Commons Sitting of 8 June 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [June 7] reported—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [Payment of Costs and Expenses]*.
Ordered—First Reading—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [220]; Yorkshire Register Acts Amendment * [221].
Committee—Lord Alcester's Grant (re-comm.) [207], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*; Registry of Deeds (Ireland) [202].

QUESTIONS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—WATER SUPPLY OF BROADFORD, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  25
  land, Whether it is a fact that the people of Broadford, county Limerick, are badly in want of fresh water; whether it is a fact that the inhabitants of that place have frequently written to the Local Government Board on the subject; and, if he will order steps to be taken at once to remedy this great want?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The only complaint made on this matter to the Local Government Board had reference to the repair of a pump, which was a subject of dispute between the Board of Guardians and the inhabitants of Broadford. The Board of Guardians gave way, and placed the matter unreservedly in the hands of the Guardian from the electoral division in which Broadford is situated, telling him to get the work done to the satisfaction of the residents in the place. This occurred early in last November, and no complaint has since reached the Local Government Board; but they will make inquiry as to what was done.
  MR. O'SULLIVANremarked that the pump was being constructed for the past five years, and it was not yet finished.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — BELFAST WORKHOUSE—ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING HOUSE FOR MASTER.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the proposal of the Belfast Guardians of the 29th ultimo, to erect a new detached dwelling house for the present workhouse master, at a cost of £600 or £700; if it be true that the master was only appointed about two years ago, and since this time upwards of £200 have been expended in general improvements to, and furniture for, his apartments, in addition to the furniture previously purchased for them; is it true that this expenditure was incurred in order to accommodate the master's wife and family, who are maintained out of the rates; are those apartments the same as those occupied by all previous masters; and, will ho undertake to have this proposal of the guardians set aside on the ground that the expenditure is unnecessary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Inquiry on this subject has been made; but as the Question only appeared on the Paper yesterday, a full reply has not yet been received. I am able to state, however, that the apartments of the master of the
  26
  workhouse having been complained of as unhealthy, and having been, after examination by a special committee of the Guardians, condemned as unfit to live in, it has been proposed to erect a suitable dwelling at a cost not to exceed £400. The proposals of the Guardians will receive the careful consideration of the Local Government Board before a decision is come to.

  PARLIAMENT — PUBLIC BUSINESS — BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, inasmuch as the several provisions of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill are dependent on the passing and provisions of the Ballot Bill, when he proposes to proceed with the Ballot Bill?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am anxious to make progress with the Bill, as are the Government as a whole. It is not our fault that so little progress has been made up to the present. I will bring it on as early as possible.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, further, whether he will give any assurance to the House that further proceedings on the Ballot Bill will take place before the completion of the Committee stage of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I hope so; but I cannot give any assurance. It does not depend on the Government really.

  INDIA—CRIMINAL CODE PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL—REPORT OF DEBATE.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the two Reports, complete and incomplete, of the Debate in the Indian Legislative Council upon Mr. Ilbert's Native Jurisdiction Bill will be laid upon the Table of the House, in accordance with his undertaking made on the 28th May?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The telegraphic summary of the debate on the Jurisdiction Bill will be presented to-day and distributed with the full report of the debate which was laid on the Table on the 28th of May, and is now being printed.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Indian Government that Reports from the Local Governments to Lord Ripon shall be sent home without any delay? My object, of course, is that they may be printed before the end of the Session.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: We have already asked that they may be sent on as early as possible.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Is there any precedent for a debate in the Legislative Council being reported and telegraphed at the expense of the Government, except in the case of the Budget debates, which are not controversial?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I cannot answer that Question without Notice.

  EGYPT (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)—THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the hospital at Troodos, in Cyprus, having been given up with the consent of the Principal Medical Officer of the British Army in Egypt on or before 24th August, and Sir Garnet Wolseley having on 30th August stopped the "Carthage" with 196 sick on beard for Cyprus, the Principal Medical Officer, after communication with Cyprus on 3rd September, wrote to the Chief of the Staff that it seemed a great pity to disturb the hospital arrangements made elsewhere than at Troodos, in Cyprus; whether, on 4th September, he received from the Chief of the Staff the reply, "Sick can be sent to Cyprus;" whether, on 9th September, 72 sick were sent to Cyprus; whether, on 14th September, 300 more were ordered to sail for Cyprus; whether he had, before 24th August, ordered that Cyprus should not be used as a hospital until October; whether the Principal Medical Officer stated before Lord Morley's Commission that, up to the 19th of January, he had never heard of this decision; if he would state whose duty it was to inform the Principal Medical Officer of the decision of the Secretary of State; and, whether the Director General of the Medical Department at home was ever informed of it? The hon. Member also asked, Whether, when Ismailia was seized and the plan of campaign developed in Egypt, the Principal Medical Officer
  28
  and the Principal Commissariat Officer of the Army were informed of so much of the General's plan as was necessary to enable them to arrange for the efficiency of their respective departments under the altered conditions; and, if so, at what date was the seizure of Ismailia as a base sanctioned by the War Office, and at what date were these officers respectively informed of the intention to seize it?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I must ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that the Army in Egypt was commanded by the General Officer on the spot, and not by the Secretary of State at home. Nearly all the points in this long Question relate to local details in connection with the conduct of the Campaign in Egypt. I have no information on these points beyond that contained in the Evidence given before Lord Morley's Committee, which is before the House. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I will read the Minute of Sir John Adye, the Chief of the Staff, approved by the Secretary of State, which contains the only thing in the nature of an order given on the subject by the War Office prior to the despatch of the Expedition. As I have before stated, any subsequent orders varying this decision would be given by the Commander-in-Chief of the Expedition. The Minute is as follows:—
  "I have seen the Director General of the Army Medical Department and the Principal Medical Officer of the Force. They concur that, looking at the season of the year, and that the weather will be cool towards the end of September, Troodos may be given up, and a hospital established at Polymedia, near the place of disembarkation.
  "(Signed) JOHN ADYE, August 3, 1882."
  This answer applies also to the hon. Member's last Question. The determination of the base of operations in Egypt was wholly a matter for the determination of the General commanding the Force; and it was for that officer, acting through the Chief of the Staff, to convey to the Heads of Departments under him such instructions as he might think necessary and desirable.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that on Lord Wolseley's Annuity Bill he should oppose any grant unless full explanation were offered regarding the arrangements made at head - quarters affecting the Medical Department. At present un-

  29
  merited blame seemed to be thrown upon that Department.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the hospital at Cyprus was given up on the motion of Sir Garnet Wolseley, or by instructions from the Secretary of State?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not go much into detail; but the hospital at Cyprus was not given up until the battle of Tel-el-Kebir, when the Campaign was virtually at an end, and the hospital at Cyprus would not be required.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, if it was the case that, owing to the fact of the military authorities at home, in conjunction with Sir Garnet Wolseley, having decided that the base hospital should be at Cyprus, there was no base hospital at Ismailia when the troops were landed?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFalso asked, whether it was decided to give up the hospital at Cyprus on the 3rd August; and whether troops were embarked on the 30th August for Cyprus, and then stopped by Sir Garnet Wolseley?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, no final determination with reference to a general hospital was arrived at until after the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. The decision come to on the 3rd of August was that an hospital at Troodos would not be necessary.

  ARMY—PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether it is true that, while supplies purchased for the Army in London for special occasions, such as the Egyptian Campaign, are purchased and dealt with by civilian brokers, similar articles are purchased and passed at home and abroad, and under all other circumstances, by the Commissariat; and, whether the Director of Supplies, officially responsible for the purchase of the flour sent to Egypt, or the Commissary General, were consulted as to the recommendation of Messrs. Bovill that American flour should alone be sent out, or as to the mode in which it was to be shipped?
  MR. BRAND: Supplies purchased in London are obtained under the system in force in the London market. This system gives us the advantage of highly trained experts in the various branches
  30
  of trade. Under other circumstances, speaking generally, garrisons at home and abroad are supplied under periodical contracts. As a rule, these supplies are delivered direct to, and are inspected and passed by, the troops. But the contractor can appeal against a rejection to a Special Board, of which the Commissariat Officer, when available, is appointed a member. The officer acting as Director of Supplies dealt with the question of the purchase of flour for Egypt. It was never intended to depend solely on American flour. Local supplies were to be secured, and the shipment in question was only made to meet immediate wants on landing.

  LAND IMPROVEMENT AND ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL, 1883—"COPYHOLD LAND."
  MR. MARUMasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the expression "copyhold land," in Clause 68 of the Land Improvement and Arterial Drainage (Ireland) Bill, 1883, is intended to apply to and include land subject to statutory terms; and, if not, whether he will provide that such statutory land tenures in Ireland of a quasi perpetual character, subject to fair rental conditions, may be brought within the meaning of such definition Clause?
  MR. COURTNEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. If I understand the hon. Member aright, he desires to know whether occupiers at judicial rents can be brought within the definition of owner for the purposes of the formation of a drainage district and a Drainage Board. This is a very important question, and was carefully considered when the Bill was in preparation; but I came to the conclusion, having regard to the fact that the Bill is mainly a Consolidation Bill, that it would be impossible to introduce this new proposal in it without making hopeless what is already sufficiently precarious—the chance of passing the Bill. I may point out that such tenants can, under Section 31 of the Land Act, obtain loans for the draining and improving of their separate holdings.
  MR. MARUMasked what was meant by the expression "copyhold land?" He was not aware that there was any such land in Ireland.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the expression intended to apply to copyhold land. If none existed in Ireland, it would not apply.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—SPECIAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government mean to dispense with the services of the special resident magistrates in Ireland, and also of the temporary resident magistrates; and, if so, when; and, whether the statement that they intend to continue some of them as special provincial or county magistrates has any foundation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am sorry to say that, by some oversight, I did not notice this Question on the Paper; but I have answered on a previous occasion that the Government were anxious to introduce a change into the present system of local police and criminal administration in Ireland, and that, later on in the Session, they intend to introduce a Bill for the purpose. When that Bill is introduced I shall be prepared to answer Questions with regard to the personal arrangements made and the gentlemen employed. The Special Resident Magistrates are only temporarily employed; and in the position in which they now are I do not conceive that Questions regarding them need be asked until the change is proposed. But if the hon. Member has any special Question to ask which I would be justified in answering, I shall be glad to answer it.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. HENEAGEasked the Prime Minister, When he answered a Question last night by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), whether he was aware that, in replying to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the Chancellor of the Duchy the other night stated that he would not like to re-commit the Agricultural Holdings Bill, because he desired to go on with it next Monday, and to re-commit it, in order to incorporate procedure clauses, would cause delay; whether he was aware that, in consequence of that answer, hon.
    32
    Members understood that the Bill would be gone on with on Monday, and through next week; and, whether he did not consider it would cause inconvenience if that arrangement was altered?
    MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that at the time his right hon. Friend made the answer, the Government were not certainly aware that they would have the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill in a condition to go into Committee last night or today; and he agreed with the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that it was better for the interest of both subjects not to mix the Committees upon Bills of this character. There was no difference whatever in the intention of the Government to proceed with these two Bills; but, on the whole, having already gone into Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, they thought it would be for the convenience of the House that they should persevere with the Committee on the Bill first, and that was the intention they had formed. Some of the circumstances of the debate last night certainly tended to impress them that it was well there should be no appearance of hesitation on the part of the Government with respect to this Bill.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the Government were or were not going to accept the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), that it was desirable to incorporate in the Agricultural Holdings Bill the clauses from the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, in order to avoid reference to two Acts? As there was now time given before proceeding with the Committee stage on this Bill he thought it would be desirable to take the course suggested and re-commit the Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think it would be desirable to take a course that should mix a re-discussion of all the old clauses with the discussion on the new clauses. The whole argument for introducing the old clauses was for convenience of reference. What they should take into consideration was whether they should not take the Bill through Committee as it was, and subsequently to re-commit it for the purpose of introducing the old clauses. He did not object to the proposal in principle; but

    33
    they should have an opportunity of considering during the next few days what would be the best course to adopt.
    MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he feared if the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill were to be carried through Committee before they again took up the Agricultural Holdings Bill they might not be able to deal with the latter Bill at all.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, ho was sorry his hon. Friend should indulge in such gloomy anticipations. The Government entertained considerable confidence that both Bills might be disposed of within a time when it might be for the convenience of most Members of the House to attend.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Prime Minister, Whether, since he had once successfully taken a Tuesday, he would not consider the propriety of taking another Tuesday, and of discontinuing the Morning Sittings, by which the working time of the Grand Committees was shortened, and the House was counted out regularly at 9 o'clock?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought ho should be acting more agreeably to usage, and the general feeling of the House, if he persevered for a short time in the course of the Motion which the House had granted the Government, and they could then form a judgment according to circumstances.
    In reply to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
    MR. GLADSTONEstated that the Business of next Tuesday would be the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill and a Morning Sitting.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF NORMAN MACKINNON.
  MR. WILLIAMSON (for Lord COLIN CAMPBELL)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Norman Mackinnon, a crofter in the parish of Barvas, who claims the sum of £40, which ho alleges lawfully belongs to him as heir to his brother Donald Mackinnon, who died in the Transvaal in 1875, and which sum was sent by the authorities of the Transvaal to his father, Lachlan Mackinnon (since deceased), described as "residing in an island belonging to the parish of Harris." The money sent in the form of a bill of exchange was by mis-
  34
  take received by another Lachlan Mackinnon, also residing in an island belonging to the parish of Harris, namely, St. Kilda, whose son, also named Donald, had left St. Kilda thirteen years before, and had not since been heard of. I Documents were procured clearly establishing the fact that a mistake had been made, and that the money was intended to be sent to the Lachlan Mackinnon first mentioned, and who formerly resided in the island of Taransay. Every endeavour was made by Norman, the son of the latter, to recover the property. In consequence of the great obstacle arising from the fact that there is no postal communication to St. Kilda, Norman Mackinnon resorted to the expedient of causing his name to be put on the poor's roll of the court, and sought justice from the Court of Session; and two agents were appointed in succession by the Court of Session; whether the agent last appointed, despairing of successfully prosecuting the case in consequence of the absence of regular postal communication between St. Kilda and the mainland, applied to the Crown authorities and demanded a criminal prosecution; whether, in consequence, the papers were ordered to be sent to the Procurator Fiscal at Lochmaddy in June 1881, and, on the decease of the Procurator Fiscal a few-days after, a fruitless search was made for these papers; whether he is aware that the Minister of Barvas communicated with the Home Office, and that the following reply was sent by the Under Secretary of State:—
  "That he regretted he could not interfere to aid in the enforcement of a pecuniary claim' and that, after consultation with the Lord Advocate, he was of opinion that there would be no ground for criminal proceedings unless it were proved that the St. Kilda man was retaining the money in bad faith;"
  whether any steps were taken to throw light on this point; and, whether, after seeing the missing papers which were discovered last year, he has decided not to institute criminal proceedings; or, what further steps will be taken by the Crown authorities in Edinburgh to prevent a miscarriage of justice?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): This case has been several times under consideration. In its first aspect, it is plainly of the nature of a civil claim for the recovery of money alleged to have been paid in error. This

  35
  was the view taken by the advisers of Norman Mackinnon, until they were deterred by the expense from further proceeding with a civil action, and applied to the Crown authorities to institute a criminal prosecution. The papers were sent by Mackinnon's agent to the Procurator Fiscal at Lochmaddy, who died shortly afterwards, and the papers were missing for a considerable time. A search instituted by direction of the Crown Office was at length successful; but after considering them we came to the conclusion that there was no ground for criminal proceedings, as it was not proved that the money was received, or was being retained in bad faith, oven if it was paid in error, which has never yet been established. I understand that Lachlan Mackinnon, St. Kilda, asserts that he believes the money to have come from his son. The case is not one for the action of the Crown authorities, who could only proceed if there was ground for a criminal charge; and the papers have been returned to Mackinnon's agent, who may take such steps as he thinks proper.

  EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a Question as to which I regret I have been unable to give him Notice, and which I am afraid he will not be able to answer at once. [A laugh.] This is not a laughing matter, as it involves a question of life and death. It is, Whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the news from Egypt this morning that Suleiman Sami, who was the Military Commandant at Alexandria, has been condemned to death, and that the prisoner's counsel was refused permission by the Court at the trial to produce evidence which he considered to be necessary to his client's case; whether, bearing in mind the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave long before Whitsuntide with respect to a similar trial, Her Majesty's Government will use their influence that only a bonâ. fide and honest trial should be held, so that the prisoner may be at liberty to bring forward any evidence he can to rebut the charge against him; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to cause the delay of the execution of this unfortunate man until the Govern-
  36
  ment have satisfied themselves that the trial has been, in all respects, a fair and satisfactory one?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord is right in supposing that I cannot give a substantial and complete answer to him on the Question. We have received a telegram setting forth the fact of the condemnation of this person, and we have likewise a statement of the fact that restrictions were placed on the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. We have not yet received any statement from our own Representative which would enable us to arrive at any decision on those facts. I have borne in mind the pledge that was given with regard to a particular case before Whitsuntide, and measures will be taken to ascertain whether the pledge has been fulfilled under the present arrangement. I shall certainly lose no time in making inquiries, and I will endeavour to put the House into possession of a fuller account of this case than it possesses at present.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I suppose there is no danger of the execution taking place before Her Majesty's Government receive that fuller information. May we count on that?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I cannot go as far as that. The noble Lord asks us, in regard to the whole of these proceedings in Egypt, to secure beforehand that Her Majesty's Government shall have power, after what we have done in Egypt, to interfere in this matter. That is more than I can pledge myself to. All I can pledge myself to is to put ourselves as early as possible into communication with our Representative, and then to take such steps as the case may require.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that Her Majesty's Government will make such representations to the Government of Egypt as shall delay the execution until after these communications have been made?
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Toulba Pasha, who has been released, and is now in Ceylon, was not really in command at Alexandria; and whether this man, Suleiman Sami, was not a subordinate official?
  MR. WADDY: I desire to ask a Question, as to which, in the first instance, I would remind the Prime

  37
  Minister and the House that at the time of the trial of Arabi Pasha it was distinctly stated that a very large number of papers belonging to him had been obtained with great difficulty, and were now in the custody of the English Consul. They were obtained for the purposes of the trial, and I would therefore ask whether, seeing that a question of life and death is involved, there is any chance of these papers being sent to England; and whether they will be laid on the Table of the House? Until we get these private papers we shall never be in a position to know the real truth about these massacres.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Will my hon. and learned Friend give Notice of that Question?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that representations will be made to the Egyptian Government to delay the execution until Her Majesty's Government has received further information?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is absolutely necessary that before I can give a definite reply we should believe there is ground for our making such a request; but what I have said is that we will use the greatest expedition in order to put ourselves in possession of the facts.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: But surely, in a case like this, some steps might be taken to prevent what will be irreparable. I do not wish to prejudge the course which Her Majesty's Government will take; but surely some steps might be adopted to obtain a sufficient delay to enable the inquiry to be made.
  MR. MACARTNEY: It is possible that this unfortunate man may be hanged while the inquiries are going on.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Does the Prime Minister know that it would very probably be a godsend to the present Egyptian Government if this man could be hanged?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is extremely difficult, in the absence of my noble Friend who represents the Foreign Office (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), to say anything further in this matter. We have no information which would enable us to say whether it is or is not the case that this trial has been improperly conducted. The proper course for us to take is to say that we will lose no time in obtaining information.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is only reasonable, before the House breaks up this evening, that we should have an answer on the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to communicate with the Foreign Office on the point, I will put a Question to him before the House rises.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LORD ALCESTER'S GRANT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 207.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With the indulgence of the House, I will explain the reasons for the change which has been made in the form of the proposal for grants to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley. Originally it was submitted in the shape of annuities for two lives, and indisputably we were governed in a great degree in the matter by uniform course of precedent. But undoubtedly we find sufficient reason for deviating from that course. It cannot be said that it is absolutely a matter of principle, though it was, of course, a real tradition that we should adopt the form of annuity for a provision of this kind; because if you made it a matter of principle then it would be obvious, in order to satisfy the principle, the annuity ought to be what in former times it was—namely, a perpetual annuity. To these perpetual annuities the House has exhibited very great, and, I must say, very just objections—objections so just and so striking that the hon. Member opposite, the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), has not scrupled to make himself the political heir or residuary legatee of the sitting and non-sitting Members for Northampton, and to take into his hands the prosecution of the policy which the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) announced in assailing perpetual pensions. However, there were several facts before us; there was a considerable amount of objection to the mode of proceeding in the form of annuity, and that objection was by no means confined to any one section of the House. But I am

  39
  bound to say that another consideration weighed very materially with us. What we feel is that, while there is a belief and a general disposition on the part of an enormous majority of the House, without distinction of Party, to reward services of this kind, performed under arduous circumstances, and while we believe it to be alike good in policy and in principle that they should be thus rewarded, we feel that the manner of conferring the reward is a consideration of extreme importance; and, as in long debates involving personal matter it could scarcely be possible to distinguish the individuals who are the immediate objects of the operation, we felt it to be incumbent upon us, so far as we could do it without offending against any one point of principle, to make that kind of proposal which would be likely to meet the views of the House at large, and insure the passing of the measure without painful or prolonged discussion. I know very well that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) means to revive a question of principle on these grants altogether. I do not object to that course, which, I have no doubt, will be taken distinctly from the merits of the question, and I hope and believe, from the merits of the policy of which these distinguished gentlemen were agents; but if information just given to me implies the contrary, I must notice the subject a little more than in a parenthesis or a sentence. I feel the utmost confidence that my hon. Friend will not visit upon Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley the pains of the policy for which the Government are responsible. Those are the leading considerations that induced us to change the form of these Bills. There is a certain amount of difficulty in changing the form of these Bills. The value of the annuity has, of course, reference in some not inconsiderable degree to the age of the persons receiving them. But if on any future occasion annuities in consequence of the precedent we are now likely to set are put out of the question, the probability is that the sums that may be voted will be granted without reference to age. But the House will observe that we had before us a case in which by proposing annuities the Government at least place themselves under a kind of honourable understanding with respect to the value of those annuities, and we have felt
  40
  bound to have some regard to that in making this proposal in the form in which we now submit it to the House. That is the reason of the difference which appears in the sums named in the two Bills — £25,000 and £30,000 respectively. It is not possible for us to base upon any certain mathematical principle those precise figures. There are two elements, which are more or less of option than of discretion, that enter into the case. The first is this—that for annuities of this class it may be a question as to the rate of interest you are to take in computing the value. The difference is great according as you take a higher or a lower rate of interest. The Government are continually engaged in operations between annuities and lump sums, and I believe the usual assumption of the rate of interest on money is 5 per cent. Well, if that rate be adopted it gives a very considerable lower value for these annuities than if a lower rate of interest be taken. It may be that some, on the other hand, would take the rate of interest as low as 3 per cent. We have not taken either of these extremes, nor do we profess to be able to say there is absolutely any one figure by which we can work out any positive result in pounds, shillings, and pence, the question of the rate of interest being open to some argument; but, on the whole, we have thought if we considered 3½ per cent as the proper rate, that would be as near as we could go by way of approximation for these values. But there is another question, that the annuities purporting to be annuities for two lives—no second life in either case is in existence, but a second life is not an impossibility in either case—we could not entirely, we do not think we should be justified in entirely, excluding it from our view. We have, therefore, included a very small and moderate sum, representative in a general way of the second life; so that it is on the best computation we could form, in correspondence, in substance, with the original proposal, fairly and equitably—and, I was going to say, perhaps liberally, but not extravagantly, estimated—that we now ask the House to vote the two sums of £25,000 and £30,000 respectively. When we come to the annuity of Lord Wolseley I shall have a short explanation to make on the subject; but for the present I do

  41
  not know that I need say more on the general grounds of the change we have made and the form we have given to those Bills. I do earnestly hope, Sir, that the great mass of the House will indicate to-day, as they indicated on a former occasion, their distinct desire and intention that an acknowledgment of this kind should be made. I think they will probably feel that we have not acted unwisely, considering the whole circumstances of the case, in the step we have taken in changing the form of the Bill, in reference to what we deemed the most becoming, and delicate, and graceful manner in which this offering could be made; and I think I am right in saying we have reason to believe the change of form would not be disagreeable to the two distinguished persons whose services we are now aiming to reward. I cannot, in the least degree, object to the raising of the question of principle, and the recording a vote upon it by those who think that any reward in such a case is open to just and fundamental objection; but I am sure that the opposition that may be made on those grounds will be made in the way that is most agreeable to justice and equity, and to a tolerable and even delicate consideration for the position in which these gentlemen are placed, for the great qualities they have respectively displayed, and for the fact that they cannot be in any degree responsible for any of the open or doubtful questions of policy, of administration, or of conduct that belong entirely to the action and to the responsibility of the Government at home. I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON, in moving that the House should resolve itself into Committee that day three months, said, ho hoped he might very respectfully congratulate the Government on the change that had been made in this Bill. On both sides of the House it would, he thought, be regarded as satisfactory that the principle of hereditary pensions had now been eliminated from it. That step was not only in accordance with the general wish of the House, but also in accordance with the principles
  42
  the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had laid down in regard to financial matters. The right hon. Gentleman had often told them that each generation should pay its way as it went; and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was strongly of opinion that each generation should certainly pay for its own crime and its own folly and its own deeds of military glory, which were generally a compound of crime and folly. In the words of the Secretary to the Treasury, it was much better for all of them that they should stew in their own juice. He hoped there would be no objection to his discussing the measure, as it was in reality a new Bill. The Bill was to make a grant to Lord Alcester in consideration of his eminent services. But, in his humble opinion, he had not performed services sufficiently eminent to warrant this House giving him £25,000 of the taxpayers' money. He was not going to say anything against Lord Alcester as a great Commander, gallant Admiral, and everything desirable in a British officer. He might be the bravest man that ever appeared in ancient or modern history; but then his opinion was that all Admirals and all Generals were brave. He never heard of one in this country who was not. [An hon. MEMBER: Blake!] It had always been a mystery to him what became of the inferior Admirals and Generals. Lord Alcester might not be inferior to any of the great warriors that had gone before him; but there was no evidence before the House or the country to show that he was superior in any particular way, or that he deserved this grant of public money. On the contrary, he (Sir Wilfred Lawson) went further, and said that he commenced hostilities unnecessarily when he had command of the British Fleet. The Prime Minister said, when he brought the Bill forward, that his great devotion and skill, combined with other great qualities, entitled him to their respectful gratitude. That was where he took issue with the right hon. Gentleman. There was no wonderful exhibition of valour in the bombardment of Alexandria. Lord Alcester did his duty as he was told to do it by the Goverment; he bombarded Alexandria. But he had an enormous Force, and there was no British Admiral who, with that stupendous Force, and with those

  43
  tremendous engines, as the Prime Minister called them, at his command, would have not-done exactly the same as he did. The Prime Minister, when he moved the first Bill, explained that one reason why Lord Alcester was to have these great rewards was because he did so well at Dulcigno. Very likely; but why did not the Prime Minister ask for the £25,000 then? Because at Dulcigno the Admiral avoided a war, while at Alexandria he got into one. If one was right the other was wrong. His theory about these wars was similar to those of the Chinese with regard to their doctors the Chinese paid their doctors when they were well and mulcted them of their fees when they were ill, and so it should be with the Generals and Admirals. They should be paid when they kept out of war, and not when they went into it. These people who went into war were failures. Governments that went into war were failures. The Liberals, who believed in peace—["Oh, oh!"]—who used to believe in peace—placed the Government in power in order to keep them out of war; and when they went into war, ho did not care how many people they killed, or how many victories they gained, they were total failures for going into war. Unless it could be made out that the war was unavoidable, instead of being rewarded with public money Lord Alcester ought to receive public censure and condemnation. The Prime Minister had said that on the strengthening of the forts at Alexandria the action of Lord Alcester depended. But that was not the ground stated by Lord Alcester, as they were all aware. Besides, the Khedive had written to Lord Granville assuring him that the works had not been continued since they were suspended by order of the Sultan. Said Pasha said that the Khedive assured the Government that no further work was being carried out at the forts. If that was the case, and all he had to go upon was placing the two guns in position, the foreign Consuls were justified in saying that the Admiral was seeking a pretext for attacking the town. They had further evidence of that in the Papers presented to the House respecting the Palmer Expedition. Professor Palmer, who had left the Admiral some days before the bombardment, wrote from the Desert—
  44
  "Of course I know nothing of what has been done in Egypt since I left, except that Alexandria was bombarded, as the Admiral told me it would be soon."
  Indeed, his condemnation could be taken out of his own mouth, for he was always going about to dinners in the City, and other disreputable place. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, reputable places. He would withdraw the word "disreputable." At the Guildhall, he said—
  "I was told in distinct terms to do nothing until measures could be taken to remove the European population. The massacre at Alexandria took place on June 11. The last vessel containing refugees was towed out of the harbour at 4 p.m. on July 10, and we attacked the forts at 7 o'clock the next morning. So that there was no lack of promptitude in obtaining redress."
  If this statement was correct, a more reprehensible act was never committed. In a speech in the House of Lords, Lord Granville admitted that the massacre of the 11th of June was not political, and was put down by the Egyptian troops, and he further stated that we had not demanded reparation for that massacre. If that were so, it was most reprehensible to bombard a town in order to avenge acts for which no reparation had even been asked. He asserted boldly that they had reason to believe that the riots for which Lord Alcester talked about getting redress were not caused by Arabi, or his partizans, but by the Khedive and his partizans. He made that statement boldly, and he had a precedent for doing so, because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, a little more than 12 months ago, stated in the House that he feared it was too true that Arabi was the cause of those riots at Alexandria.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: What I said was that there was grave reason to suspect that that was the case. I distinctly stated that the matter had not been inquired into. Papers were afterwards laid before the House, and the House can draw its own conclusions.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he would show the right hon. Gentleman his own speech, which he had circulated in pamphlet form among his constituents. All he said was that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly gave the House to understand that there could be very little doubt that Arabi was the guilty party. Inquiries were made at

  45
  the instance of Lord Granville, and Sir Charles Rivers Wilson had stated that there was no grounds for believing in the complicity of Arabi; but, on the contrary, from the evidence adduced for the prosecution, a very good case might have been made for the defence; and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) stood up and accused the Khedive of being the guilty party, just as his right hon. Friend accused Arabi, but with this difference—that if he were proved to be wrong he would apologize to the House, which his right hon. Friend had not done. At the Royal Academy banquet, Lord Alcester said—
  "I wish to refute a statement which has been widely circulated. It has been said that the attack on the forts of Alexandria was in consequence of the massacre. Nothing can be more false."
  This was the first time he ever heard of a man publicly accusing himself of falsehood, for the statement was made on Lord Alcester's own authority. Lord Alcester might be a man of very great qualities indeed; but he did not think a man who went up and down the country making statements like these had such qualities that they ought to give him £25,000 of the public money. Already he was in receipt of something like £2,000 a-year, which was pretty good pay. But, even if Lord Alcester was the bravest man, and the greatest Admiral, and the greatest after-dinner speaker that ever lived, he would object to this grant. It was all very well to get up and say—"Oh, why do you object to these poor men geting their money; they are only the instruments of a policy? Do not visit the sins of the Government upon them." But he did not hold with that. He said they could not separate these deeds and the doers of them from the policy under which these deeds were carried out. If they glorified deeds they glorified the policy which led to those deeds, and that was the way in which it was looked at by the country at large, in spite of their hair-splitting; and he was not prepared to glorify these deeds of blood. He was delighted to hear the Prime Minister at Stafford House quote the words of Garibaldi, in which he expressed his pain and horror that it should be necessary that one portion of mankind should be set aside to have for their profession the business of destroying the other. Let
  46
  the Prime Minister withdraw this Bill, and do not let him come then and ask £25,000 to glorify this Profession, which was kept up for the purpose of destroying mankind. He did not want to deprive Lords Alcester and Wolseley of the tribute of affection which might be paid to them by those who approved of these warlike deeds. Let them have a penny subscription—a national subscription, headed by Tracy Turnerelli. [Laughter.] The House laughed; but he assured hon. Members that they would collect a large amount. Where was the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. G. Russell), who wrote an article last week against the Whigs, and went into the Government this week? He said—
  "The Egyptian Campaign may, after all, do us no permanent injury, and for the moment it has done us unquestionable good. It has improved Mr. Gladstone's position with the timid and respectable, who, oddly enough, are usually the most bellicose, and it has made him for the moment popular with the London mob."
  The London mob who, a few years ago, used to break his windows! The converted Jingoes, now his most devoted followers! Let them have this subscription. It would pay well. They would have Archbishops subscribing to it; his hon. Friend the President of the Peace Society would subscribe to it, and all the old women. The London mob would give their pennies. That was far better than coming to the House and calling on those who objected to these proceedings to pay their quota. He should take every opportunity of opposing the Bill, or any other of a similar nature, to show his detestation of the policy which led to these proceedings. He would conclude by quoting the words of the right hon. Gentleman, delivered three years ago when he was on the Mid Lothian campaign. They were noble words. They filled him with admiration at the time, and he adhered to them now. The present Prime Minister was condemning with that noble eloquence of which he was an unrivalled master attacks upon weak and helpless nationalities, and he said—
  "Before God and before man, we can assert, every one of us, that we have no share in these proceedings, and every man can exempt himself from any participation in acts which he regards as mischievous and ruinous, and should resolve that no trifling or secondary considerations will stand in our way in order to pursuade our countrymen to arrive at a proper estimate of a

