EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI.

HC Deb 11 June 1883 vol 280 cc229-80

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, and perhaps I may be allowed, at the same time, to make a personal explanation. On Friday I, in the House, stated that certain matters had been laid before Lord Dufferin in Egypt, and he did not consider himself at liberty to incur the responsibility of going into them. The Prime Minister, without ascribing exact falsification to me, implied something very near it. I now wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Times to-day from Mr. Eve, solicitor to Arabi Pasha, in which occurs the following passage:— A portion of this evidence was offered before the close of the trial of Arabi to Lord Dufferin for his private information. Upon reference to a letter now before me, I find the circumstances of the communication most distinctly stated as follows:—'First, it was offered to his Lordship to bring witnesses to prove that Omar Lufti had ordered Suleiman Sami to bring his regiment down unharmed, and that Suleiman had refused to be made a fool of, seeing well the construction that would be put upon it; also that, perceiving what would be said if he stayed away while massacre was going on, after an hour's delay he came with his troops in arms in distinct contradiction to Omar Lufti's orders, and quelled the riots; secondly, it was offered to bring the man who had received the order and taken it to Suleiman Sami; and, thirdly, to bring another who had heard Omar Lufti in the streets exhorting the massacrers to strike home on the heads of the Christians, and not to spare.' The letter adds— Lord Dufferin said it was not his business to prosecute Omar Lufti. I wish to ask also, whether, in view of such a statement, the Prime Minister still adheres to the allegation made by him on Friday last, that— As far as Lord Dufferin's recollection and knowledge went, he entirely declined to recognize one jot or tittle of the statement as entitled in the slighest degree to credit. I also wish to know whether the Prime Minister, in view of his statement on Friday last— That it was the duty of the Government to investigate any definite charge which was left in their hands, and that they would make the best examination in their power, intends to make such inquiry into the "tremendous charge" make against the Khedive of Egypt of having been concerned in the instigation of the massacres of June 11 at Alexandria, and, if so, when he will state in what manner Her Majesty's Government intend to carry out this duty?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, with regard to the second of these charges, the noble Lord has correctly stated that I said that it would be the duty of the Government to investigate any definite matter or charge which might be left in their hands, and that we should make the best examination of such a charge in our power. I am bound to say, however, that, on perusing the speech of the noble Lord, I find very little definite matter in it; and, before proceeding to say anything upon it, I wish very much to know whether that speech, or any particular report of that speech, is the basis upon which he proposes to found his Question? The matter is a very serious one, and a Member making a charge of this kind incurs an immense responsibility. But we should not like to make investigation without knowing that we were dealing with the subject-matter with which the noble Lord desired that we should deal.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I shall be perfectly prepared to place all the materials which are in the possession of myself and others in the hands of the Prime Minister, in order that he may judge of their nature, if he will only tell me the character of the tribunal which he purposes shall make the Inquiry?

MR. GLADSTONE

The tribunal, in the first instance, must be the Government itself. It would be our duty to make the examination in the first instance; but it would be a prelimary and not a definite examination, and there would be an appeal to this House in case we should discharge our duty in an unsatisfactory manner. With regard to the first Question of the noble Lord, I think the misunderstanding that has arisen between us is this. The Question which the noble Lord puts relates entirely, if I understand it aright, to the evidence brought forward against a certain personage named Omar Lufti.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Which would be brought against him?

MR. GLADSTONE

The statement of the noble Lord to which I desired to apply the negative and the repudiation of Lord Dufferin was a statement which, as we understood—and I think the noble Lord probably meant it—applied to the Khedive.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Acting through Omar Lufti.

MR. GLADSTONE

There is no proof of any connection whatever between Omar Lufti and the Khedive in this question. That would be my first answer. Now, I am bound to say, viewing the nature of the case, that the House takes a very humane interest in every question of life and death, and I fully recognize the title of the House to be informed upon all that the Government have done in regard to such a question. The course which I propose to take at present for the information of the House is this—I propose to read two telegrams from Egypt which touch the vital parts of the case of Suleiman Sami; I propose then to read a letter or despatch which Lord Dufferin has addressed to Earl Granville, in which he notices the case of Omar Lufti. These Papers will be laid on the Table as soon as possible, together with some germane Papers. When I have read the despatch hon. Members will have the most material parts of the case before them, and will be able to found upon it either Questions or discussion. This is a despatch from Sir Edward Malet, dated June 9 (Saturday)— Suleiman Sami was executed this morning. The evidence against him established clearly that the burning of Alexandria was done by his orders, in disobedience to orders received by him from Arabi Pasha. In thus abstaining from interference I have been guided by the principles laid down in Lord Dufferin's despatch (No. 138), in which Her Majesty's Government concurred, and by your Lordship's despatch to me (No. 304) of the 8th of September, saying that Her Majesty's Government would not take any steps to prevent execution in cases in which participation in the burning of Alexandria was proved. Sir Edward Malet has also sent another short telegram, saying— I have received the following telegram from Major Macdonald, dated yesterday. Then he gives the body of Major Macdonald's telegram, which runs as follows:— I consider that the charges against Suleiman Sami were proved, and that the sentence was a just one.'

