§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, since the official reports are now on record showing that, notwithstanding the belief of Lord Duf-ferin that Suleiman Sami would be allowed to examine witnesses on his trial before the Alexandria Court Martial, it really was the case that no witnesses were examined at that so-called trial, and the demand of the prisoner "that he might be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution" was categorically refused, the Court Martial having "declined to entertain it," Her Majesty's Government will now insist that no future trials are conducted in such a manner while the Egyptian Government is supported by British arms, but that the course adopted in Khan-deel's case of hearing the witnesses will be generally followed?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to future trials in Egypt are set forth in the despatches of Lord Dufferin of April 28 and June 14 (Egypt, No. 9, 1883, pp. 4 and 20), and it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any measures beyond those there described.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked if it were not the case, as distinctly shown in the despatch of Lord Dufferin, dated June 14th, that he was mistaken in regard to the procedure which was to be followed, because Lord Dufferin distinctly stated that in Suleiman Sami's case there would be full liberty to exa- 469 mine and cross-examine all witnesses placed before the Alexandria Court Martial; and whether, as Lord Dufferin was mistaken as to the procedure, it was not necessary there should be fresh instructions?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURIOEThe hon. Gentleman asks me whether I think Lord Dufferin was right. That is asking my opinion——