  47
  policy so unhappy and so mischievous in its results."
  Following the example set by the Prime Minister, he now took the step of opposing this Bill, which was nothing more or less than to glorify the policy which he then so ably condemned.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that when the Bill came before the House in another form he himself voted for it, because he looked upon it not as any particular compliment to Lord Alcester, but as a tribute rendered by Parliament to the British Navy. The House would recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took part in the discussion, was quite unable to give any satisfactory explanation of Lord Alcester's speech. The statement of Lord Alcester that he bombarded Alexandria in consequence of the massacres he accepted as literally true, and as the blunt, outspoken words of an honest sailor, who was perfectly decided that, under no circumstances, should the truth be kept back from his countrymen. If those riots were the cause of the bombardment of Alexandria, and if for that bombardment the House was now asked to vote that sum, he really thought it became a serious question for them to consider whether it would be in accordance either with precedent or public policy to proceed hastily with the Bill? He acknowledged that Parliament had generally rewarded Generals and Admirals for pre-eminent services; but it took into account not only whether the services themselves were glorious, but whether the origin out of which those services arose was also glorious. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had made an accusation, not without the most ample proof, against the Khedive of being the author of these massacres. If that were
  48
  so, if the massacres were instigated by the Khedive's orders and carried on under his favour and toleration, and if the bombardment of Alexandria took place in consequence of those massacres, then he wanted the House to ask—"Is the origin of those services which are now under consideration so glorious as to allow the House to proceed further in this matter without more inquiry?" The Khedive, it must be recollected, was not only our ally but our puppet; he was absolutely and entirely in our hands and at our mercy. It seemed to him, then, that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government for a very long time back to escape the responsibility of any of the acts of the Khedive; and, more than that, if there was one intimate confident and friend of the Khedive during the progress of these matters it was the Consul General at Cairo, Sir Edward Malet, who, as they knew, was one of the most capable men in the Diplomatic Service, and they knew further that a capable diplomatist engaged in the East would always be aware of everything that was going on and immediately contemplated by the ruling Powers. They were thus put in a rather curious position, if those promises wore accepted. He believed it could be proved that the massacre at Alexandria was the work of the Khedive. He believed it as strongly as his hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did, and that belief rested on primiâ facie grounds in the proceedings connected with the trial of Arabi Pasha. If the proceedings against that man had been carried out to the extreme length, much of the evidence might have led them to form a widely different opinion of the merits of the proposal now before the House. He had reason to believe that when Lord Dufferin arrived at Cairo this evidence was laid before him, and he asked whether it could be proved in a Court of Law or satisfactorily to the Government? The reply was that if Lord Dufferin would give safe conduct and a pledge of British protection to any witnesses who might come forward to prove the truth of these charges such witnesses would be forthcoming; and so alarmed was Lord Dufferin at the case laid before him, so great were the names involved in this most dark intrigue, that Lord Dufferin shrank from giving that safe conduct, and declined to take the responsibility

  49
  upon himself. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) was not going to prejudice the case of the National Party in Egypt, of Arabi and his fellow-exiles, or of the unfortunate Suleiman Sami, now under sentence of death, by putting in what documents and evidence he possessed; but he was prepared to make—and honestly believed ho could substantiate—this charge—that the author of the massacres at Alexandria was the Khedive of Egypt, our puppet and ally. On the 3rd of June, after the arrival of Dervish Pasha, the Sultan's Envoy in Egypt, it was apparently necessary that the Khedive should be able to show a case against Arabi Pasha, and prejudice him in the eyes of the Foreign Powers, and he sent the following telegram in cypher to Omar Lufti, the Governor of Alexandria:—
  "Arabi has guaranteed public safety, and published it in the newspapers, and has made himself responsible for the consequences. If he succeeds in his guarantee the Powers will trust him, and our considerations will be gone. The Fleets of the Powers are in Alexandrian waters, men's minds are excited, and quarrels are not far off between Europeans and Arabs. Now, therefore, choose for yourself whether you will serve Arabi in his guarantee, or whether you will serve us."
  Again, some days before the riots the Khedive sent his cousin to Alexandria, receiving him secretly each time before and after his return, and on the day of the riots his cousin and his confident were in the city. On the 9th of June, two days before the riots, and six days after the telegram to which he had referred, the Khedive, after consultation with Dervish Pacha, sent for Omar Lufti by special train, and after conferring with him at great length sent him back to Alexandria on the same day. Moreover, he sent for Ahmed Khandeel, the Prefect of Police, and sounded him as to whether he would be instrumental in instigating the riots in Alexandria. As the House was aware, Ahmed Khandeel had been tried on a charge of being concerned in the riot, but no one had been allowed to go near him; whereas Omar Lufti, who was Governor of Alexandria during the riots, had been rewarded for his distinguished services at that time—Omar Lufti, under whom alone the whole police of Alexandria was placed. There were other facts all tending in the same direction and constituting a long chain of circumstan-
  50
  tial evidence connecting the Khedive, as it appeared to him, directly with the massacre of his own subjects at Alexandria. He did not think the Prime Minister was inclined to treat this matter lightly. On the contrary, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined, for the credit of his own Government and from his own sense of justice—such a charge having been made on both sides of the House, and an assurance having been given that the charge could be substantiated before a proper tribunal—to direct a Parliamentary Inquiry to be made into the subject, or an inquiry conducted by Englishmen in order to see whether the charge was false or well-founded. In his opinion, after the statements that had been made on both sides of the House, it was absolutely necessary that some such inquiry should take place. He was bound to say himself, holding the opinions he did with respect to these riots, and this bombardment of Alexandria, he did not at all see his way towards contributing to giving the sanction of Parliament—for the matter involved no personal question about Lord Alcester—to a military act the origin of which, instead of being glorious, was simply disgraceful. Under these circumstances, and voting only for the purpose of delay until these matters were cleared up, he could not oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he thought they had come there to discuss the Vote to Lord Alcester; but it appeared they had been brought together to make an attack on the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for Carlisle had stated that Lord Alcester received a large sum already from the country. He received £1,000 a-year as a Lord of the Admiralty, for which he performed the duties attached to that office, and the half-pay of his rank—the same as all other naval officers In former times these occasions were considered gala days, and in discussing Votes of this kind the House never interfered with the political question, but confined itself to the approval of the services of the officers; but he was bound to say that an unfortunate precedent had been afforded for the course now taken by the proceedings with reference to the grant to that gallant officer, Sir Frederick Roberts, who had been very shabbily treated. This was,

  51
  in his humble opinion, a most painful exhibition, as everyone must have known that Lord Alcester positively declined the Peerage, and it was absolutely forced upon him—
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I never alluded to the Peerage.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, but he was alluding to it. When, three centuries ago, Shakespeare wrote the play of the Merchant of Venice, he little thought his imaginary character of Shylock would become a reality; and they had the pound-of-flesh principle in full play in 1883. He believed the great Napoleon was correct when he said this was a nation of shopkeepers, for hero an actuary had been called in to assess the rewards to be given to men for upholding the honour of their countrymen who had carried their lives in their hands over and over again. This was nothing but a miserable mercantile transaction. Lord Alcester was to receive £5,000 less than Lord Wolseley, not because his services were less distinguished, but because he happened to have been born a few years before the other. The House would remember the testimony the Prime Minister bore on a former occasion to Lord Alcester's services, not only before Alexandria, but throughout his Mediterranean command; and he therefore hoped that the House would insist on the same reward being given to him as to Lord Wolseley. He did hope that the House would insist on rewarding both officers equally for the distinguished services they had rendered.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, ho agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire, that the discussion was not as to the policy of the war in Egypt, but as to the desirability or undesirability of rewarding the Commanders. The statements that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had submitted to the House were highly important. They deserved the grave consideration of the Government and of the country. With some of his comments ho entirely sympathized; but he must confess that he did not see the relevancy of his remarks to the matter then under debate. The question he had raised would have to be discussed. To raise it in that way and upon a side issue was inconvenient to all parties. The few observations he intended to
  52
  make be should endeavour to confine to the Bill under consideration. It was difficult for him to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle in a debate concerning the exercise of Military and Naval powers. They started from different premises, and necessarily arrived at opposite conclusions. From the drift of his speech that day, and from many other deliverances he had made in the House and elsewhere, it was known to all that his hon. Friend would not, under any circumstances, resort to war. He would allow the marauders of the world to pursue their career of crime and conquest unchecked. Rather than run the risk of a war, he would have them retreat from India, abandon their Colonies, disband their Army, and make England a focus of materialism and trade. Driven to its logical conclusion, this doctrine was the deification of comfort rather than duty. It was simple, but it was selfish. It certainly could not be called elevating, and might be described as cowardly. He (Mr. Cowen) held an entirely different faith. He believed England, as a nation, had a duty to perform, from which it was impossible to divorce herself—not only to her own people, but to the great family of nations of which she was one. War was a dreadful thing; but there were calamities even greater than that. There were times when it was not only desirable but necessary that an appeal should be made to it, both in the interests of freedom and of justice. He would not say the Egyptian War was a case in point. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: Hear, hear!] With respect to the policy which led to that campaign, he was more or less in accord with his hon. Friend. But that was not the point they had met to consider. They were not responsible for the war. The English people were. If ever there was a popular campaign, that in Egypt certainly was one. It was opposed by a handful of persons, and those persons were as insignificant in numbers as in influence. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle were amongst them. But the people having gone into the war, and done so with their eyes open, they should pay for it. They had got the glory, and they should pay for the gunpowder. They had it on high authority that the labourer was worthy of his hire. Lord Alcester was a national

  53
  labourer. They had hired him to do a certain work. He had done it well, and they should recompense him. Lord Alcester was not responsible for the course of events, or for the line of policy that led up to the war. It was a most undesirable thing, both for the National Service and for the nation at large, to act unfairly and ungenerously with Commanders who had successfully carried out the popular desire under trying circumstances. It was especially undesirable for that to be done under cover of public sanction. His hon. Friend had said he was a Liberal. He (Mr. Cowen) held Democratic principles, and he was prepared to maintain their justice and wisdom. But he could not shut his eyes to the fact that Democracies had their vices as well as their virtues. Democracies were sometimes personal and mean. The opposition to this grant he regarded as personal. He did not know Lord Alcester; but he knew that he had laboured long and ably and faithfully for the State. He had grown grey in the country's service, and age and service ought to earn for any man consideration and regard. An old official ought to have special consideration when he was absent. Lord Alcester was absent. It was impossible for him to reply to charges that were made against him, or to comments that were offered on his conduct. That fact ought to restrain his critics. To import personal bitterness into such a discussion would be most injurious, and he could not help thinking that some of the remarks that had been made bore that character. Democracies, he said, were sometimes mean. They paid their servants inadequately, and higgled over trifles. That had been the case from the earliest to the present time. There were instances of it in Greece, and they had an instance of it in the most successful of modern Democratic experiments. In America—where there was the most powerful Democracy in the world—there was anything but liberality shown in the payment of public men. ["Question!"] Surely the hon. Gentlemen who cried "Question!" had a very extraordinary conception of the rules of discussion. It was impossible to suggest anything more pertinent than the observations he had made to the subject under debate. He was contending that Democracies did not treat their servants as generously as they
  54
  might do; and he was illustrating his point by reference to the Democratic Government of the United States, and he would continue his observations. The inadequate remuneration that the officials in America got led them into corrupt practices. The political corruption of the Republic was eating into its very vitals. ["No, no"] The hon. Gentleman who cried "No, no!" was contesting a statement the historical accuracy of which every man acquainted with current politics must concede. He would cite an instance to illustrate his point. A gentleman in America—who had served his political Party and had been engaged in the War—failed to get an appointment that he competed for. This was looked upon as a loss to him. The loss was made up by his brother getting a contract for soldiers' gravestones. In other words, instead of paying the man straight and openly for the work he had done, they paid him in a left-handed manner by allowing a relative to get a contract at prices far beyond the value of the article supplied. The course they pursued in this country was vastly superior. The Government proposed, as in this instance, that a Commander should be rewarded for his services by a grant of public money, made in the most open manner. They did not propose to give either Lord Alcester or his relatives a beneficial contract for naval stores. With all the drawbacks of the English Service, with all their national sins of omission and commission—which he never hesitated to condemn when occasion seemed to require it—he confessed he was proud of the character of their Public Service and the absence from it of all petty corruption. He hoped they would long continue in dealing with their officials to observe an impersonal and generous treatment. Attempts had been made to disparage the Naval and Military operations in Egypt. He was not there to contend that the seven weeks' campaign that closed at Tel-el-Kebir could be compared with the seven weeks' war that closed at Solferino, or the six weeks' war that closed at Sadowa. The forces employed, and the skill displayed in these two great military encounters was vastly superior to that displayed in Egypt. Everyone must admit that. But, still, the Egyptian enterprize had special features of its own which deserved com-

  55
  mendation. The incessant desire on the part of Englishmen to disparage their own country and their own Army was not a wholesome state of feeling. Let them just look at the facts. The scone of our operations was 3,000 miles away. We concentrated on that spot 400,000 tons of war material; 44,000 or 45,000 men—combatants and non-combatants—and 18,000 animals. It took 200 ships to transport them. They were taken there, and the campaign was fought in 48 days from the time the money was granted. And in a month afterwards a largo proportion of the men were back to England. He would undertake to say that no country in the world could have done that save England. Let them compare it with what other nations had done, and that recently. Austria and France were a great Military Powers, and they had both been engaged in military operations akin to ours in Egypt. The Austrians occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina. They had not to convey their troops 3,000 miles, as we had to do, but they had simply to march them across an undefined border. Yet before the Austrian Commander could hoist the standard of the Hapsburghs upon the fortress of Serajevo he had lost 5,000 men, and spent twice as much money as we had done in Egypt. Take the case of France and Tunis. The French ports wers not one-third the distance from Tunis that Alexandria was from the English Channel. The Tunisian people were of the same race and religion as the Egyptians, and the conditions of the two campaigns were very similar. And yet the French had occupied more than double the time, and spent more than double the money, in their Tunisian adventure than we had done in Egypt. It was quite possible for the stoutest opponent of the war in Egypt to recognize these facts. It was also possible for the most persistent advocate of peace to appreciate the military prowess and skill requisite for the conveyance of this fighting material to the spot required. That was all that he did. He objected to the Ministerial proposal when it first appeared before the House, because it perpetuated the objectionable system of pensions. The Government, in deference to the wish of Parliament—and he believed also the wish of the country—bad altered their mode of remunerating the Commanders, and, instead of granting
  56
  them a pension, had resolved to give them a round sum. With that change of procedure he entirely agreed, and as he had opposed the pensions, he would support the grant. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen, as the money was ultimately sure to be awarded, to vote it generously and cheerfully. If they wrangled over it, the gift would be shorn of one-half of its value.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had often had the advantage of hearing his hon. Friend (Mr. Cowen) address the House on questions of public importance; but he had never been able to understand his position on the foreign policy of this Empire. Although he had always felt the influence of the hon. Gentleman's oratory, he could not reconcile the doctrine which ho had propounded in reference to the foreign policy of this House and this country with the sentiments which he knew him to entertain on the question of nationalities. He should be very sorry to think that his hon. Friend, who expressed so much of the popular opinion in the North of England on other questions, represented any large body in the sentiments ho had just expressed. His hon. Friend promised, in the early part of his speech, to address himself to the Question before the House; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) naturally expected that he would give some sketch of the share which Lord Alcester had either in promoting the Egyptian War or in initiating those hostile proceedings which had led to the war. But the hon. Gentleman had spoken entirely of the military part of the Expedition. That would have been very well if they were now discussing the grant to Lord Wolseley; but even in that case it would have been very difficult for the hon. Gentleman to have proved that success, in a military capacity, was always a test of merit. Undoubtedly, as the hon. Member had said, England owed great duties to the world. She had voluntarily assumed immense responsibility; but he asked his hon. Friend, could he point to the late Expedition to Egypt as an incident in the history of this Empire by which England had set any high example to the world? What principle of liberty, what principle of honour, what principle of International Law had been established by that Expedition? If his hon. Friend could tell him that, then he