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

On what date did the Government receive the despatch?

MR. GLADSTONE

It is addressed to Lord Granville to day. Now this is the despatch addressed to Lord Granville by Lord Dufferin— My Lord, —As it has been suggested in Parliament that the Khedive of Egypt was the author of the massacres at Alexandria on 11th June last year, and as it has been publicly stated that I hurried the trial of Arabi Pasha to a premature conclusion, lest, were it to have been prolonged, revelations might have been made injurious to the character of His Highness, I beg to say that such a supposition is quite erroneous. It is perfectly true that during the course of some preliminary conversations I had with Mr. Broadley in regard to disputed points of procedure between himself and the Egyptian Public Prosecutor, that gentleman occasionally hinted, in ominous but vague language, that in the interests of his clients he would be compelled to make very damnatory disclosures in regard to a number of eminent Egyptian personages. To these observations, which were more than once repeated, I invariably replied, as I am sure Mr. Broadley will himself testify, that such a result would be a matter of indifference both to myself and to Her Majesty's Government, who could have no possible desire to shield anyone to whom such a dreadful crime as murder could be brought home. Nor did I ever utter a word to discourage Mr. Broadley from executing his intentions. It is true I did not regard these minatory suggestions as serious—at all events, so far as the Khedive was concerned; but even had I attached more importance to them, I should not have held different language. It was during the course of one of these conversations that Mr. Broadley said to me that in strict justice it was Lufti Pasha, and not Arabi, who ought to be in the dock, and that he could mention facts to support this assertion. The circumstances which he referred to did not, however, appear to me to make out a case against Lufti which could be seriously sustained, and if, as Mr. Eve has asserted in his letter to The Times of to-day, I replied during the course of what was expressly a privileged,' and therefore unguarded, conversation, that it was not my business to prosecute the Minister of War,' I can only congratulate myself upon having made so sensible a reply. The circumstances under which the trial of Arabi was concluded I have already related to your Lordship in my previous despatches, and especially in the despatch of the 5th instant. The narrative speaks for itself and disposes of the theory that I did anything to hush up the proceedings. Only one other person, and that an English gentleman, in some degree professionally connected with the Arabi interest, ever submitted to me a suggestion that the Alexandria massacres could be traced to the agency of His Highness the Khedive; but the accusation was not supported or substantiated by any tangible fact or circumstance which could bring conviction to a reasonable mind, especially when account was taken of the avowed sentiments of my interlocutor. Nor during the whole of my stay in Egypt was a tittle of evidence brought to my notice which would in the faintest degree have authorized so strange an allegation. After the conversation in question, however, I thought it worth while to sound a number of trustworthy and unprejudiced persons, both European and Native, on the point, and I especially discussed the matter with Sir Charles Wilson. As I have already stated, Sir Charles Wilson's sympathies were absolutely impartial. In fact, he was considered by the Egyptian Government to have taken a far too indulgent view of the Arabi movement. Sir Charles Wilson ridiculed the idea of the Khedive's complicity in the massacres, as I am bound to say did every other person to whom I mentioned the subject. Under the foregoing circumstances I have never been able to come to any other conclusion than that the accusation in question was one of those thousand baseless calumnies which teem from Egyptian soil, for whose origin there is no accounting, and which, being unsupported by any substantial or tangible evidence, are the more difficult to refute. Then comes a postcript— With regard to Mr. Eve's statement as to the witnesses to whom the safe-conduct was to be given, I have no recollection of the circumstance to which he refers. Had Mr. Broadley required a safe-conduct for any of his witnesses, he would have made me an official demand in writing to that effect, and, as a matter of course, I should have requested the Egyptian Government to comply with his desire. The two important questions are the execution that has lately taken place, and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in regard to it, and the question which, I deeply regret to say, has been raised by the noble Lord with regard to the Khedive of Egypt. But I hope we may be allowed to place these documents in the hands of Members; and I think it would be better that I should make no collateral or subsidiary statements, because the main points raised are, I think, fully dealt with in the Papers I have read.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, I do not propose to enter into the questions raised by the Papers we have heard read. But with regard to the execution of Suleiman Sami, the House will expect to have some information as to the course the Government have taken. Therefore, I wish to ask a Question of which I have given Notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Will he undertake to communicate to the House the several telegrams that have passed between the British Government and their Representatives in Egypt, or between the British and Egyptian Governments, on the subject of Suleiman Sami's execution? In asking for the telegrams that have passed, I wish to have the dates, not only of the days on which they were despatched, but the hours. I hope the Government will also be good enough to make the proper correction for the difference of time between this meridian and that of Egypt. There is another question; reference has been made to a telegram on Saturday from Major Macdonald. I wish to know what is the position he holds, and by whose authority he is acting?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, the right hon. Gentleman very kindly gave him Notice two hours ago of his intention to ask for the production of these telegrams; and he might mention that these telegrams, with the dates and hours corrected in the manner asked for, would, of course, form a portion of those Papers mentioned by the Prime Minister, which would be presented to the House with the least possible delay. He thought that it would be better for the House to have full details presented at once rather than piecemeal information. With regard to Major Macdonald's position, he did not think he could give a better description of it than by saying that when Sir Charles Wilson left Egypt, after rendering most valuable services, Major Macdonald was appointed to watch the trials on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and now he was performing the duties previously performed by Sir Charles Wilson.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

