjournment, my hon. and learned 1320 Friend (Mr. Gorst) gave Notice of a Motion censuring the destruction of Alexandria, and we asked the Prime Minister whether he would give a day for the discussion of that Motion. He refused to give a day for the discussion of that atrocious act—it was absolutely refused.
DR. CAMERONI beg to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that a Motion with regard to the destruction of Alexandria stands on the Paper.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThe perseverance of the hon. Member is creditable to his race; but he does not give me a chance. He does not allow me to finish what I was going to say. I do not propose to discuss the Motion referred to. I only say that the Government refused to give it a day. And why? Because it was given Notice of by a private Member, and the Prime Minister said the Government could not think of giving it a day unless it was put forward by someone in the position of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon. Well, the right hon. Baronet has since given Notice of a Motion which appeared to me to be a Vote of Censure. It said the House was not in possession of certain information which it was desirable the Government should give it. If, therefore, this was not a Motion of Want of Confidence, I do not know how such a Motion could be drawn. The Prime Minister, however, evaded it, and refused to give it a day. Then we come to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn—a Motion of a most important and pressing character—and the Prime Minister gets up—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe noble Lord must be perfectly well aware that he is not entitled to discuss the Motion of the right hon. Member for King's Lynn.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI do not mean to discuss it. I only want to point out—and I hope the public out-of-doors will take notice of the fact—that, in spite of all our efforts, in spite of those Notices of Motion—that of my hon. and learned Friend, that of the Leader of the Opposition, and that of the right hon. Member for King's Lynn—the Government have refused to give a day for a discussion. More than that it is not necessary to say; but it is abso- 1321 lutely necessary to mark this firm refusal on the part of the Prime Minister to allow the subject to be brought before the House of Commons. The noble Lord concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFseconded the Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
MR. GLADSTONEI need be only brief in answering the noble Lord. He has shown his usual inaccuracy in his statement of fact. I have given as yet no answer whatever to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon with respect to his Question; and, consequently, as I have not given an answer. I cannot possibly have refused him any request which he may associate with it; but I have stated that to-morrow I will give information which, as I think, may throw light upon the subject sufficiently to assist him in determining what course he will pursue. So much for one of the "refusals." It does not exist at all. Let us look at the other. The first "refusal" was that a private Member—I do not remember who it was—proposed that we should arrest the course of Government Business and of the regular Sittings of the House in order to discuss the question of Egypt.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThe burning of Alexandria.
MR. GLADSTONEVery well; part of the question of Egypt. I stated, in conformity with universal practice, that no Government ever could recognize any Motion of that kind as reasonable for setting aside the Business of the House and grant a special day unless the Motion was made on behalf of some great Party. That is the second case. With regard to the third, the House has heard the explanation I gave to-day, and my belief is that the House is satisfied. At all events, it is open to the right hon. Gentleman to question it at the proper time.
MR. GORSTI think we have reason to complain that the Government will not condescend to give the House such information as they themselves possess, and that the answers given by one Minister should be inconsistent with those given by another, and the answers given by one Minister of the Crown on one day 1322 should not be consistent with the answers given by the same Minister on another day. What I understand to be the feeling of the House is not a desire to discuss the general Egyptian Question. Hon. Members are willing to wait until they hear the Statement which the Prime Minister has promised to make to-morrow. Nor are they desirous of discussing the guilt or innocence of Arabi Pasha. But what they think they ought to know is—what are the Government themselves doing? What part are they going to take, and how far do they recognize that they have any responsibility in the matter? A despatch from Lord Granville, dated October 23, 1882, has been laid upon the Table, and the remarkable feature about this despatch is the essential inconsistency between it and the language used in this House by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the various answers he has given. An example of this was furnished this afternoon in the answer that the Under Secretary gave to a Question, when he stated that Her Majesty's Government had entered into no engagement whatever with the Egyptian Government with reference to the punishment that would be inflicted on the political prisoners in Egypt in the event of their being found guilty. I innocently asked how that was reconcilable with the reservation in Lord Granville's despatch of the right to appeal to the Khedive in case of the sentence being unnecessarily severe? What was the answer I received? I was told that the Prime Minister had answered my Question in reply to another Question. No such answer to this Question could be given; and what we want to know is—do the Government recognize that they are responsible for the trial of Arabi and his friends, or do they not? Is their position this—that, having captured these prisoners by the force of British arms, and having handed them over to a Government which is maintained by a British force constituted only by British bayonets, and able to maintain its position only so long as it is supported by the military power of this country, do they put it before Parliament that they have exonerated themselves from all responsibility as to the fate of that unhappy man and his fellow-prisoners by handing them over to be tried by that Government, or are 1323 they prepared to take steps to insure them a fair trial? Now, there is a point in this dispatch—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member seems to me to be raising questions which are involved in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, and in so doing he is out of Order.
MR. GORSTI understand the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn to be a censure on the Government for having delivered the prisoners over to the Egyptian authorities. I am not enforcing that point at all. I am pointing out that the Government, having so handed over the prisoners, are bound to make conditions to insure them a fair trial. I am not at all trenching on that part of the subject which is covered by the Resolution of my right hon. Friend. But what we want to point out is this—that in the despatch of Lord Granville a condition was laid down which has been made the subject of many Questions in this House.