  57
  might begin to feel with his hon. Friend that England performed some great duty to the world when it sanctioned the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria and sent its soldiers to carry desolation over the fair and fertile land of Egypt. The hon. Member argued, indeed, that the naval forces and soldiers were not responsible for the war, but that it was a war of the English people. He denied that entirely. No one had watched the proceedings of the House in foreign affairs more closely than his hon. Friend; and he knew very well—indeed, it had been a matter of complaint over and over again—that the Members of that House were not supplied with the requisite information on foreign affairs; and when the interests of the country were at stake an appeal was made to their patriotism to prevent their pressing for it, and, consequently, nothing was known until the Government were embarked in hostilities in which they had been involved by their Representatives abroad. As one who had given some attention to the history of the great Democracy of the United States, he would take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the view represented by him of that mighty people. The hon. Gentleman said the chief cause of political corruption in the United States was that its public servants were very poorly rewarded. He denied that statement as a matter of fact. It was true that half-a-dozen heads of a Department might not be paid as well as corresponding public servants in England. But they should take the Public Service as a whole, and, viewed in that way, he asserted there was no Government who rewarded its public servants so handsomely as the United States Government. He hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle would press his Amendment, because he believed Lord Alcester was largely responsible for the Egyptian War. They had had different accounts of the origin of that war, not only from Members of the Government, but also from Lord Alcester himself. At the Mansion House he stated the reason for it to have been the massacre of British subjects. Afterwards he qualified that statement, and based it on the ground that the Fleet was in danger. He thought the House had the means of forming an opinion upon the value of those excuses, and he defied any hon. Member to go through the documents,
  58
  and afterwards to say that the British Fleet was ever in danger. If all the old metal in Alexandria had been melted down and cast into guns, and placed in position against the Fleet, it would not even then be true to say that the British Fleet would have been in any appreciable danger. Besides, the forts did not go to the Fleet, the Fleet went to the forts; and, therefore, the Fleet might at any time have placed itself out of danger by a modest retirement. The spirit which actuated Lord Alcester ought not to be encouraged. He did not allege that of set purpose and malice aforethought Lord Alcester provoked war; but the spirit which actuated men like him was not favourable to peace. He never received a greater shock to all his notions of political honour and political consistency than he did when it came to his knowledge that the Government were contemplating this war; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whose eloquence in the last Parliament he hung upon, and whose invocations of the spirit of liberty wore sufficient almost to animate a stone, rose in his place to justify the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria, he felt then that the time had gone by for expecting the adhesion of politicians in this country to their principles if they were transferred from the cool shades of Opposition to what, he was sorry to say, was sometimes found to be, not only the warm, but the demoralizing precincts of the Treasury Bench. Arabi Pasha was held up by the right hon. Gentleman as the great disturber of the peace in Egypt; yet one of the most eminent public servants of this country in Egypt had written to a distinguished public man in London, who was well known to many men in the House, saying—"I believe Arabi was a patriot from beginning to end." What became, then, of the justification taken for commencing the war? Because Arabi Pasha was threatening the peace of Egypt. He was a patriot in this sense—that he was impatient of foreign control over the affairs of his own country; and, unless for the purpose of enabling some reckless speculators in this country to obtain their money, he was at a loss to see in whose interest the war was undertaken. The people of England had no concern in that war. Gracious Heavens! Did they forget the promises they had made at

  59
  the last General Election? Were they true to the principles they then avowed upon the hustings, or had they turned their back upon those principles and adopted the principles of their political opponents, which they were never tired of denouncing? So far as he was concerned, he would not compromise the opinions he had always held on questions of this kind; for he did not believe that England was performing any great duty to the world by setting an example of grave violation of International Law and public principle by invading a peaceful and independent country. If the hon. Member for Newcastle wished for an illustration of the way in which the honour of England was maintained and increased, ho would point to the action of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), who concluded the Geneva Convention, and to the settlement of the "Alabama" Claims. These acts had done more to set a high example to the world than any efforts of soldiers and sailors to place a yoke upon the necks of nations intended by God to be as free as themselves.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Before the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister rises I wish to say a few words, and I do so for this reason —that I wish to express my extreme regret at the course which has been taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) on the present occasion. I think by the course which they have taken we have been placed in a thoroughly false position. They have raised a question, the importance of which I do not deny, in a manner in which it cannot be properly solved, and the solution of which, when it arrives, will be a false and delusive solution. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North) that at present we have nothing to do with the policy of the Egyptian War, because that question is not properly raised by the vote we are asked to give. So far as the policy of that war is concerned, I have, on more than one occasion, both in and out of the House, expressed my dissatisfaction with regard to the commencement and termination of that war, and the policy which led to it. I have maintained, and I hope at the proper time to be prepared again
  60
  to maintain, that the war was unnecessary, and therefore was not strictly justifiable. That is a question which the House has had before it even in the present Session, and, by a majority on an important occasion in the debate on the Address to the Crown, a vote was given antagonistic to the views which I have held, and which others have held with me. But if we are asked to accept the vote on the present occasion as a vote—"aye" or "no"—upon the policy of the Egyptian War, I say that you are placing those who object to the Egyptian War in a false and improper position. If I vote, as I intend to vote, in support of this reward to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley, am I, therefore, to be accused of approving a contest which I have repeatedly said I disapproved? No; I think that is altogether a false position for us to be placed in. And I say also, with regard to the question which is now raised, that it is one which the House has, to a great extent, precluded itself from dealing with by the action already taken. In October last we passed Votes of Thanks to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, as he then was, and Sir Garnet Wolseley, one of which was carried nemine contradicente, and the other with only a very trifling minority against it, and we declared that, so far as those gallant officers were concerned, they, at all events, had done their duty, and had done it well, and in a manner which deserved the thanks of the House. That was a decision to which the House came, irrespective of the policy of the Egyptian War; and I think it would be placing ourselves in an altogether false position, and would seem to imply a shabby feeling on the part of this House, if, now that we are asked to follow up those Votes of Thanks with an acknowledgment of a substantial character, we were to say that we decline to do so on the ground that we do not approve of the war in which those gentlemen were engaged. If that was your feeling you ought to have refused the Vote of Thanks in October last. You have altogether missed the opportunity which was offered to you. I find some fault that the Government have not taken an earlier opportunity, when this matter was before us in October, for having completed that which they propose. That was the proper time, it seems to me, for that question to have been brought forward; and

  61
  I think that the long interval which they have allowed to elapse, involving, as it necessarily does, a great deal of further light upon Egyptian matters which we had not before us at the time, has not unnaturally led to a great deal of discussion now. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: Hear!] The hon. Baronet cheers that remarks. If he means to say that we ought to raise the question of the policy of the Government, either past or recent, I think he has a right to raise that question, but not on the present occasion, when you have to decide whether you will or will not pay that tribute to your soldiers and your sailors which it has been the practice of Parliament in former times to pay, and which I think, in the present instance, you have pledged yourself to do by the Votes which you passed in October, and by the recognition of the services of those gallant officers which you have already made. Sir, I decline altogether to be led into a discussion of all those topics which have been brought forward by the hon. Baronet and by the noble Lord. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] I decline to be led by the noble Lord, and I trust that the House will decline to be induced by the noble Lord, to accept a position which I consider would be degrading to its honour.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is due, I think, to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I should reply to the criticism which he has made upon the conduct of the Goverment in respect of their not having submitted to the House legislation for the purpose of rewarding Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley at the same time when we moved the Votes of Thanks to those gallant officers. I do not deny that there is something to be said on behalf of that criticism. I can only say that we should certainly have done it had we been engaged in the ordinary Business of the Session. But we had met under circumstances the most peculiar, and I own I had obtained an engagement from the House that Business, with the exception of Procedure, should be excluded. We felt that the Votes of Thanks might fairly be treated as an exception, and we did not think we could ask the House to undertake legislation, even for the purpose of giving this reward. Whether we are right or not I admit to be open to discussion; but I think it will be plain that
  62
  there was some ground, at all events, for inducing us to take the course which, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, has not been convenient in its results. I thank the right hon. Baronet, not for having vindicated—as he was entitled to do—his own position, and shown how very false a position he was placed in in relation to the war by having the policy of the war mixed up in this debate, but for having called the attention of the House to the enormously wide field over which this debate threatens to travel. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) vindicated himself in what I think a very able speech, with a feeling extremely considerate, which, in my opinion, ought to lie at the root of the whole of this discussion, towards the distinguished gentlemen who are the subjects of these Bills. I say nothing can be more hard or more cruel to them than that Bills, for the purpose of expresssing the sense the House entertains, and has expressed by the Votes of Thanks to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley, should be laden with discussions upon every kind of statement, some true, but irrelevant, some of them without the slightest shadow of evidence to support them, and that, upon the whole, the country should understand that these grants for their services, instead of being free, willing, eager recognitions of most honourable exertions on behalf of the country, are matters debated and contested among us with those differences of opinion which go far to destroy the grace of the acknowledgment. But do not let me be misunderstood when I undertake respectfully to say that if Lord Alcester lose and Lord Wolseley lose by this indefinite extension of the field of discussion, and by this introduction of topics wholly irrelevant and disconnected with the merits of the question before us—if those distinguished gentlemen are losers, the House is a greater loser by allowing the discussion so to wander from its aim, and by the failure which it shows in that discriminating power so necessary to a deliberative Assembly, which severs between the topics that are relevant to the questions raised for settlement before it, and the topics which are irrelevant. I do hope I may assume that we have substantially arrived at the close of these portions of the discussion; and on that account, lest I should seem to give colour or handle for

  63
  renewing it, I will pass over some of the most astounding assertions that I have ever hoard in this House, which were to be found in the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), and I will not undertake to reply to thorn from the demoralizing precincts of the Treasury Bench, which he has described to us. But there are two matters upon which it is right I should say a word. One of them constituted the substance of the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), entirely, as it appeared to mo, irrelevant to the issue now before the House, but still of a character which it would be impossible for the Government not to notice. The noble Lord contrived, by a process apparently satisfactory to himself, to connect a statement which he made as to the complicity of the Khedive in the massacre of Alex-andria—
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not say "the complicity"—I said "the authorship of the Khedive."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I called it complicity, but I will not dispute it—the authorship of the Khedive of these massacres. The noble Lord contrived to connect the authorship of the Khedive of the massacres of Alexandria with the refusal to Lord Alcester of the reward due, as we think, to his services. How did the noble Lord establish that connection? I will speak of the Khedive in a moment; but I am now going to say a word about another gentleman, who, in the Civil Service, has rendered admirable service to his country—I mean Sir Edward Malet The noble Lord said the Khedive was a puppet of the English Government, and that he was in the most intimate connection and communication with Sir Edward Malet. No man who reads the speech of the noble Lord will fail to see that not by direct assertion, but by innuendo, it establishes—or affects to establish—a connection between Sir Edward Mulct and the massacres of Alexandria — a statement, I have no doubt, astonishing to the House, if, indeed, we are to believe that the noble Lord allows to dwell in his mind for one instant the belief or suspicion of the remotest possibility of connection between Her Majesty's Diplomatic Representative and honoured servant and the massacres in Alexandria.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not say anything of the kind.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Well, Sir, I am very glad the noble Lord never said it, and I hope he never thought it; but ho was most unfortunate in the introduction of the name of Sir Edward Malet in connection with that part of the discussion. However, the noble Lord in a manner disavows it. The thing is confuted, I must say, by its own absurdity. But, independently of that, it was the duty of the Government not to allow such an insinuation as that to pass in silence. Now, Sir, with respect to Lord Dufferin's proceedings and to Lord Dufferin's policy, and the presumption that grew out of them, I have had an opportunity of consulting Lord Dufferin, even since the speech of the noble Lord. It is not for me to assert negatives against broad statements confidently made; but, so far as Lord Dufferin's recollection and knowledge go, he entirely declines to recognize any jot or tittle of the statements of the noble Lord as entitled in the slightest degree to credence. Of course, the noble Lord will not understand me that I am ascribing to him falsification of statements. Nothing of the kind. But the statements the noble Lord gave us, on the assurance of others, are, in the opinion of Lord Dufferin, wholly without foundation.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Which statements?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The statements in which the name and proceedings of Lord Dufferin were involved. Now we come to the question of the Khedive; and here I have to say that what the noble Lord has asserted is entirely at variance with all the evidence and all knowledge and information in the possession of the Government. It is, I think, a cruel blow to a Ruler in circumstances of difficulty. It is not so common in the East to find Sovereigns who, renouncing the methods of violence and oppression, endeavour to govern their country with humanity, benevolence, and good faith, as to make it a matter of indifference to us when we see such men, as we think, so needlessly and so cruelly aspersed. This, Sir, is a tremendous charge that has been made by the noble Lord. It is not for me to say that the charge is false, is untrue; while I state distinctly that it is in contradiction with all the knowledge we possess, and with the fervent conviction which we entertain. Loss than that I cannot say, in

  65
  justice and in decency, as respects the present Ruler in Egypt; but this it is my duty to say, on the other hand. The noble Lord has undertaken the great responsibility of bringing these accusations not to the Government, whose duty it would have been at once to make them the subject of the very best inquiry they could—
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg the Prime Minister's pardon. I stated before Whitsuntide very much what I have now stated, and the Government ought to have made inquiry then.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The speech before Whitsuntide! But I must say that I recognized nothing in the speech upon which we could make inquiry.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said the same thing then as I have said to-day.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, the same allegation; but in terms so wide, so vague, so destitute of verifying points on which it might have been tested, and of which the untruth might have been shown, that it was utterly impossible for any Government in its senses to take any proceedings upon it. Yes, Sir; because there is nothing so easy as to make the wildest and most extravagant allegations, provided you make them in a form sufficiently general and free from particulars that it is hardly possible for them to be confuted. The noble Lord has given us citations of what purported to be telegrams. Into the truth or falsehood of things we can inquire. They have been stated here by a Member of this House, and that makes it our duty to inquire into them.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I stated them also.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The statement of my hon. Friend was exactly the same as that made before Whitsuntide by the noble Lord—perfectly valueless—a kind of accusation which, if I were to make against him, or he to make against me, it would be totally impossible, from its vague, shadowy character, to verify.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I do not remember saying anything about Sir Edward Malet.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, no; the statement of my hon. Friend after Whitsuntide I am endeavouring to compare with the statement of the noble Lord before Whitsuntide. Therefore, the noble Lord
  66
  will be good enough not to depend on newspaper reports, but to place before us those matters of fact which can be stated as matters of fact.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I could not think of placing the details of a case on which might hang tremendous issues in the hands of the Government, unless they give me a guarantee before Parliament that they will enable the witness to be brought to this country, and be examined by a tribunal which I would cheerfully leave in the hands of the Government to appoint, in order that the public may judge the truth of their allegations.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord must know that it is perfectly impossible for me, in the present state of the matter, to go beyond acknowledging the duty of the Government to examine any definite matters of charge which he may think proper to place in our hands.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: You have other means in your power.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If he thinks fit to do that, we shall make the best examination in our power; and if he is not satisfied with the method of examination, it will be in his power, and in his right and his duty, to arraign our conduct. I am bound to admit that, on one point, there was a flicker of relevancy in the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle, and it was very nearly the only point with the slightest approach to relevancy that I have heard to-day, in objection to the present Bill. It was a statement which he ascribed to Lord Alcester, that the bombardment of Alexandria had been a punishment exacted for the massacres of the 11th of June. My hon. Friend said Lord Alcester is a great diner out, and that in dining out Lord Alcester declared that he had bombarded Alexandria to avenge these massacres. Lord Alcester, on a subsequent day, declared that ho had not; and my hon. Friend treats these two contradictory statements as both made by Lord Alcester, and coolly argues upon them against the present grant. What Lord Alcester did was this. In a speech made at the dinner of the Royal Academy, of the authenticity of the report of which, I believe, there is no doubt, ho referred to a rumour which he said, to his astonishment, had gone abroad, ascribing to him the statement that the bombardment of Alexandria was a punishment or revenge for