What regiment does he belong to?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

A Highland regiment.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would have any objection to producing the text of the telegram sent at 3 o'clock on Friday to Sir Edward Malet; also, whether, among the fresh evidence that Suleiman Sami wanted to call was that of Arabi Pasha; and, if so, why Her Majesty's Government, considering the nature of the evidence upon which Suleiman Sami's fate depended, did not delay his execution until a Commission could be sent to obtain Arabi's evidence?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, that neither he nor the President of the Local Government Board had stated that a telegram was sent at 3 o'clock on Friday. What he said was that a telegram was sent subsequently to the meeting of the House, and not previously. With regard to the other Question, he was not in a position to inform the House whether among the fresh evidence required by Suleiman Sami was that of Arabi Pasha.

MR. M'COAN

asked the noble Lord, Whether his attention had been drawn to the letter from Mr. Mark Napier in The Times of that morning, and whether the course there mentioned with regard to the trial of prisoners had been pursued in the case of Suleiman Sami?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, his attention had been drawn to Mr. Mark Napier's letter. He might mention that the letter alleged that he had been entirely wrong in stating that the procedure followed was that of the French Code, rather than that with which they were more familiar in this country. There were six heads in Mr. Mark Napier's letter. Two of those statements distinctly proved that he was right, and Mr. Mark Napier was wrong, for Mr. Mark Napier mentioned certain facts which were distinct features of the French, and not of the English procedure. As to the remaining heads, he was not in a position to state whether Mr. Mark Napier was correct as to the facts, but his own impression was that he was not correct. He was sorry to have to differ from Mr. Mark Napier, and he must, in justice to himself, mention that when Mr. Mark Napier called upon him at the Foreign Office he had a most interesting conversation with him, in the course of which Mr. Mark Napier frankly and candidly admitted that he had not the slightest acquaintance with the French procedure.

MR. BOURKE

asked whether the course mentioned in Mr. Mark Napier's letter as having been pursued was in accordance with the French procedure?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, that he was unable to speak with authority upon the French procedure. He was only quoting from information supplied to him by gentlemen who were cognizant with it. He believed he was right in stating that at the French "instruction" evidence was taken, and that witnesses were examined and cross-examined upon it at the final trial.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Although the Government have promised to lay the Papers on the Table, yet, with reference to one portion of the Question, I do not think it is desirable or necessary for the House to wait until the Papers are presented—I mean the Question with reference to the course taken as to the execution of Suleiman Sami. I propose to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the action of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the recent Trial and Execution of Suleiman Sami at Alexandria.

The leave of the House having been given:—

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said: Sir, I understand it to be the feeling of the House that it was desirable that the earliest opportunity should be taken to ascertain precisely how we stand in regard to a matter of great importance. I do not desire to go at any length into this question, but I will remind the House of what took place on Friday. The House met at 2 o'clock, and a Question was put to the Government with reference to the statement that Suleiman Sami had been condemned to death. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not at the moment in the House, and the Prime Minister apparently was not in possession of the information desired with regard to the matter. The noble Lord subsequently came down to the House, and we heard from him a very clear explanation of what had taken place at the Foreign Office. As far as I understand, the first communication that reached the Foreign Office on the subject of the conviction and sentence was on Thursday; some communication had taken place, and the matter had not been brought under Lord Granville's notice till some time on Friday. The noble Lord spoke of it, as "the first thing on Friday morning." We want definite information on a matter upon which so very much turns. However, according to the noble Lord's statement some time prior to the meeting of the House at 2 o'clock the matter had been under Lord Granville's consideration, and he appears to have come to the conclusion to make some inquiry. After discussion took place on the subject, he made a communication which led to some communication in return. We want to know the nature of these communications. What was the telegram sent? It would not be difficult for the noble Lord to give us that telegram, and the other communications, with the exact time and hour at which they took place. All that of which I have spoken occurred during the Morning Sitting. When the House met in the evening further Questions were put, and we were left in a position of some uncertainty as to whether instructions were sent to our Representatives in Egypt to take steps to stay the execution until the receipt of further instructions. Was any second telegram sent, and at what time, and what answer, if any, was received? I wish also to have some clear and distinct information as to Major Macdonald's position in the matter. His position clearly was of very considerable importance in relation to Her Majesty's Government. This was not a case of an ordinary judicial transaction in Egypt; it was not a case in which we should hold aloof and allow the Egyptian tribunals to act according to their own judgment; but, having arisen out of the transactions of last year, and being so closely connected with the circumstances in which we occupied the position we now hold in Egypt, it was a matter on which it was our right and our duty to make inquiries and to see that right was being done. I want to know what authority and functions Major Macdonald was to exercise in this case. Her Majesty's Government themselves acknowledged a certain responsibility by the very fact of the instructions given to Major Macdonald. I am anxious to know whether we were right on Friday in supposing that the Government had put themselves into communication with their Representatives in time to ascertain before the prisoner was actually executed whether there was a case for the interposition of Her Majesty's Government, and also whether there was time for that interposition if there was occasion for it. There ought not to be a moment's doubt left on the mind of the House or of the country as to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government, because if, on the one hand, they did nothing, then the House has a right to complain of the breach of the understanding which seemed to be arrived at on Friday; and, on the other hand, if they made representations, and those representations were disregarded, then a serious state of things has arisen. It is necessary that we should have at once, without waiting for Papers, clear explanations on these points; and if the noble Lord would tell us at what hour the telegrams were sent, and what telegrams were sent, we should have more means of forming a judgment than we have at present. I therefore, for the purpose of getting an answer, beg to move the Adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