DR. CAMERONOn the point of Order, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman trench on my Resolution which calls on the Government to give full information as to the trial of Arabi?
§ MR. SPEAKERBoth one Resolution and the other seem to me to shut out the observations of the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. GORSTIt is surely a reason why the House should not proceed with its Business that it is debarred from all discussion of such an important matter. This is a Motion put down for the purpose of preventing discussion—very likely a Motion put down by the advice of the Government. Therefore, I do not think the House should proceed with Business when it is so fettered by Motions put down by Friends of the Government at the instigation of the Government. This is a Motion which cannot possibly be brought under discussion. ["Order!"] I am giving reasons why the House should adjourn. The hands of the House are tied by the action of Friends of the Government in 1324 putting down Motions which cannot be discussed, and which they know cannot be raised. If this is the way in which the great Liberal Party are going to treat foreigners, who, at all events, profess to represent national feeling in their own country—if they are going first of all to hand them over to the authorities, and then prevent this House, by an abuse of the Forms of the House, from expressing an opinion on this infamous transaction, I beg to protest against it.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI think we must all recognize that the House is placed in a position of considerable difficulty in connection with this great and important question. We recognize, of course, the great duty which lies upon us all of doing nothing that can be injurious to the national interests. On the other hand, we have a duty to perform to this House and to the country; and there are many questions on which we do feel it is our duty to express our dissatisfaction with the course taken by the Government, and on which we think it would be right that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. The Question put by me in regard to the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn was put with no intention of embarrassing the Government, but with the intention of asking whether the Government would give us an opportunity of discussing a matter which we think of great importance, and which, in the interest of all parties, we think ought to be discussed. I feel, and we all feel, that the answer which was given by the Prime Minister to my Question was one which would not satisfy. We cannot enter into a discussion of the question. We are precluded from doing so by the fact that you have ruled—and very necessarily ruled—that the presence of these Motions on the Paper prevent us. But then it is necessary that, in the grave circumstances of the case, we should consider what course we ought to pursue. Tomorrow we may have an opportunity of reviewing a portion of the policy of the Government, and I desire to reserve myself until the Statement promised by the Prime Minister has been made. I hope the Motion for Adjournment will not be pressed to a division; but, at the same time, I think it is necessary that we 1325 should take this opportunity of saying that we are not satisfied, and that the course we ought to take must engage our serious attention.
DR. CAMERONsaid, he was sorry that a little joke of his should have so much disconcerted the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. It so happened that on the occasion to which he had referred when he was ruled out of Order, because a Motion on the same subject stood upon the Paper, he had incautiously said he should take off that Motion, and move the adjournment of the House on a subsequent day. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), however, with that great ingenuity and versatility of talent which distinguished him, took forcible possession of his Motion, and reinstated it on the Paper in his own name, and so precluded him from bringing forward by way of adjournment a subject, in order to call attention to which he had removed his Motion. In that way the noble Lord had thoroughly succeeded in impressing upon him what was the Rule of Procedure in regard to this tactic. Accordingly, the other day, when the noble Lord, not being satisfied with the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, gave Notice to repeat his Question, and that in the event of not being satisfied with the answer he should move the adjournment of the House, he thought he could not do better than adopt the noble Lord's own manœuvre, used so successfully against himself, and apply it in his Lordship's case. He accordingly took the liberty of appropriating the noble Lord's Question and transposing it into a Resolution, sticking closely to its verbiage, even to the extent of a grammatical error and superfluous inverted commas, and that he had put down in his own name upon the Paper. Apparently the noble Lord was determined that on some excuse he would move the adjournment to-night. He got a satisfactory answer to his Question; but that was not sufficient to mollify him. This was the last available opportunity, in all probability, for raising an irregular discussion by moving the adjournment of the House; and as "any stick was good enough to beat a dog with," he had managed to obtain what would serve as an excuse. It was a pity the noble Lord did not inform his hon. and learned Friend the 1326 Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) of the state of matters. He had no doubt the noble Lord was acquainted with it, and that he noticed a familiar look in the Resolution, which had been evolved from his own Question. If he had informed his hon. and learned Friend, it would have led him to be more guarded in his denunciation of the horrible conspiracy between himself and the Ministry for the purpose of stifling discussion on a disagreeable question, and he would have been less ready to expose the whole thing to the country. He trusted the House would not think he had acted discourteously. It was a very fair case of a "Roland for an Oliver" between himself and the noble Lord. He quite agreed with the ruling of the Speaker on the former occasion. So far as he was concerned, he believed it was doubtless for the convenience of the House that he should not have been allowed to go forward with his Question under the guise of a Motion for Adjournment; and he had no doubt that the noble Lord, in preventing his going forward with it, conferred a service on the House in the shape of saving of time. He had also no doubt that when the noble Lord came to reflect on the matter he would see that imitation was the sincerest flattery, and would agree with him that it was probably, after all, just as well that he had not had the occasion of signalizing himself as the last Member in this degenerate Parliament who had raised an irregular discussion under the old Rules by moving the adjournment of the House at Question time.
§ Question put, and negatived.