  67
  the massacres of the 11th of June. He indignantly disclaimed that statement in the speech quoted by my hon. Friend. But that declaration of Lord Alcester cannot be taken in any sense but one. It was a disavowal, and an indignant disavowal, of the statement which had been previously imputed to him.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: A disavowal of his own statement.
  MR. GLADSTONE: His own statement! Can anything be more monstrous?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: No.
  MR. GIADSTONE: No; because such a construction is put upon certain unauthorized words—[Mr. BIGGAR: Not unauthorized.]—ascribed in the accident of a newspaper report to Lord Alcester, therefore my hon. Friend, without making any inquiry, and without ascertaining whether the report is acknowledged by Lord Alcester, when he finds a distinct and absolute repudiation of the substance of the report in a speech delivered shortly afterwards, instead of giving Lord Alcester credit for that which, as a rational man, he is entitled to claim from every candid person—namely, that his disavowal was a true disavowal, my hon. Friend charges upon him these two contradictory statements. I admit that if Lord Alcester had bombarded Alexandria in revenge for the massacres, he would be open to the censure of my hon. Friend; but while these charges have been applicable in other times and other circumstances—sometimes, perhaps, to our Commanders, but more frequently, I am afraid, to some of our Civilian Representatives abroad—as regards Lord Alcester, I say, on the faith and the credit of the Government, there is riot one grain, one shadow, one tittle of ground, for any of these imputations. The responsibility of adopting warlike operations was entirely the responsibility of the Government; and we have to thank Lord Alcester for having kept us so well informed from day to day with information so thoroughly trustworthy, accurate, and relevant, that we were able, under the difficulties of that period—and they were not slight—confidently to form our decisions on what the honour of the country required. Lord Alcester was no more than the intelligent Minister of the Government, for the purpose of supplying them with information, and the able instrument of giving effect to a
  68
  policy which, I believe, Parliament and the nation, as well as the Government, approved. Setting aside that statement injuriously applied to Lord Alcester, the only possible ground of relevant objection to this Bill, I hope we shall consent to make an effectual severance between the responsibility of the Government for the conception and inception of these measures, and the admirable skill, courage, and intelligence with which effect was given to that policy through the medium of Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that the statement detrimental to his noble Friend made by the Leader of the Opposition would have been more properly made by the Prime Minister. Whatever might be the character of the Parliamentary conduct of his noble Friend, it would be better if the Leader of the Party, of which he was so distinguished an ornament, would leave it to the opponents of the noble Lord to question an error, rather than do so himself. The right hon. Gentleman did his utmost to encourage the Government to pass over in silence the allegations and accusations of the noble Lord; and if the Prime Minister had followed the lead of the Leader of the Opposition he might have refused to take any notice of the noble Lord's remarks. He (Mr. Gorst) did not pretend that the important accusation made by his noble Friend was strictly relevant to the matter before the House; but no one know better than the right bon. Member for North Devon that Members in Opposition—particularly if they sat below the Gangway—must seize upon every opportunity they could get of bringing any important matter before the House; and it was not easy, when they felt that their duty towards their constituencies and their country required it, to do so, for it was very little assistance they obtained from the Front Opposition Bench. The statements of the noble Lord had been treated in a very different manner by the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Gorst), for one, had been so struck with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, that he intended to vote for going into Committee on the Bill, though he was deeply impressed by the statements of the noble Lord. He might observe that Lord Dufferin did not venture to say that he did not reject the evidence in the manner described by

  69
  the noble Lord. Lord Dufferin only said that—
  "So far as he could recollect, no such event took place; but he would not venture to say that there were not serious matters brought under consideration, so serious that he declined to go further into them."
  But, whatever might be said of the position of the Khedive before the war, he was, at the present moment, absolutely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. His rule over Egypt, whether it was of the kind that had been described, or whether it was misrule, was kept up entirely by British bayonets. Her Majesty's Government were considered by the whole world as responsible for the character of the Khedive's rule; and, therefore, if they really wished to inquire into the conduct of the Khedive they could do so; and, moreover, they ought to do so, because they had no right to spend the resources and arms of this country in keeping up a Government, if that Government was a discreditable and disgraceful one. The noble Lord vouched for the authenticity of the evidence he had brought forward.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no!
  MR. GORSTsaid, he was very glad to be corrected.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that, perhaps, his hon. and learned Friend would allow him to correct him. What he had said was, that he firmly believed, and others firmly believed, that they would be able to prove before any tribunal the absolute authenticity of that telegram. [Laughter.]
  MR. GORSTsaid, he was very glad to be put right. He did not know that it was a matter to be laughed at; and if hon. Members would follow the example set them by the Prime Minister in treating the subject in a serious manner, it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman and for his Party. The telegrams undoubtedly deserved investigation, and it was in the power of the Government to investigate their authenticity. The Government was a party to stopping the trial of Arabi; and there was a consensus of opinion in all parts of the civilized world that the trial of Arabi had been stopped from a fear that circumstances would come out which would implicate the Khedive. Lightly as the matter might be treated by the right hon. Member for North Devon
  70
  (Sir Stafford Northcote), it would not be so lightly treated by Her Majesty's Government; and when a statement was made with authority in that House, it must be investigated by a tribunal in which the country had confidence.
  MR. RYLANDSreminded the House that when the question was before it on a former occasion he quoted the very words of a speech delivered by Lord Alcester, and fully reported in The Army and Navy Gazette and other newspapers, in which the noble Lord said he had bombarded the forts of Alexandria for the purpose of punishing the Egyptians for the massacre of the 11th of June; for, after stating that the last vessel was towed out of the harbour on the 10th of July, and that the batteries opened at 7 o'clock the following morning, he went on to say—
  "Therefore, there was no lack of promptitude to redress grievances."
  Those words were subsequently quoted in that House, yet Lord Alcester never made a sign or uttered a single word repudiating them; but, at the Royal Academy dinner, he stated that—
  "It had been said he opened fire on the forts of Alexandria on account of the massacre. That was false."
  Nobody, however, but Lord Alcester himself said that. If, having made the original statement in an after-dinner speech, he had afterwards said he did not mean to say anything of the kind, that would have been intelligible. The whole affair was most unsatisfactory; and while the case stood thus as regarded Lord Alcester, he thought it preposterous to ask the House to vote this large sum.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he thought it necessary to make some observations on what had been stated by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) with regard to Lord Alcester. The hon. Member had said that Lord Alcester, after having delivered a speech which made a certain erroneous impression on the public mind, had allowed weeks to pass without a correction. His hon. Friend was in the House on the former occasion when the matter was discussed. During that debate, first of all his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Childers) stated that the meaning placed on Lord Alcester's speech was not the meaning ho intended to convey;

  71
  and afterwards he himself stated that he had Lord Alcester's authority for saying—he having spoken to the noble Lord upon the subject—that he had no intention whatever of conveying an impression that the action on the 11th of July was in any degree due to a desire to take vengeance for the massacre.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then, what did ho mean?
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: What Lord Alcester meant was another question. He was anxious to make these remarks in reply, especially, to the attack made by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley upon Lord Alcester, on the ground that, although an erroneous impression had got abroad as to the meaning of his speech, he took no steps to contradict it. He desired, therefore, to say that, a few days after that speech, he himself got up, by Lord Alcester's desire, to make the contradiction at the Table of the House.
  MR. HICKSsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) had drawn attention to the mean and paltry distinction—those were his expressions—which the Government had made in this matter. In that view he (Mr. Hicks) cordially agreed; and, in his opinion also, the distinction was unworthy the country and the House. He believed it was not in the province of an independent Member to move an increase to a grant; and he certainly, for one, should be very sorry to be a party to moving a reduction, lest, by any chance, his motives might be misconstrued. However, he hoped that before the Bill finally passed the Government would relieve it of this objection, and would not call upon independent Members to vote for that with which they could not cordially agree.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHwished to say a few words in support of the vote he should give in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. He thought the Prime Minister was entitled to complain that the debate had travelled unnecessarily wide, and that irrelevant topics had been introduced into it. The proposition of the Prime Minister was a perfectly fair one—that where Military or Naval Commanders acted purely as administrative instruments in the hands of a Government, the whole responsibility and blame
  72
  of their action, if there was any blame, must rest with that Government whose blind instruments they were. But he had never been satisfied in his own mind that there was not a certain amount of discretion left with Lord Alcester by the Government in the position he held at Alexandria. Was the gallant Admiral not permitted to determine whether the menaces, the arming of the forts, and other movements might or might not be regarded as sufficient to justify him in firing on the forts, and thus bringing England into collision with Egypt? It was his belief that if the matter had been left in the hands of the Members of the Government in Downing Street there would have been no war; and he ventured to think that the Government itself found matters precipitated at the last moment. He did not deny that the position of the gallant Admiral was one of difficulty; but he could not hold him free from blame, for he believed Lord Alcester was precipitant. If the gallant Admiral had exercised the forbearance on this occasion that he did at a former period before Dulcigno, the result might have been more satisfactory, and he could have well done this with the overwhelming force he had at his command. The Prime Minister, no doubt, reckoned that the debate would be confined to narrow limits, and surprise had been manifested on both sides of the House that it had been so lengthy and wide. But he rejoiced at this fact, because it would indicate to those in authority that there was a growing difference of opinion among Members and in the country as to the glory of those military enter prizes. To make Generals and Admirals Peers of the Realm in this way, to grant them large rewards for successful deeds of bloodshed, was really to offer serious temptations to them; and for those reasons he felt bound to support his hon. Friend.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was certainly rather remarkable that the Prime Minister should say that he could not undertake, on the part of the Government, to demand an inquiry into the truth of the serious allegations made by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) before Whitsuntide—allegations which affected the credit, not only of the Ruler of Egypt,

  73
  but of the English Government that upheld him—as to the part taken by him in the massacre at Alexandria, until they had first inquired into these matters. In that case he was entitled to suppose that no such steps had as yet been taken. But what had been happening in the meantime—what was happening at that moment? What guarantee had the Government that the Egyptian Government would not be murdering the witnesses? Indeed, so far as he could perceive, they were doing so. [Cries of "Divide!"] He wished to remind the House that, at that moment, an Egyptian officer was under sentence of death, who had based his defence on the ground that he was acting under superior orders; but every opportunity of bringing forward evidence of those orders was refused him. In the same manner, every person who had been engaged against the nominal Ruler of Egypt, and who brought forward inconvenient evidence or allegations, might be disposed of in a similar fashion by the gibbet, or by a sentence to hard labour, which was equivalent to death, unless the Government of England took up a very different attitude in the matter. With regard to Lord Alcester and the proposed grant, he (Mr. O'Donnell) contended that the noble and gallant Admiral had done no service at Alexandria to the public of this country that justified any such exceptional reward; and whatever service he rendered was certainly not that of either a great soldier or a sailor. If any reward was to be granted to him, it should, therefore, be on other grounds than those of having rendered distinguished service as an Admiral. What were the Naval services which Lord Alcester had rendered? He know, by the plans and specifications of the Intelligence Department, every weak point in the fortifications of Alexandria, and that the guns in the greater part of them would not carry half way to his ships. Was it for such a contemptible victory as that that he was to be rewarded in this manner? If he had attacked a Cronstadt and silenced it, then he (Mr. O'Donnell) would not rise in his place and oppose this grant, because such a proceeding would have been worthy of the title of a Naval service. As it was, the Government had rewarded the promenade of the British Fleet into the Suez Canal; while they connived at the injustice done to the Natives who were
  74
  hung, because, in the defence of their country, they killed Professor Palmer and his companions. It had been stated that 400,000 tons of material, 40,000 men, and 20,000 animals were landed in Egypt in 48 days; but it should be borne in mind that there was no substantial opposition to any of these operations, though as much show had been made about them as a promenade at Astley's. There was a very useful provision, very much talked about of late, and which prevented Civil servants of the Crown from becoming Members of that House; and now they were prevented from approaching Members of Parliament for the purpose of bringing grievances connected with their Departments before the House. He thought it would be a very wise thing if the same rule applied to the Military and Naval Services; for, undoubtedly, the present system led to the granting of most lavish rewards for Military and Naval achievements that were no achievements at all. And it had nothing less than a direct influence in inducing the professional class follows of the officers rewarded to engage in wars which were as unjust and contemptible as the Egyptian War. With regard to the speech of Lord Alcester at the Mansion House, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had explained that Lord Alcester did not mean to convey what was apparently conveyed by the reports. But the hon. Gentleman had failed to put any other interpretation on the words used by the noble and gallant Lord. With regard to the speech of the lion. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), and to the Prime Minister's comments thereon, it was an affecting sight to see how the old Jingo above the Gangway fell upon the neck of the young Jingo below the Gangway. The hon. Member for Newcastle had referred to the remarkably short time in which the war was completed. But he omitted to notice the fact that there was no substantial opposition to those operations. The Vote for Lord Alcester came before the House, after a lapse of time, during which the country had had an opportunity of obtaining information upon the subject; and he would wish to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary doctrine laid down by the whole Front Opposition Benches. The initiation came from the Leader of the first Opposition

  75
  Bench. He alluded to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), as the Leader of the first Opposition Bench. The right hon. Gentleman regretted, some months ago, before any documents were laid before the House, that the Government should not have taken the advantage of an ignorant and surprised Legislature, and consented to fling away £50,000 of the taxpayers' money in grants to Lords Alcester and Wolseley, without any knowledge of the real merits of the proposed recipients. The Premier then regretted that the circumstances of the Autumn Session prevented him from asking the House to grant a large sum of money without knowing really whether it would be right or wrong in so doing. Both right hon. Gentlemen were financiers, if they were anything; and yet such were their ideas of the probity which should direct the policy of England, that they avowed themselves ready to snatch from the Legislature a Vote of money without waiting to see whether it was proper that such a Vote of money should be passed. For his (Mr. O'Donnell's) part, he considered that if these Votes were to do any good, if they were to have any effect in stimulating men to do real service for their country, they should be brought forward after grave consideration and deliberation. When such were the principles on which the Leaders on both sides of the House were ready to conduct the financial policy of the country, it was little to be wondered at that a brother of a General should become contractor of the Army, and that another English contractor should send out rotten flour to support English soldiers in Egypt.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was endeavouring to show that the financial policy of the Government—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would not pursue the subject further, though he did hope that those Radical Gentlemen, who professed so much sympathy with Egypt, would be a little more patient when its affairs were discussed. He protested against the proposal which the Government had made the country and future Parliaments ought to be
  76
  warned by the statements and the doctrine laid down that day, and be careful about sanctioning in the future the line of policy which the Premier regretted ho was not able to perpetrate in the past.
  MR. O'BRIEN, who spoke amid great and continued interruption, said, he was sorry he could not congratulate the Government, or the Radical Party, on the half-hearted compromise which had been come to between them in this matter. [Cries of "Divide!"] When hon. Gentlemen opposite had exhausted themselves, he would continue his speech. In his opinion, the English Government were responsible for this war; and, as they were responsible for it, they ought not to attempt to get out of paying for it. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He would wait, of course, until hon. Gentlemen opposite had finished their incoherent interruptions.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was about to observe, with reference to the noises from the other side of the House, that if hon. Members continued to interrupt him, he would simply have to wait until they had learned a little more sense and listened to what he had to say. He submitted that the Egyptian War was a shabby and disreputable business, whatever way one looked at it. Now, to him it seemed that a Jingo who had the courage of his convictions, and believed in his heart that the bombardment of Alexandria was a very fine thing, figured in the disreputable business to far greater advantage than the economical Radicals opposite, who were shouting out their interruptions—[cries of"Divide, divide!"]—and who now wanted not to give to their soldiers and sailors a little of that prize money which they had won for them. He, for one, could not agree with those Radicals who, like the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), tried to victimize men for doing what the people of England sent them to do, and which, to use the words that had been used to describe an enter-prize nearer home, of about equal courage, was to murder, to burn, and to destroy. He was sent out to do that work, and he had certainly done it in a manner to commend himself to those who sent him. The Government, ap-