I think, Sir, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly reasonable one, and I shall proceed to answer his Questions at once. I was under the impression that the most important of these telegrams having been read by the Prime Minister it was hardly necessary to produce the short telegram of Lord Granville, to which Major Macdonald's telegram was a reply. I will, however, at once produce the telegram. But I must entirely demur to the account of what took place as to what was said on Friday evening by the right hon. Gentleman. It is of great importance to make that point clear. Her Majesty's Government had no doubt whatever, from the information that reached them, that the sentence which was to be executed upon Suleiman Sami was a fair and just one; because they knew that they had on the spot a trusted and trustworthy agent, who had not sent to them any information such as his instructions would have obliged him to send if he had thought that a great act of injustice—nothing less than a judicial murder—was about to be perpetrated. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government recognized that there had appeared in many newspapers statements, some of which they believed to be entirely incorrect in regard to that matter, which were producing a disturbing effect on the minds of the public generally and on Members of this House, who were anxious that justice, wherever English influence prevailed, should be tempered with mercy. That being so, the President of the Local Government Board on Friday stated that the Government had decided to put themselves in possession of Major Macdonald's opinion, so as to be able to fortify themselves should any question be raised, not only by the negative argument of Major Macdonald's silence, but by his positive statement and affirmation on the question. As was stated by the President of the Local Government Board, Lord Granville determined, on Thursday evening and on Friday morning on consultation with those whom he thought it well to consult on the matter, on communicating with Sir Edward Malet on the subject. That decision having been arrived at, early at the Morning Sitting on Friday certain Questions were put without Notice. I was not in my place at the time—there being no Foreign Office Question on the Paper—but I was communicated with, and I came down to the House just as the discussion was over. The right hon. Gentleman gave me an opportunity of answering his Question shortly before 7 o'clock, and I stated that the Government had determined to have those trials carefully watched by a British officer, assisted by gentleman specially conversant with the Turkish and Arabic languages. Major Macdonald was not himself acquainted with Turkish and Arabic; but Mr. Maccullagh and Mr. Cameron were not only conversant with those languages, but many members of the Court Martial were well acquainted with French, Italian, and also English. Sir Charles Wilson has told me that the President of the Courts Martial held while he was there, spoke English almost as well as an Englishman. But on all the Courts Martial, as the Papers presented will show, the utmost care had been taken that persons well qualified by their knowledge of the country and of the languages should form the tribunals to which those important issues of life and death were intrusted. I would remind the House that on that particular tribunal sat a distinguished Englishman (Morris Bey) and a distinguished Italian (Frederigo Bey). That being so, Sir, Lord Granville, as I have just said, de- termined to inform himself of the facts so as to be able at the earliest date to give information in either House of Parliament, should any Question be asked. I have been asked whether the telegram was sent from the Foreign Office previous or subsequent to the meeting of the House at the Morning Sitting on Friday. In answer I have to say that although the determination had been arrived at previous to the meeting of the House, the actual telegram did not go until some hours after. We never said anything about the telegram having been sent at 3 o'clock. The point raised was whether the decision to send the telegram had been arrived at previous or subsequent to the meeting of the House. As I have stated, the decision was arrived at before the meeting of the House, but the actual telegram was not sent until after. I communicated to the Secretary of State what had occurred in the House, and the first telegram was sent immediately on my return to the Foreign Office. It was sent at 7 o'clock on Friday evening. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to state what hour it would be in Egypt, and I am informed by those who are competent to speak on the point that we ought to allow two hours. That would bring the time to six minutes past 9 o'clock. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: When would it get there?] I think if I said in 21/2 or 3 hours I should be accurate. The first telegram was couched in those words — "Will the sentence against Suleiman Sami be carried into effect?" The second telegram was sent at a quarter past 8 P.M. It has already been read to the House. It was as follows:— Has Macdonald any doubt as to the justice of the sentence of death passed on Suleiman Sami Is the date of execution fixed? They were both sent to Sir Edward Malet. Then, Sir, we received the answer from Sir Edward Malet which has been already read to the House, dated June 11. The third telegram, which I have already read to the House, said that the evidence against Suleiman Sami established the fact that he was implicated in the burning of Alexandria and that he had acted contrary to his orders. Then there was a later telegram, which has just been received, which states that Major Macdonald considered the charges against Suleiman Semi proved and the sentence a just one. These are the facts; and what I wish to impress upon the House is that the Government did not send telegrams with a view to stopping the execution, because it is highly improbable that, if they wished to do so—which they did not—that course would have been the one likely to accomplish that end; but they were sent with the view of satisfying themselves positively that Major Macdonald was satisfied, so as to be able to say so in the House. The position of Her Majesty's Government was, that having taken steps, as they considered. sufficient to secure a fair and impartial trial, they did not think that in the complete silence of their adviser, Major Macdonald, there was any reason for their departing from the ordinary course, and not allowing justice to proceed in the case of Suleiman Sami, as in the case of other prisoners who had gone to their account for crimes committed—not in connection with the burning of Alexandria—for I believe I am right in saying this execution is the first one on that charge—but in connection with those other painful and terrible events which have attracted universal attention. I hope the House will see that Her Majesty's Government, in adopting that course, have acted in accordance with the known facts, and that they have been fully justified by the result; because they not only had the argument from the silence of Major Macdonald, but from absolute statements, confirmed, as I can prove them to have been, by all the probabilities of the situation, and all the facts, that Suleiman Semi, when he met his fate, deserved that fate, and that a bad and wicked man has gone to his account with the guilt of crimes upon him which have been execrated all over the civilized world.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought the House had reason to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for giving them an opportunity for arriving at some enlightenment as regarded this terrible business of June 9. But he thought the House would agree with him when he said that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the statement made by the noble Lord. It was unsatisfactory, because, with all its ability and ingenuity, the Government had a case which it was impossible to defend. The noble Lord had said that the Government never had any doubt as to the justice of the proceedings of the trial and conviction of the prisoner. That statement was rendered absolutely absurd and ridiculous by the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government on Friday. If they never had a doubt, why did they telegraph to Sir Edward Malet to make inquiry? If the Government never had a doubt, the Prime Minister never had a doubt. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Why, then, was the right hon. Gentleman unable, at 2 o'clock on Friday night, to give the House any information on the subject? But the case appeared now to be much worse, because they seemed on Friday to have sent two telegrams which he could only characterize as panic-stricken. The first was to Sir Edward Malet, asking what day was fixed for the execution.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, this showed the inconvenience of discussing Papers which had not been presented. The words were, "Will the sentence on Suleiman Semi be carried into effect?"

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that made it even worse, when they remembered that the Government had no doubt as to the justice of the trial. Then they had a second telegram which was sent to ascertain Major Macdonald's opinion on the trial. The first telegram was sent at 7 o'clock, and the other an hour later, on Friday. But they had been told that when Lord Granville saw the statement in The Times that Suleiman was condemned, he arrived at the decision that it was better to make inquiry. The President of the Local Government Board said that the delay in making the inquiry was due to the fact that it took a long time to put the telegram into cypher.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he merely suggested it as a possible reason because he was pressed to give names. Not being a Member of the Foreign Office, he could not know what were the circumstances which produced the delay. All that he said he knew was that a determination to inquire into matters of fact had been arrived at on Thursday night.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Thursday night?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he had stated that, and he had further said that Lord Granville had come to the determination after consultation with Lord Dufferin.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, then it was not to be wondered at that our foreign policy sometimes led to disaster. It seemed that on Thursday night they arrived at a decision to make inquiries, and yet, although this was a matter of life and death, no inquiry was sent till 7 o'clock on the following day. And, besides, no reply was received or could be received until Suleiman had been hanged. These were circumstances which, however the Government might attempt to brazen them out, would be considered by the country in a very serious manner. He was perfectly well aware that it was very convenient to the ruling authorities that he should be hanged. He should ask the House to consider for a moment the telegram which appeared in The Times on the 7th instant with reference to the trial of this unfortunate man. The Times Correspondent at Alexandria had watched these trials with great care. The Government had great confidence in him because he had been a firm and strong supporter of the Government of Egypt and of the English connection with it. He wrote as follows:— The preliminary inquiry into the case of Suleiman Sami, who is accused of burning Alexandria, was conducted, according to the testimony of Major Macdonald, with perfect impartiality, and resulted in conclusive evidence of the prisoner's guilt. The prisoner did not deny the accusation, but alleged that he acted under the superior orders of Arabi. His four witnesses called to support this theory of defence gave contradictory evidence. The Commission considered that the defence was not proved, and committed him and his subordinate officers for trial by Court Martial. Sixteen days were allowed for the preparation of the defence. At the end of that period the prisoner's counsel threw up his brief. A second counsel who was engaged asked for 14 days to be allowed him, and eight were granted. Before he went further, he wanted to recall a statement made by the Prime Minister before Whitsuntide as to the manner in which these trials were to be conducted. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had stated that the prisoner was not present while the witnesses were examined, nor when they were cross-examined. The Prime Minister gave him a direct contradiction on these points, but he added that— This was to be followed by the real trial, in which the evidence would be sifted, the wit- nesses cross-examined, and their evidence rebutted. He should agree with the noble Lord"— that was an extraordinary thing— if the preliminary proceeding concluded the whole matter, and if it were not to be followed by the real trial. It was not the first time the subject had engaged his attention. Immediately there was reason to believe that suspicion existed, Earl Granville took pains to inquire and ascertain the facts. The substantial object to be aimed at was that justice should be done. It was not necessary, and it would be highly inexpedient, to quash all that had been done; but it was necessary that the information that had been accumulated should be liable to be sifted, examined, rebutted, and contradicted. In this instance a pledge had been given that counsel should be employed; he understood that to mean the bringing out of all the facts of the case without fear or favour; and with that assurance he hoped the House would be satisfied.