  77
  parently, had conciliated hon. Members opposite by sacrificing their original programme of hereditary pensions. Such pensions were very objectionable; but they were still more objectionable when awarded for safely and ingloriously slaughtering an all but defenceless people. As for the gallantry of the affair, it seemed to him that Lord Alcester, miles from the forts, and standing behind his walls of iron, shooting down defenceless men, who had as much right to defend their country as the English had to defend themselves from dynamite, was as safe from the fire of those forts as if the enemy had been pelting him with roasted apples. It seemed to him that Lord Alcester, standing thus, occupied the not less glorious position of an assassin behind a hedge, and certainly one of much less risk. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members wished to prolong his remarks, they could not adopt a better means of doing so than by interrupting him. None the less, he submitted that he had a right to be protected from the stupid and unmannerly conduct of hon. Members on both sides of the House. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not attend to my directions to address himself to the Chair. If he would address himself to the Chair, probably he would receive more attention.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was sure the Speaker would admit that he received a great deal of provocation, which should also be taken into account. However, he would endeavour to keep to the point. He ridiculed the plea put forward by the Radical Members, that Admiral Seymour was more anxious to commence hostilities than the people of England were. He believed every cannon shot was telegraphed home and gloated over in England. He, for one, believed Lord Alcester was very moderately remunerated indeed for the amount of slaughter he had done; and if hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal persuasion disapproved now of his services, he hoped they would show their disapproval in some less disinterested manner than that of trying to save the ratepayers £20,000. If they had the courage of their convictions, or rather professions, let them give up the advantage they had got by the war; let them do an act of justice and honesty, as they would pro-
  78
  bably have done, if they had to face the long rifles of the Boers at Lang's Nek.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, who also spoke amid great interruption, said, he should protest against the principle laid down by the Prime Minister and the Leaders of the Opposition in this debate. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] He wondered why it was the Radical Members were so anxious to suppress discussion on this question. [Continued cries of "Divide, divide!"]
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it has not been forced upon your attention that an hon. Member, sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House, has kept up continuous cries of "Divide!" ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Longford rose to address the House? I would ask you, Sir, whether my hon. Friend, being in possession of the House, is not entitled to be heard without interruption?
  MR. STANTON: As I am one of the Members who has kept up the cry of "Divide!"—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) is in possession of the House, and is entitled to be heard without interruption.
  MR. STANTON: I rise to a point of Order. May I be allowed to ask whether it is not the evident sense of the House that the Question should be put, and that we should proceed to a Division?
  MR. SPEAKERmade no reply.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he wished to protest against the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister, that whenever a Government, on any ground, wished to confer special rewards upon anyone who had rendered services, that House had no business and no right to discuss the nature of the services rendered for those rewards, by way of protest against their being granted, or to say whether it approved of them or not, but was bound to vote what was proposed by the Government in a servile manner.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I appeal to the House whether I ever stated anything so absurd as that the House should vote the money because the Government demanded it?
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that he was alluding to that part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman

  79
  where he had distinctly said that discussion would take away the grace of the grant, and that it would be undignified, and more to the discredit of the House than of Lord Alcester, if the Vote was opposed; and that, he thought, came to the same thing. He protested against the doctrine of the Prime Minister. If a man did his duty, he was entitled to his remuneration; but when a special reward was proposed that was a very different thing. He had no intention of saying anything against Lord Alcester, except that he had not an opportunity in Egypt of displaying his ability as a Commander for earning this special reward. In the country which had produced men like Nelson, it was absurd to talk of Lord Alcester's services. One would think that this country had never won a Naval battle, or taken a town. The Government would have done more wisely if they had abstained from moving in the matter, and had left Lord Alcester alone with his glory, such as it was. He supported the Amendment.
  MR. LEAMY, in opposing the grant, said he could not help expressing his surprise that so few of those who represented the working classes had spoken iii the debate. He contended that the House could not consider this proposed grant to Lord Alcester's services apart from the policy of which Lord Alcester was the instrument. If the question of the policy of the Government was to be raised, it was impossible that it could have been adequately discussed in the few hours which the debate had occupied. He denied that Lord Alcester's services had been of advantage to the country. [Loud and continued cries of "Divide!"] The interruption he was meeting with, owing to the impatience which the Radical Party manifested in a discussion which exposed the inconsistency of the present Government, was a strong argument in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), because it showed that the Liberal Party were ashamed of the transaction which allegiance to their Chiefs led them to approve. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was not suprised that hon. Members persisted in shouting "Divide!" It must be very hard on hon. Members opposite to find their great Liberal Government, which came into power in 1880 with anti-Jingo cries, turning out a fili-
  80
  bustering and marauding one, and masquerading in the stolen clothes of those very Jingoes whom they had so vehemently denounced.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that, in his opinion, the Government were perpetrating a practical joke upon the country in asking for a Vote to reward Lord Alcester for his eminent services in cruelly and heartlessly bombarding the defenceless town of Alexandria. The fact was, that noble and gallant Lord had provoked a conflict with the Egyptian people, knowing, with mathematical accuracy, that they were incapable of resistance. The position and power of every gun round Alexandria were known by the noble and gallant Lord before hostilities commenced, and he must have known that the enemy were unable to resist. Such were the military services in recognition of which they were asked to vote the money of the people. He protested against the proposed Vote, for if it were agreed to they would be guilty of a piece of political pick-pocketing. That a soldier, pretending to be civilized, should attack a practically unarmed people, and use the powers of civilization simply for the purpose of destruction, was something a country like this ought to be ashamed of. England had now destroyed three centres of civilization in Africa—Magdala, Coomassie, and Alexandria.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to address himself more closely to the Question before the House.
  MR. O'KELLY, resuming, said, he thought that the burning of these towns had something to do with the services distinguished soldiers rendered to this country. However, Mr. Speaker had ruled otherwise; and he should conclude by saying that if the House were to be asked to vote enormous sums for such services as those rendered by Lord Alcester, there would always be a great inducement to young men to enter the Navy, for in no other business would there be such great rewards for such small services.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he utterly scouted the idea that the House of Commons should be debarred from discussing the murderous policy of the Government in connection with the Vote. If the House readily agreed to such a proposition as that now before it, the

  81
  effect would be to encourage the Government to engage in small wars of aggression against weaker nations. The present Vote gave hon. Members an opportunity of protesting against the warlike policy of the so-called Peace-at-any-Price Party. The Government had charged the Tories with blood-guiltiness, on account of the war they had waged in South Africa; but their hands were never so red with blood as were those of the present Government, in crushing the efforts of patriotic men who had been endeavouring to free themselves from the most disgraceful thraldom. By rejecting the Bill, the House would put some little check upon such outrage in the future. He looked upon the Egyptian Campaign as a most miserable and disgraceful war. No one attempted to disguise the fact that the war, which was originally one of aggression, had become one of annexation; and the House ought not to countenance the voting away of public money for such purposes at this, for the result would be only to encourage such adventures. England now had Egypt in her clutches, and would never let her loose so long as she had anything of which she could be plundered; and, that being the case, he must decline to condone such an infamous proceeding by voting for the Bill.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which I gave Notice at the beginning of the Sitting—namely, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered and ascertained if it is in their power, and if they ought to take any steps to interpose in the matter of Suleiman Sami?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (for Mr. GLADSTONE): Her Majesty's Government have been informed by Sir Edward Malet that Suleiman Sami, who had been accused of burning Alexandria, was sentenced to death yesterday by the Court Martial held in that city. The trial has been watched by Major Macdonald, a distinguished officer, enjoying
  82
  the full confidence of the Government. In a Report, dated April 30, he informed Lord Dufferin that he had full confidence in the composition of the Court appointed to try Suleiman Sami; and, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering, unless on the request and recommendation of Major Macdonald, and that has not been made.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, whether Major Macdonald had been watching the trial on behalf of the prisoner; whether ho had any legal knowledge; and, if it was true that Suleiman Sami's counsel had left the Court, because he was not allowed to call certain witnesses for the defence, therefore being unable to obtain justice for his client?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Major Macdonald, as I think I explained the other day, was watching this trial, as he has watched the others, in the interests of justice and humanity. He was appointed by Her Majesty's Government, with certain other gentlemen who have special legal knowledge, to watch these trials generally. As to the report of the abandonment of the case by the prisoner's counsel, we have, as yet, no information; but, naturally, neither Her Majesty's Government, nor the Egyptian Government, are in any way responsible for the action of the counsel in question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, whether the noble Lord would inquire whether it was not the fact that Suleiman Sami's counsel wished to produce fresh evidence before the Court, and that the Court refused him permission to do so?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he could give an answer at once. So far as he knew, Suleiman Sami himself, after the trial, wished to bring forward 25 now witnesses. These were entirely new witnesses. The Court had the power of admitting new evidence at the trial, beyond that which bad been given before the preliminary Court of Instruction; but they did not consider that there was any necessity for allowing these new witnesses to be brought forward. ["Oh, oh!" and Mr. HEALY: Green Street.] [Cries of Order!"] Let him explain that these were entirely new witnesses, and the evidence on both sides had been fully gone into, in the first instance, at the

  83
  preliminary proceedings; and then, according to French law, it had been examined and cross-examined upon at the Court Martial.
  MR. O'KELLYasked, how it was possible that the witnesses could have been examined and cross-examined, if their evidence was not admitted at all?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was not referring to the new witnesses.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEasked, whether any day had been fixed for the execution?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; there is no mention of any day.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Can the noble Lord say positively whether Suleiman Sami produced before the Court Martial any witnesses for the defence who were examined and cross-examined?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Certainly. I understand distinctly from Lord Dufferin that he had the right to examine the witnesses in open Court. Whether he actually exercised the right I cannot, of course, know.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to abandon this man to his fate, when the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tells us that the examination of witnesses brought forward in his defence is not allowed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I understand to be the case is this, Sir. There is, in every trial, a time appointed for those who conduct the prosecution and the defence to give in their lists of witnesses. The list of witnesses in this case was regularly and properly given in; and, so far as we know, the examination of all these witnesses was regularly and properly conducted and dealt with; and that when that was over the defenders claimed to bring in a number of new witnesses. Well, now, I believe that it is in the power and practice of a Court Martial and of Courts of Justice to judge when it is, and when it is not, proper to bring in new witnesses. I give this information, of course, subject to correction, according to such further accounts as we may receive from Egypt; but, as at present advised, I believe that to be a true and correct statement of the case.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into the matter?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly.
  MR. HEALYasked, if the Government were in such a hurry to hang the gentleman that they would not allow these 25 witnesses to be called?
  [No reply.]

  LORD ALCESTER'S GRANT BILL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when the debate on Lord Alcester's Bill is adjourned to?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This evening.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman really intend to pursue the course of taking the suspended debate at the Evening Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Unquestionably. If it is the intention of the House, we intend to do so. We do not wish to dictate anything to the House; but after what we have seen of the debate this afternoon, I think it will be the wish of the House that the debate should be taken this evening.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Up to what hour?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We shall consult the convenience of the House.
  In reply to a further Question by Sir WILFRID LAWSON,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the debate on the grant to Lord Wolseley would be taken on Monday.

  NAVY—LOSS OF H.M.S. "LIVELY."
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked, Whether the Prime Minister, or any other Member of the Government, could give the House any information with regard to the circumstances connected with the less of Her Majesty's Ship Lively yesterday afternoon? The matter was one of great gravity, and he was sure the House would be glad to have any information the Government could afford.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry I cannot.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF SMART—THE CALNE BENCH OF MAGISTRATES.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSgave Notice of a Question with respect to the case of a labourer named Smart, who was summoned before the Calne Bench of Magistrates (Lord Lansdowne in the chair) for leaving his work without leave. The man's wages were 10 s. a-week, with 1s.

  85
  deducted for rent, at which he had worked since Michaelmas. The employer proved no damage, but claimed £1, stating that it was the custom of the county to do so. The defendant swore that he had told his employer he should leave unless his wages were raised; and, on its being refused, he left his work on the following Monday to go to the hiring at Swindon, but returned on the following day. His solicitor urged that the man had five children to keep on 9s. per week, and as no damage was shown there was no case; but defendant was fined 5s. and 5s. costs. Defendant was further charged with having shot two rabbits on April 1. The employer said that he saw two rabbits hung up in the house of his shepherd, who admitted that he shot one, and Smart the other, who was fined 2s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. costs.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MILITIA SURGEONS.

    MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT, in rising to call attention to the subject of Militia Surgeons as regards pensions; and to move—
    "That the continual refusal by the Administration of pensions to Militia Surgeons, compulsorily retired at 65 years of age, after long periods of service, and of compensation to those surgeons who have been deprived of a large amount of their incomes by the establishment of Brigade Depôts, to which pensions or compensation they consider themselves justly entitled; as also their complaints and great dissatisfaction thereat, embodied in a Petition from them lately presented to this Honourable House, be referred to a Committee to inquire into the reasonableness and justice of their complaints,"
    said, he would, at the outset, make an appeal to the Prime Minister to at once grant the request for a small Committee, and thus save much time. The case was a very hard and an unjust one as
    86
    affecting the Militia surgeons, who felt much aggrieved, and the Government would do a generous act by conceding the moderate request made. [Mr. GLAD-STONE dissented.] He was sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman signify his dissent, because the refusal would oblige him to state the complaints of the Militia surgeons at some length. The Motion did not ask the Government to grant pensions, but simply to allow a Committee to hear and consider the grievances under which these officers laboured. Since 1855, the question had been several times brought before the attention of the House; and it had been practically admitted, again and again, that the Militia surgeons had just ground for complaint, and were entitled to compensation on compulsory retirement at the age mentioned. Promises had been several times made that their claims should be fairly considered, as appeared by letters addressed to him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) from the War Office, and to other hon. Members who had asked Questions upon the subject in the House. Yet, in face of the admissions made by previous Secretaries of State for War, the present Government were prepared to turn the surgeons adrift at 65 years of age, after 25 or 30 years' service, without any pension or compensation. No one could deny that that was a great grievance; and ho would venture to say it was one at which the people generally of the country would be very indignant when they were informed of the facts. Under the alterations consequent on the adoption of short service and the brigade depot system Militia surgeons wore now deprived of many emoluments which they formerly enjoyed; and the argument that, on leaving the Service, they had their private practice to fall back upon, and therefore were not in need of pensions, was unfair and misleading, because the circumstances were such that few of them had any private practice, at least to the extent intimated, nor could those re-commence a professional career at an advanced age, and with a gap made in it by a long employment in the Militia, in many cases at a considerable distance from their homes. He proceeded to enumerate the several Statutes passed since 1829, in every one of which the clause giving the same retiring pensions to the Militia surgeons as to the adjutants was to be found; and if the pensions granted were only those

    87
    available for surgeons who had retired previously to 1829, as the Circular of the Secretary of State for War assumed, how could it be possible that, after the lapse of 50 years, any surgeons could be found to take the benefit of the Act passed in that year, whereas, as late as 1882, an Act was to be found still keeping alive the claim to retiring pensions? There were analogous cases that he thought justified the claim of the Militia surgeons. For instance, pensions were granted to the surgeons when the Prisons Bill was passed four years ago, and also to the Poor Law medical officers. Personally, he had no interest in the matter; but he was confident that when a grievance as strong as this was fairly presented to the House hon. Members would not ignore it. The promise had been made that the grievances of this class of officers should be remedied, and it seemed to him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) that it was unworthy of a Liberal Government to act as the present Government had done in respect to the matter; for the case was that of a deserving class of men, who had served their country faithfully, and whose claim was moderate and reasonable. At the present time there were only 30 Militia surgeons who asked for pensions; and surely the request to give an officer at 65 years of age, after a long period of service, 6s. a-day for the few remaining years of his life was not an excessive demand. He, therefore, submitted his Motion to the House with a feeling of confidence that it would be adopted.
    DR. FARQUHARSON, in seconding the Motion, said, that outside the House there was a considerable sympathy with these gentlemen and their grievances. The grievances of these surgeons were two-fold. The first related to compulsory retirement. These men had been induced to join the Army, under conditions which permitted them to continue in the Service until they were incapacitated by age or ill-health, and they were now compulsorily retired at 65 years of age. It was a serious matter for these surgeons thus to be suddenly and compulsorily retired. Many of them had suffered in their practice from various causes, such as the necessity of suddenly leaving their home and their practice, irrespective of other engagements. The addition of their official income was such as to make their practice sufficient for a living; but when the
    88
    official income was removed they were unable to live on their private practice, and many of them had arrived at a time of life when it was impossible for them to improve their private practice, consequently they had been suddenly reduced to a state of great poverty. One of these gentlemen, to his knowledge, was actually in the workhouse. It was said that these surgeons had never been on the permanent Staff, and, therefore, had no claim to pensions; but there was nothing in the Militia Acts which implied that it was necessary that surgeons of Militia should belong to the permanent Staff. The second grievance of these surgeons was that they had to submit to very great loss of income consequent on Lord Cardwell's arrangement, by which the brigade depot surgeons took all the recruiting profits from them. These profits made up a great portion of their income, and their emoluments had in this way been, in some cases, reduced from £300 to £100 a-year, or even less. Promises had often been made to investigate individual cases; and a Departmental Committee, such as was now moved for, was a tribunal whose decision the surgeons would be well content to take.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the continual refusal by the Administration of pensions to Militia Surgeons, compulsorily retired at 65 years of age, after long periods of service, and of compensation to those surgeons who have been deprived of a large amount of their incomes by the establishment of Brigade Depôts, to which pensions or compensation they consider themselves justly entitled; as also their complaints and great dissatisfaction thereat, embodied in a Petition from them lately presented to this Honourable House, be referred to a Committee to inquire into the reasonableness and justice of their complaints,"—(Sir Eardley Wilmot,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "'That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, ho was certain that the Finance Department of the War Office—and he believed the House itself—owed much to the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for South Warwickshire for bringing this question before their notice. The matter had been brought before the House in the shape of Questions, both by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), and also