MR. GLADSTONE

That was as to the trial of Khandeel.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

contended that the pledge alluded to the case of Suleiman Sami and other political prisoners charged with him. Why did you appoint Major Macdonald to watch the case if you did not care about Suleiman Sami?

MR. SPEAKER

I must call on the noble Lord to address himself to the Chair.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

begged to apologize, but he must repeat the question. Nothing could be more unworthy of the Prime Minister, and it would be the last thing he should attribute to him, that he should wriggle out of the matter by saying the pledge he had given only applied to the case of Khandeel. Now, let them read The Times' Correspondent as to the way in which the Government kept their pledges— The proceedings having commenced, the counsel desired to re-open the entire question, to re-examine all the witnesses, and to summon fresh ones. The Court thereupon called on the Public Prosecutor, who demanded the condemnation of the accused upon the report of the Commission. The prisoners' counsel protested against the Public Prosecutor stopping the defence, and demanded the documents used and recorded in Arabi's trial. The Court refused this request, upon which the counsel threw up his brief. The tribunal was subsequently induced by Major Macdonald to allow the prisoners to call further witnesses. But its members have now suddenly announced their intention of closing the proceedings and pronouncing sentence to-morrow. Why to-morrow? It was because the Khedive instructed this impartial tribunal that he was anxious to enter Alexandria on Sunday, and it would have been extremely awkward that the Khedive of Egypt should enter Alexandria on Sunday morning, if the man who had reduced Alexandria to ashes in obedience to the orders of the Khedive were to be hung before his eyes. ["Oh, oh!"] He asserted, and he defied contradiction, that the order to open fire on the English Fleet, which produced the bombardment of Alexandria, which let to the destruction of the town, was signed by the Khedive. He defied Her Majesty's Government to contradict that statement. He repeated the statement, and defied contradiction of it. The Times' Correspondent went on to say— Major Macdonald has protested to Sir Edward Malet, and has asked for a suspension of the proeeedings. The entire incident has been caused by the ridiculous mode of procedure which has been adopted, whereby one Court hears the evidence without pronouncing judgment, and another pronounces judgment without sifting the evidence; and also by the sheer inability of the Natives to understand the necessity of satisfying the public by holding an open trial. Now, was it true that Major Macdonald had asked for a suspension of the proceedings? [An hon. MEMBER: It was not true.] All he could say then was, that Major Macdonald was a perfectly useless person, and unworthy of the confidence of Her Majesty's Government, if, after inducing the Court to say they would allow witnesses to be called, he did not protest when they said they intended at once to pronounce sentence. Further, what became of the Prime Minister's promise, in reliance upon which the matter was allowed to slide? Suleiman Sami had been sentenced to death and hanged by the Court before he could call a single witness—without being allowed to call a single witness—and yet that was the kind of tribunal before which the political prisoners were being tried in Egypt, that was the Court and that was the sentence which Her Majesty's Ministers now told the House they had no doubt was perfectly fair and just. He looked upon Her Majesty's Government as responsible for the hanging of Suleiman Sami as much as for the hanging of Timothy Kelly in Kilmainham. They could have stopped the execution in a moment if they had wished to do so; and he was justified in charging the Government, either from neglect or from some other cause, with the grossest and vilest judicial murder that ever stained the annals of Oriental justice. ["Oh, oh!" and "Hear!"] He charged the Prime Minister and his Colleagues with the murder of Suleiman Sami, and he challenged him to say that his pledges had been fulfilled. Suleiman Sami wanted to call Arabi Pasha as a witness. Arabi gave Suleiman Sami his first appointment in the Army in 1882—he gave him the command of a regiment —and from that time to the suppression of the revolution he was under the orders of Arabi. What was the charge upon which he was hanged? For having been responsible for the destruction of Alexandria. Suleiman Sami was left behind by Arabi to cover the retreat of the Egyptian Army; that Army was in a state of complete panic at the idea that the English forces were about to land and occupy Alexandria, and he had one thought and one thought only, and that was how to get the Egyptian troops out of the town, and, as a military measure, he decided to burn the European portion of the town in the hope that the English forces would be diverted from their pursuit of the Egyptian troops. Did the House admit that as a defence—["No!"]—when that measure was adopted for military purposes? If not, then that man ought not to have been hanged. If the Government did not admit that as a defence, why did not they hang Arabi? On what just grounds could they acquit the Commander-in-Chief and hang one of his inferiors? Why had the Government hesitated to ask for a delay of a few weeks for the purpose of taking Arabi's evidence by commission in Ceylon? There was another reason why Suleiman Sami was entitled to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Was the House aware that Suleiman Sami was the person who on the 11th of June one year ago had put a stop to the massacres at Alexandria? Was Her Majesty's Government aware that it was not until he arrived with his regiment at 6 o'clock that these massacres were stopped, and that if he had not arrived many Europeans in Alexandria would have perished? He now came to a matter he had touched upon last Friday. It was of vast importance to the Egyp- tian Government that Suleiman Sami should be hung. He was in command of the only efficient regiment of troops, and at 5 o'clock Omar Lufti sent a message to Suleiman Sami to bring his regiment into town to put down the riots; but they were to come unarmed. He disobeyed that order and came with his regiment, under arms, and put a stop to the riots and saved the lives of hundreds of Europeans. And it has been proved in evidence that the police, under the direct orders of Omar Lufti, committed massacres of the Christians. The House would find that statement substantiated over and over again by evidence given by Naval officers, who said that about 6.30 the regiment of Infantry appeared and drove the mob off. That proved the cardinal fact that Suleiman Sami, even if he had burned Alexandria, was entitled to every effort that could possibly be made to save his life, because, when our soldiers and sailors did not dare to land, Suleiman Sami came with his troops and saved the lives of hundreds of our fellow-countrymen. Never had Her Majesty's Government shown baser ingratitude, even in the case of the Bechuanas—though that was bad enough—for here they allowed to go to execution the man who had rendered them signal service. It was, however, essential to the Government of Egypt that Suleiman Sami should be hung, because he could prove the conduct of Omar Lufti on the day of the massacres, and that he was the tool of the Khedive of Egypt. There was another man in Alexandria, Ahmed Khandeel, who was Prefect of Police, now lying in a dungeon in Alexandria, who might be tried in exactly the same way, and who, if the House of Commons did not take the matter out of the hands of the Government, would most certainly be hung. The conscience-stricken action of Her Majesty's Government on Friday afternoon showed how surprised they were to find how much was known about this matter. That alone proved that they were not satisfied with the course of action that had been pursued. He left the matter for the public to judge of, and he charged the Government again with having been the responsible authors of a judicial murder; and he called upon them, while exculpating themselves from the charge, to take care that they were not guilty of another.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I am so accustomed, upon such a variety of subjects, to the loud assertions and sweeping accusations of the noble Lord, that, perhaps, they make less impression on my mind than they would on the mind of one less accustomed to his mode of action. I generally observe that his accusations become more unmeasured and his assertions more sweeping in proportion to what we ultimately find to be the nullity of the truth of them. The noble Lord finds a leading article in one newspaper this morning, and the communication of a correspondent in another, and the matter supplied from these sources he brings down to the House as establishing an irrefutable case, we having had, of course, no opportunity of testing them, and not being in a condition to deny them—[Cheers]—unless, indeed, we are disposed to adopt the method which the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), by his cheering, seems to suggest— namely, that we should go about like the noble Lord to anonymous and unauthoritative sources, and allege before Parliament, as a matter of fact, everything that we can gather in the way of surmise or suggestion from these unauthorized informers. Sir, I cannot follow the noble Lord; I find him so inaccurate. I find that when he is contradicted on one point, he so rapidly substitutes another that it is hardly possible, without too largely drawing upon the patience of the House, to attempt to follow him. The noble Lord thinks he has established a most astonishing and irrefragable case against me because, although I said that I never had any doubt as to the propriety of the sentence passed on Suleiman Sami, yet I agreed to ask for further information. That the noble Lord treats as establishing a conclusive case against me. I agreed to ask for further information on the subject to satisfy the noble Lord, and not to satisfy myself; and it is because I do not choose to make what satisfies me the measure of what satisfies the noble Lord, he comes down to the House and treats that as an admission on my part that I had been entirely wrong in professing to have no doubt upon the case. Because I declined to make the noble Lord's mind the measure of mine he would now compel me to make my mind conform to the measure of his—a pro- cess that I respectfully decline. You have heard the loud assertions of the noble Lord with regard to Ahmed Khandeel, and the manner in which the promises have been broken, the wretched state of this man, and with regard to the administration of the law. It does happen, but by singular good fortune, that I have received a few words which are really authentic with regard to Khandeel, within the last few hours—namely, a telegram from Sir Edward Malet, who says— I have received the following telegram from Macdonald, dated Sunday:—'Khandeel has had every opportunity of calling witnesses for the defence during the "instruction," and he called one, who gave evidence against him. Mr. Beaman is his counsel.'