    89
    by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson). It had already been considered by three Secretaries of State of different political opinions — namely, by Lord Cranbrook, by his Successor, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colenel Stanley), and by his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers); and, on each occasion, the decision had been adverse to the claims of the surgeons, both as regarded loss of income and loss of fees for the examination of recruits. There was no exceptional hardship in the position of Militia surgeons. Her Majesty had the power of deciding at what age Militia surgeons should retire; and it was considered that the extension of the age for retirement from 60 to 65 years of age—when the age for retirement of combatant officers was fixed at 60—was a sufficient relaxation. No pensions had over been granted to officers who were not on the permanent Staff, and no Militia surgeons had over been on the permanent Staff since the year 1829. At that date, when the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, and Sir Henry Harding Commander-in-Chief, a Circular was issued, stating that Militia Surgeons would be struck off the permanent Staff, and from that time no pension had been granted to a Militia surgeon. In the following Session of 1829 a Bill was passed into an Act, at the instance of the Government, to carry out the change, and the question of pension to Militia surgeons was not raised for many years. At the time of the Crimean War, when the Militia went to the Ionian Islands, a Circular was issued by Lord Panmure, stating that no Militia surgeon would be entitled to a retiring allowance unless he served for 10 years; but it so happened that these Militia regiments were embodied for no longer than two years. It was, therefore, clearly understood, from the terms of the Circular of 1855, that the Militia surgeons were not entitled to any allowance except for embodied service. In 1876 a Warrant was issued by Mr. Gathorne Hardy; and it was stated that nothing contained therein should be held as giving a medical officer of Militia a claim to a pension or retiring allowance. The case of these gentlemen had been submitted by the War Office to his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, and they had given it
    90
    their most careful consideration. They had supplied the War Office with their opinion in writing, in which they decided against the claims of the Militia surgeons, both as regarded law and equity. There was another point, and that was, were these officers so badly off as had been represented? He was sure that the Secretary of State for War would be the last man to deal hardly with men who were poor, and possibly retiring from age or infirmity; but it must be remembered that the Militia surgeons received full pay at the rate of £1 a-day for the time that they were out with their regiments; whilst as they were only out, as a rule, for a month at a time, he could not admit that their private professional practice had been thereby ruined. The War Office must employ, whenever practicable, for the examination of recruits, the Army surgeons whom they paid all the year round. With regard to the Motion as it stood on the Paper, he must point out that the "continual refusal" referred to had not been by the Administration, but by the three Administrations preceding the present. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not divide the House after this explanation; but if he did take a division, this was the only answer which he (Sir Arthur Hayter), as a Minister, could give.
    MR. DUCKHAM, in supporting the Resolution, said, he knew of one case, during the Crimean War, in which a Militia surgeon was called upon to be away for 12 months with his regiment, and to break up his home, and all his professional connections; and now, at the age of 65, although in full health and vigour, he was called upon to resign, with nothing to fall back upon. Whatever was done generally, he hoped this case would receive special consideration at the hands of the Government.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 48: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 122.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  INLAND REVENUE—THE INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE, in rising, according to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the Inhabited House Duty; and to move—

  91
  "That the Inhabited House Duty ought to be repealed, because it limits the size of houses, and interferes injuriously with and restricts the mode of construction of houses and blocks of buildings specially adapted for the working classes; causes a large amount of available habitable accommodation to be unused; and is unfairly and unequally assessed,"
  said, with regard to the subject there were the most fallacious notions prevalent throughout the country. about two-thirds of the houses in the Kingdom did not pay the house tax, and therefore it was presumed that the tax did not affect them, although it did so in reality, owing to the peculiar manner in which it was levied and the restrictions which appertained to it.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for the City of London was aware that, in consequence of the result of the Division which had just taken place, he was precluded from submitting to the House the Motion of which he had given Notice in reference to this subject.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to ask whether the hon. Member for the City of London might not discuss the matter, although he could not submit his Motion?
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, lie was aware he had been deprived of the right of taking the sense of the House on his Motion; but he thought he might seize this opportunity of discussing the subject, and explaining various matters connected with it. The limit at which the inhabited house duty commenced was £20 per annum; and, consequently, there was a great desire throughout the country to build houses below that value for the working classes, in order that they might be exempt from the tax, which would amount to 9d. in the pound, or 15 s. a-year. Therefore, many houses were built of smaller dimensions and with fewer conveniences than would otherwise be the case. No doubt, in many parts of the country, a very convenient house might be had for £20; but in London, Manchester, Liverpool, and other great cities, the limit of the tax restricted very much the accommodation for the working classes. Some dwellings, erected specially for the convenience of working men in London, were exempted from payment of the tax, because the whole building had an open staircase, with no front door; and consequently each tenement, which was in itself under the
  92
  value of £20 a-year, was regarded as a separate house. In this manner the dwellings built by the Company presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Water-low) escaped payment of the tax. The Peabody and some other buildings escaped the tax, not on account of their being built on this particular plan, but because, being erected by public bodies, they obtained a certificate of exemption from the Treasury. If a private person were to erect buildings like those of the Peabody Trustees, ho would have to pay the inhabited house duty. Thus, that tax had a most detrimental effect on the houses built for the people. The old doctrine of supply and demand did not meet the case of the dwellings of the working classes. Unless special and disinterested exertions were made, those classes would find very unsatisfactory accommodation. That was the only tax which interfered injuriously with the article taxed. In the case of old houses which had formerly, like the houses about Drury Lane, been occupied by the wealthier classes, but were now inhabited by the working classes, the tax was still levied. Those houses were taxed at 9d. in the pound. The old house tax, which was heavier than the present tax, was repealed in 1834. But the window tax was continued longer and only repealed in 1851, when the present inhabited house duty was re-imposed; and the effects of the window duty were still occasionally visible in blocked-up windows and fan lights, which brought about a very unsanitary state of things. Similarly, the present house tax had an injurious effect in encouraging buildings of an inferior kind for the dwellings of the working class. There could be no doubt that the time had come to take the matter into serious consideration; but he knew it would be difficult to obtain its cessation, for he feared it was so easily collected, and too profitable, producing, as it did, about £1,700,000 a-year, for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to be willing to abolist it. But it bore very unequally on different classes and in different parts of the country. In cities it was severely felt; but in the country, where land was comparatively of little value, it was not much felt. More than half the tax was paid in the four Metropolitan counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, and Essex, and the landlord paid his 5d. in the

  93
  pound as property tax, and the tenant 9d. in the pound on the same assessment as house tax on every house which came within the range of the tax. But ducal palaces, and the residences of the higher classes, came off almost scot free. They were supposed to be rated at the sum at which they would let to a tenant from year to year who took the house with about three-quarters of an acre by way of cartilage. Of course, they would not really let at all, for who could afford to rent a ducal palace but a Duke? They were, however, rated at a nominal amount. Thus, magnificent mansions with large gardens and conservatories, and houses for stewards and coachmen and other dependents, and which cost, perhaps, £500,000, only paid tax on a few hundreds a-year. He was aware that it was a favourite argument of political economists that this tax was the most equitable that could be imposed, because it allowed persons indirectly to assess themselves by placing a tax upon the house they felt themselves justified by their incomes in inhabiting. But the fact was that the richer a man was, and the larger the house that he occupied, the less in proportion he paid under this tax. What was the use of reducing the taxation on a man's food and clothing, if his house was to be taxed unfairly? The country mansions built by successful traders, as well as those of the aristocracy, were taxed at too low a rate; and in many instances, where such persons had expended £20,000 or £30,000 on the construction of their mansions, they were only assessed to this tax on an assumed rental of £60 or £80 per annum. This house tax did not extend to Ireland, and, as a consequence, the members of the middle class in that country were better housed and lived more comfortably than those of the same class in this. Scotchmen, too, would doubtless be surprised to hear that Edinburgh, Lanarkshire, and Renfrewshire, between them, paid one-half of the house tax of Scotland. The county of Sutherland only paid £152 to the house tax, and the county of Cromarty £25. He had said enough, he thought, to prove, in the first place, that this tax interfered materially with the construction of houses for the working classes, as restricting the building of blocks of houses adapted for their use; and, in the next place, that the tax became lighter as the man had a greater income and larger means
  94
  of paying it; and, therefore, that the tax constituted an evil which could not be defended, and that it should consequently be repealed.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was of opinion that the injustice to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) called attention had its origin largely in the obsequious attention which the various assessment committees throughout the country were disposed to pay to the upper classes in regard to the assessment of mansions. In many cases, these committees were under a delusion as to the state of the law in regard to this important question. Something might be done to remedy the pressure of local taxes on the tenant farmers throughout England, if the mansions of the great were rated equitably for the relief of the poor. The words of the Parochial Assessment Act in regard to this matter were—"That such a house shall be rated at what it may reasonably be expected to let for from year to year." The late Lord Chief Justice, however, in a case not well known, declared that it was absurd to suppose that a large mansion could be regarded as a house lettable from year to year, and he laid it down that it should be rated at what it would let for under lease. It was thus quite within the discretion of the assessment committees to make a much more equitable assessment of what were called by the hon. Alderman "the mansions of the great." Not along ago this subject engaged the attention of the Duke of Richmond's Commission on Agriculture; and in giving evidence before the Commission, Mr. Hedley, a most experienced land valuer, gave it as his opinion that mansions were at present rated on no basis at all, that they were generally rated far below their actual value, and that they ought to be rated on the occupation value of the occupier—on the same principle, for instance, that a railway station was rated. No benefit could be greater than that they should have an equal and impartial assessment throughout the whole country.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that, in his opinion, the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) did credit alike to his head and heart, because he had taken up a grievance of a class of persons who could not be said to be at all

  95
  adequately represented in this House. He could not, however, agree with the proposition that the grievance did not apply to Ireland, as regarded the domestic comforts of the people. They required in Ireland a system of valuation quite as badly as they required it in this country. He had known the mansion of a Duke escape with a valuation of £50 a-year; whereas a farmer's house, almost next door, was rated relatively to a much larger amount. These assessments were made under the direction of the tax collector. He consulted the owner of the mansion as to the rate-able value of the property, and he certainly would not like to offend the local magnate by putting a high valuation upon his house. It was characteristic of that House that a grievance so long admitted, both in England and Ireland, should only at that late hour have found an exponent; and ho thought it due to the hon. Member that someone on the Treasury Bench should give the views of the Government on the matter. He hoped that an ultimate effect of the discussion would be that the upper classes would not be allowed to escape from their fair share of taxation.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was altogether wrong in the position he had taken up on this subject. Having seen a good deal of the working of Union assessment committees, he (Mr. Staveley Hill) said that position was altogether a mistaken one. These committees—at least in country districts—were formed mostly of farmers, whose endeavour would naturally be to extend the area of the rate, as far as possible, so as to include persons not of the same class as themselves; and, so far from their being favourable to the interests of owners of large houses, they always attempted to place all possible share of the burden on them. The hon. Member was altogether mistaken in the interpretation ho had put upon the words used in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, in the case referred to, in the interpretation of the words "from year to year;" it had always been held that while you must not look to the value in any one year, but to its value comminibus auries, the principle of a lease was altogether excluded. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) felt confident that Mr. Hedley, with whose opinions he was, perhaps, as well acquainted
  96
  as the hon. Member, never could have proposed anything so silly as to rate mansion houses in the same way as railway stations.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDrepeated that Mr. Hedley had made a statement to that effect.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, in that case, he thought the hon. Member must have misunderstood Mr. Hedley, for the difference between the one and the other was obvious. The mansion house was often rather an incumbrance to the property, while the station was where all the traffic was received and collected. The assessment committees, who knew better how to deal with this question than most persons, had proceeded on the principle of assessing property according to the rent at which it would let; and he thought the hon. Gentleman had done great injustice to those Committees by the manner in which ho had spoken of and interpreted their work.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the question before the House was that of the inhabited house duty, and to that he should strictly confine himself in the few words he had to address to the House. Now, he must protest against the illustrations with which the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had endeavoured to support his argument. It was an example of a mode of reasoning which was not unknown in that House, and which some hon. Members had illustrated that night. Nothing was more common, there and elsewhere, to find a particular tax selected, and great declarations made about the supposed injustice and inequalities of that tax. For example, he might mention the income tax. There was not a Member in that House, perhaps, who could not speak, for a considerable time and with much power, in reference to the inequalities of the income tax. It was complained that the same rate was charged upon an income derived from labour as upon fixed incomes, and that no regard was paid to the duration of life in life incomes. In a similar manner, nothing was more common than to point out the inequality or injustice of some indirect tax, such as that on tea, beer, or spirits, in its application. But he (Mr. Courtney) protested altogether against this mode of argument. If they were going to examine into the justice or injustice of

  97
  any system of taxation that existed in this Kingdom, they must take the taxation as a whole, combine its several elements, and ascertain what was the total paid on the average by the rich man, by the middle-class man, and the poor man, and find out what was the proportion to the means in the several classes of society. Now, if there was any single tax on the system upon which our financial organization was founded, which would bear examination, by itself as a tax inherently just, it was the inhabited house duty. If that tax stood alone, as indeed it was intended to do, it would be, in his opinion, of so fair a character that they might look for an increase of it, rather than for its abolition. ["No, no!"] Could there be a better measure of the means of a man, taken roughly, than would be found in the valuation of the "house and appurtenances" which he selected for himself in which to live? Could they find any better test of the way in which a man's wealth increased or decreased than the style of house he occupied or indulged in? The next point raised was, that the actual assessment of great houses in the country did not correspond with the principle he had enunciated. He was quite willing to admit that it did not follow that principle, and that the tax was unequal now, owing to the working of the Parochial Assessment Act, just as it was 30 years ago, when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister denounced its inequality. At the same time, though the principle contained in the present law, of valuing a house by a calculation of its letting value from year to year, could not apply to houses in the country, it was difficult to see in what way a satisfactory change could be effected. He admitted then, at once, that as it was a question of what a house would let for from year to year, the letting value of such great houses as Chatsworth or Longleat would not represent anything like their real value. The hon. Member for the City of London could not test the opinion of the House on this subject, as regarded any practical steps being taken with regard to it; but the action of the Legislature had always been gradually to redress inequalities that were found to exist, and he would at least have had the satisfaction of obtaining from the Government an expression of their desire in
  98
  this case to remove inequalities, the existence of which, in some few cases, they fully recognized. He (Mr. Courtney) therefore hoped the hon. Member would not regard the discussion as fruitless.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, with regard to what had been said by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) as regarded Ireland, in that country the houses of labouring men who paid, perhaps, 1s. per week for rent, were assessed at about 5s.; while those of tenant farmers paid about £1 or £1 10 s. Of course, the valuation of Ireland was very low in all cases; but it was altogether incorrect to say that the lower classes paid almost as much as the higher.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, the interest which Irishmen took in this question was only that which they always took in matters affecting the rights and privileges of the English people, with a view to securing a similar sympathy from Englishmen in Irish affairs. It was refreshing to find that the subject was brought forward, not with a view to the imposition of new restrictions on the working classes, but in their interests, and in order to improve their material surroundings. It would be well if the Government, instead of devoting itself to repressive measures, would try to devise means of making the incidence of taxation less heavy on the poorer portions of the population. It was said that this matter did not apply to Ireland; but he contended that anything relating to the incidence of taxation was interesting to Ireland, because taxation fell more heavily upon small occupiers in towns than it did upon the inhabitants of large mansions. He cordially endorsed the observations of the hon. Member for the City of London.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had listened with very great interest to the speech of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney); but he was not quite satisfied with the conclusion to which his hon. Friend had arrived. His hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) that he ought to be satisfied with the debate, because the Prime Minister had been good enough to re-affirm an expression of opinion he had given some years ago in the same direction as the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of London.

  99
  He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was much impressed with the force of the observations of the Secretary to the Treasury, when he said that our system of taxation, as it bore on different individuals and different classes of the community, should be taken as a whole. He entirely endorsed that proposition; but he asked, at what point were they to begin the necessary reforms? Under what circumstances were private Members in that House able to combine, so as to make their representations of subjects of that kind effective in the counsels of the Treasury, and in the counsels of Her Majesty's Government? Now, upon that point, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury did not offer them any suggestion whatever. He believed it had been more than once suggested by experienced financiers that one of the best means of inquiring into the Estimates annually placed before the House would be to have a Committee specially charged with the duty of investigating them. But he thought there ought to be a second Committee of the House, to watch the money as it was paid in. There ought to be a Committee, to inquire and report to the House the methods by which the money was got in for the purposes of the expenditure; because, at present, the House had no opportunity afforded it of making the inquiry, seeing that the Public Business of the country was extending in every direction, while that of private Members was being curtailed. He would venture to offer one practical suggestion to the hon. Member for the City of London and others who took an interest in the question, and it was that they should not be content with debates of this description, where everybody agreed in what seemed to be a useless unanimity, because it led to no practical reform, but that the Government should be pressed to appoint a Committee to deal with questions of this nature. He hoped the hon. Member would give his suggestion the best consideration, and that when the subject was brought on at another time they might really be able to take some steps forward which would render them stronger and better able to cope with anomalies of this kind. No doubt, it was impossible to devise any tax, the incidence of which would not be at times unequal and unjust. He could not conceive any tax that would fall with perfectly just incidence on everybody who was bound to contribute towards
  100
  the support of the State according to his means. It was inevitable that there should be anomalies in taxation, however able a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Government there might be; but it should be their object to make these anomalies as few as possible, and from time to time to revise the principles upon which taxation was levied, in order that the burden might fall, as far as possible, justly and equally upon all classes of the community.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SETTING UP OF SUPPLY A SECOND TIME.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, ho rose to call the attention of the House to a Notice which stood upon the Paper in his name—namely, of his intention to move—
  "That if, on Friday evening, an Amendment be carried to the Question, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,' it shall be obligatory on Her Majesty's Government, before proceeding to any other Business, to move, 'That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,' and Mr. Speaker shall again propose the Question, 'That I do now leave the Chair.'"
  That Notice had now been on the Paper for a considerable time, and he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), if there was any possibility of the Leader of the House being shortly in his place? Because, if the right hon. Gentleman was not able to be present, it was not desirable for him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to occupy the attention of the House at any considerable length, inasmuch as it was in regard to the right hon. Gentleman and his policy, that he desired to ask the attention of the House. He certainly felt placed in a position of some embarrassment on the present occasion, and ho could not but express surprise at it, because ho had, not long ago, come into conflict with the right hon. Gentleman; and for the purpose of arriving at a decision as speedily as possible, and preventing any lengthened debate, he had taken the trouble to put the right hon. Gentleman in possession of what he considered to be the leading features of his case, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to express agreement with the Notice which stood in his name, or to give some assurance to the House that the rights of independent Members would not be obstructed in future. He

  101
  had no wish to talk against time, until the Prime Minister could be fetched from any place where he might now be enjoying himself; but, at the same time, it was necessary that he should direct the attention of the House to the subject. [At this point Mr. GLADSTONE entered the House.] As the right hon. Gentleman was now in his place, he would be able to proceed with the case, and, in as few words as possible, to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter. He did not wish to treat it in any controversial spirit; but he wished to be as Parliamentary and polite as he possibly could in the language he used, and he hoped that the heart of the right hon. Gentleman would be touched, and that, in the future, he would abstain from any interference with the rights and privileges of independent Members of the House. In the first place, he desired to call the attention of the House to the year 1861, when private Members had Thursday for their Notices, and, also, the right, on Fridays, of speaking upon the question of the adjournment of the House from Friday to Monday. That question afforded them an opportunity of addressing the House upon any subject they thought fit to bring under notice. It was thought by Lord Palmerston that these extensive privileges of independent Members considerably limited the time at the disposal of the Government, and, therefore, in the early part of 1861, a Committee was appointed to consider the subject, of which the late Sir James Graham was Chairman. That Committee recommended that Thursday should be given to the Government, and that on Friday nights, instead of the Motion for Adjournment, Supply should be put down as the first Order of the Day, so that private Members should have their full right of bringing forward Motions. He would cite a few passages to show what was the opinion of the Leader of the House and other experienced authorities at that time. Lord Palmerston, in giving his reasons for the arrangement, said—
  "The Select Committee thought there would be an advantage by going into Committee of Supply on Friday night, and that, too, without any encroachment on the time of hon. Members for bringing on their Motions in accordance with their Notices. It would be a security to private Members when Committee of Supply is fixed that those who are interested in carrying on the Business of the Government will be in
  102
  their places, and there would be less chance of private Members being defeated by the scantiness and thinness of the House. We do not propose to take from private Members anything which they now have, but simply to give the Government a reversion to any unexpended portion of time which may remain after the Notices of Motion have been disposed of. The suggestion was thrown out that there should be a limitation to those discussions upon going into Committee of Supply; but the Committee did not think it was expedient, and they proposed to leave unrestricted in the amplest extent the opportunities which Members now enjoy."
  Sir James Graham, the Chairman of the Select Committee, said—
  "If this recommendation of the Committee be adopted, and it be the invariable rule that on Friday the Speaker leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply, whereas now no Amendment on Friday can be put on the substituted Motion, an Amendment may be moved and the sense of the House taken upon it in addition to retaining every facility for calling attention to any special subject."
  Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, who was a Member of the House for a considerable number of years, and was an influential Gentleman sitting on the Opposition side, said—
  "The impression was that it was intended to deprive independent Members of certain facilities which they at present possessed; but he held that independent Members would be in a better condition than at present. The substitution of debates on going into Supply on Fridays would not in any way encroach upon the present privileges of private Members."
  These were the expectations and inducements held out to Members of the House for parting with Thursday, and giving up the privileges they enjoyed on Friday. The question was discussed at some length, and afterwards, on the proposal of Lord Palmerston, the Motion was carried. Personally, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) objected to the Motion, and he voted against it; but it was most distinctly understood by the House—and he remembered Sir Henry Layard, who was at that time a Member of the House, giving it as his reason for supporting it—that independent Members would have their full rights on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, el would be really better off than they were at that time. And so matters went on for 10 years; and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) believed, during those 10 years, there were very few occasions when the Committee of Supply was not revived by the Government. However, in 1871, the Government de-

  103
  clined, on one occasion, to revive Supply, and the question came on for discussion on the 6th of May in that year. The matter was mentioned a month or six weeks ago, and a Report was read from Hansard of the debate which took place at that time; but it was not exactly a full representation of what had taken place. He (Mr. Cavendish Ben-thick) had preserved his own private notes of the debate, and they were confirmed from other sources of information, and it would be soon that Mr. Speaker Denison had decided that there was an obligation on the part of the Government on Fridays to re-instate the Order for going into Supply. He would ask the attention of the House while he read a short report of the debate, which was a correct version of what oocurred. The question arose upon a matter raised by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence). On that occasion, on the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," a Resolution had been proposed by the present Common Serjeant of the City of London (Sir Thomas Charley), and the Motion being assented to by the Government, the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of London stood next on the Paper. It was a Motion referring to the Duchy of Lancaster; but the Government declined to revive Supply, and the hon. Member for the City of London failing to exhibit the usual energy which characterized him, remained silent in his place. Therefore, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) felt himself obliged to rise, and he said—
  "Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: A compact was entered into in 1860 between the Government and the independent Members that on Fridays, as soon as an Amendment to a Motion for Supply was carried, the Government were bound to revive the Motion. If that were done the hon. Member for the City of London would be at liberty to proceed with his Motion, and subsequently any hon. Member could address the House upon the ordinary Question that the Speaker leave the Chair. He understood that on a previous Friday the Premier raised a doubt as to whether the Government were under an obligation to revive the Motion; but when, in 1860, the independent Members of the House gave up Thursday to the Government, it was understood that they should have the right of full discussion on Friday evening on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair. The Government ought not to attempt to limit the rights of independent Members; and he, therefore, thought it was the duty of the Government to make the Motion, in which case the hon. Member for the City of London would be a liberty to proceed.
  104
  "Mr. SPEAKER: The original Question was that I now leave the Chair, since which a Select Committee has been appointed; and the question of the hon. Member for Whitehaven is whether, under these circumstances, the Committee of Supply could be re-instated? That is the question to which the attention of the Government is drawn.
  "Mr. GLADSTONE: Upon that point of Order I shall be glad to take the instruction of those who are competent to give it. I am not aware of that about which the hon. Member for White-haven seems so very confident—namely, that in the event of the failure of the original Motion, That Mr. Speaker leave the Chair,' it is obligatory on the part of the Government to renew it. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: On Fridays.] I am not sure either that if the Government do now renew it, it is within the power of any hon. Member to do so. As to that, I apprehend the hon. Member for Whitehaven is entirely in the wrong. I think it is not competent for any hon. Member to renew that question. With respect to the obligation on the part of the Government to renew it, that is going beyond my knowledge; but if it be a matter of good faith on the part of the Government to renew the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, of course, I am quite willing to act upon that.
  "Mr. SPEAKER: The original Question was that I now leave the Chair, since which it has been moved that a Select Committee should be appointed. That Amendment being adopted, it supersedes the Question that I leave the Chair. Then, certainly, it is a course which has been followed on previous occasions, that under such circumstances the Government would revive the Motion for the Committee of Supply.
  "The Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford was then put, and agreed to.
  "There was then a pause for a short time, followed by cries of Move!'
  "Mr. GLADSTONE rose and said: My hon. Friend would relieve me very much if ho would withdraw that portion of his Motion which relates to the Duchy of Lancaster.
  "Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE: I will withdraw that part of the Motion.
  "Mr. GLADSTONE: Then, if my hon. Friend withdraws that part of his Motion, I will move that the House immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply."
  MR. GLADSTONEasked where the report the right hon. and learned Member was quoting was to be found
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was giving his own recollection of what occurred, and he was quite clear upon the subject. To sum up what he had already said, the Government declined to set up Supply upon an Amendment being carried. He had made an appeal to them to renew the Motion for Supply. The right hon. Gentleman, first of all, said there was no obligation on the part of the Government to revive Supply; and then, that they could not do so; whereupon Mr. Speaker Denison, on being appealed to, said that—

  105
  "Certainly it was a course which had boon followed on previous occasions—that, under such circumstances, the Government should revive the Motion for the Committee of Supply."
  Well, what were the circumstances and previous occasions? Why, that the day was Friday, and therefore the Motion for going into Committee of Supply was revived, according to the rule which was followed for a long series of years, after the speech of Lord Palmerston and the recommendation of the Committee. If it had not been so, how could Lord Palmerston have said that it was his intention on Fridays to leave unrestricted to the amplest extent the opportunities which private Members then enjoyed? That remark afforded a clear indication of what was in the mind of Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston either meant what he said, or he did not mean what he said. If he did mean what he said, an expectation was held out to independent Members of the House that they should have the power of moving Amendments, and also of carrying on a desultory discussion; and a consideration was offered to thorn for surrendering their privileges. Nothing had happened since to abrogate those privileges, or to get rid of the expectations held out on that occasion by Lord Palmerston. These were the circumstances referred to by Mr. Speaker Denison and his ruling. The hardships which the new practice might inflict upon private Members were obvious. It was clear that, in times of pressure, the Government might find it an instrument in their hands which they would be able to use to the great detriment of free discussion in the House, and in violation of the rights of independent Members. He believed it was not competent for him to move his Notice as an Amendment, and he was glad of it, because he should have been sorry in a thin House, and at that hour of the night, that the House should, by an adverse vote, arrive at a Resolution which would appear to be detrimental to the Privileges of the House. All he did now was to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would answer the observations he had made in a conciliatory spirit, in order to show that he was not disposed to press any further limitations which might be injurious to the interests of private Members.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there were several points raised in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). In regard to some of them, he was inclined to agree; while, in respect of others, he differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not desirable for the House to come to a vote on a Motion of this kind; and, therefore, it was satisfactory to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in a position to move it. As to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, lie thought he was mistaken in attempting to derive from the declaration of Lord Palmerston any expression of opinion whatever bearing upon the present point. The point the House were discussing at that time was whether there should be a limitation of the subjects which might be brought forward on the Order of the Day for going into Supply; and, upon that point, Lord Palmerston stated that the Committee were opposed to any limitation. The real question in the particular case which had been referred to was whether, when the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply had been decided by the carrying of an adverse Amendment, the Government were bound to set up Supply again, and that question formed no part of the previous discussion at all. He did not quite understand what amount of authority the notes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had; but lie certainly differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the construction he had placed upon them. He understood they were notes taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, they were notes corrected by himself.
  MR. GLADSTONE: And not to be found in Hansard?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKNo. He had expressly stated they were not to be found in Hansard.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, under the circumstances, he did not know what degree of authority the notes were entitled to claim; but he entirely differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the construction he put upon them. The case arose on a particular occasion, when the Order for going into Committee of Supply having been put aside by the carrying of an adverse

  107
  Amendment, a question was raised, not whether Supply should be, but whether it could be, set up again? An appeal was made to the Speaker on the subject, and Lord Ossington, who was then Speaker (as Mr. Denison), pointed out what had been the mode of procedure on previous occasions; but he did not say that it had been the invariable rule on all previous occasions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the ruling of the present Speaker was in conflict with that of Lord Ossington, the present Speaker having stated that there was no obligation on the part of the present Government to renew the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. The right hon. and learned Gentleman contended that that ruling was contrary to the usage of the House, and contrary to the dictum of Lord Ossington; but, in his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion, there was no discrepancy whatever between the ruling of the two Speakers, and the dictum of Lord Ossington did not, in the slightest degree, conflict with the ruling given a short time ago by the present Speaker. Nor was there, in truth, any practical difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and himself; because they both agreed in substance that Friday evening was to be at the disposal of private and independent Members. He should, however, have objected to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the ground, among other things, that much depended upon the hour of the evening and the circumstances of the case. It might be a very late hour in the evening, or 1 o'clock in the morning, when an adverse Motion was carried; and it was not obligatory, nor would it be convenient, as a general rule, that a Motion for going into Committee of Supply should in such a case be renewed. That was a point upon which he differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but, as regarded the proposition that in ordinary circumstances, where it was inconvenient to the House, or where urgent Public Business did not require a different course to be pursued, it would undoubtedly be a very rare case where the Order for going into Committee of Supply was not set up again. There was one point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not notice, and that was the expectation of Lord Palmerston, when the arrangement was made, that there would be an appreciable
  108
  residue of the time on Fridays available for the Business of the Government. He (Mr. Gladstone) recollected quite well, in 1866, calculating the time at the disposal of the Government for Government Business, and he confined himself to two days in the week, Monday and Thursday; but Lord Derby, who then held a prominent position on the other side of the House, pointed out and argued justly that he had forgotten to take notice of the fact that the Government were the residuary legatees of Friday night. That was the view which the Government had always taken of the matter, and the only case in which ho could recollect a dispute having arisen was when they had reached the hour of 11 o'clock, and the greater part of the evening had been passed in discussing Motions upon going into Committee of Supply.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not suppose it was necessary, under the circumstances, that he should enter very largely into the question which had been raised by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). He must say, however, that he agreed to some extent in his contention. He thought that the intention of the Rule which was made in regard to taking Supply on Fridays was that an opportunity should be given to Members of the House to bring forward, in the free manner they were in the habit of doing, on the Motion for Adjournment from Friday until Monday, such subjects which they thought ought to be discussed. He thought it was entirely in accordance with the principle of that Rule that the Government, at all events in ordinary circumstances, should set up Supply again on such occasions as those which his right hon. and learned Friend contemplated. He did not understand, from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that he really differed from that view of the case. If the House were now in a position to come to a vote on the subject, he should, of course, have considered it necessary to say a few words more in order to support his vote; but they were not in that position. They were simply engaged in an academic discussion; he thought the effect of it would be to express, on the part of the House, an opinion that the Rule which should be followed should be of the character described by his right hon. and learned Friend, although it could not be made absolute.

  EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    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. DILKE: He 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. SPEAKER: The 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. GLADSTONE: I 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.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLasked what was the exact time that the telegram was sent?
    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. GLADSTONE: I never said that.
    MR. WARTON: Oh!
    MR. GLADSTONE: That 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. GLADSTONE: I 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. DILKE: The 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 WOLFF: Why was not the telegram sent out at once?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It 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 WOLFF: You have a largo staff of resident clerks to do it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I 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 WOLFF: I did not say what the right hon. Baronet imputes to me.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I 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. GLADSTONE: After 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 WORMS: What 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. GLADSTONE: My 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.

    REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 202.]
    (Dr. Lyons, Mr. Maurice Brooks, Mr. Findlater)
    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Amendments made.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to know if the Government would object to having the Bill re-printed? While the Irish Members assented to the principle of the measure, they would like to see what Amendments had been made in it before the Report stage was disposed of.
    MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, that it was hardly worth while going to the expense of having the Bill re-printed. The Amendments had only been for the purpose of correcting an obvious oversight, by which Christmas Day had been left out of the list of holidays which the Bill was to give the clerks of the Irish Registry of Deeds Office.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

    DRAINAGE (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. TREVELYAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 220.]

    YORKSHIRE REGISTER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. PEASE, Bill to amend the Yorkshire Register Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEASE, Mr. NORWOOD, and Mr. BARRAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 221.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next