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, neither the prisoner nor his counsel could be present at the "instruction;" and, therefore, he could not call witnesses then.

MR. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord says he did not call witnesses; but Major Macdonald says he did call witnesses, and I believe Major Macdonald. This House will not suffer itself to be led away from its duty and from the dictates of good sense by the violent assertions of the noble Lord made in defiance of the responsible evidence of the most competent persons. Then the noble Lord has, in his best language, described me as wriggling out of an assertion that I have made.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Pardon me; what I said was, that the Prime Minister would not wriggle out of his assertion.

MR. GLADSTONE

I think that I had better not examine too closely into the literal accuracy of the statement which the noble Lord has now made; but if he says that I would not wriggle out of an assertion I am at one with the noble Lord. Now, the noble Lord said that we had given certain specific promises with regard to the trial of the political prisoners. I may observe that his treatment of the subject is most inconvenient, because it entails the constant necessity of a number of further explanations and protestations. We never made any promise at all at the time to which the noble Lord refers with regard to the political prisoners, nor do we admit for a moment that Suleiman Sami was a political prisoner. We did not look upon him and his fellow-prisoners as political prisoners at all. Then, said the noble Lord, apparently with great triumph, "Why did you appoint Major Macdonald to attend the trial?" and loud cheers followed from the Gentlemen behind as if the noble Lord had convicted us of some inconsistency. The explanation of our conduct was this. Although we did not concede that these men were political prisoners, still we knew that the acts in respect of which they were arraigned were acts which were committed within the precincts of time marked out by the rebellion, and we thought it just and wise to have the proceedings carefully watched. There is the whole explanation of the matter in regard to which the noble Lord thought that he had made so damaging a discovery. The noble Lord has said that the Government ought to have made the greatest exertions for the purpose of saving Suleiman Sami's life in consequence of the splendid service which he rendered on June 11th. True, Suleiman Sami was the commander of a regiment of Egyptian troops, which had very late in the day a material share in putting down a movement which ought to have been put down very much earlier in the day. We are not in a position to say whose fault it was that it was not so put down; but with respect to Suleiman Sami, I must say that I have never before even heard such a notion as that he in the part that he took in putting down that movement was doing anything more than acting ministerially in obedience to orders which he received from his superior officers.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

In strict disobedience.

MR. GLADSTONE

Of course, our knowledge is not unbounded like that of the noble Lord. It is limited, unfortunately, to that which we have received from men like Lord Dufferin, Sir Edward Malet, Major Macdonald, and Sir Charles Wilson, who is now in London, and from whom we may be able to supply a little information to check that of the noble Lord. But from none of those gentlemen have we ever received the slightest intimation that the character of Suleiman's action on June 11th was what the noble Lord boldly proclaims it to be. What does the statement of the noble Lord come to on that point? If his statement with regard to the action of Suleiman Sami is right, Sir Edward Malet and Major Macdonald must have been substantially cognizant of the character of that action. [Lord R. CHURCHILL: No, no!] Then what are they good for? The noble Lord is perfectly ready in reliance on his anonymous and irresponsible authority to place no confidence in the experience, responsibility, and honour of the servants of the Crown. He has no choice in the dilemma in which he has placed himself. If Suleiman Sami performed on June 11th an extraordinary service by disobedience to a military order, either Major Macdonald, Sir Charles Wilson, and Sir Edward Malet knew it or did not know it. If they did not know it, they are certainly totally unfit for the position which they hold. If the fact could reach the noble Lord with all the clearness and absolute certainty with which he has laid it before the House, strange, indeed, must have been their blindness to the facts passing around them if they remained in ignorance of the matters assorted by the noble Lord.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

It is in the Blue Book.

MR. GLADSTONE

I deny that the facts as the noble Lord has stated them are recorded in the Blue Book. According to the noble Lord, these English gentlemen, knowing that this splendid service had been rendered on June the 11th, by Suleiman Sami, nevertheless allowed him to become the victim of the foulest judicial murder ever perpetrated, and yet could send home reports that the trial had been fair. I wish the noble Lord were under some real responsibility. I wish he knew what he is doing in making those charges, and using his privilege of speech in this House for the purpose of casting out the most scandalous and shameful accusations—first upon the Egyptians, and then upon Judges who are members of this Court —men like Morris Bey, the English Judge, and Frederigo Bey, the Italian member of the Court. But the noble Lord casts his net a little wider, and includes in it Sir Charles Wilson and Sir Edward Malet.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I never said a word about Sir Charles Wilson.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have just been stating that these were the gentlemen who must have known these things which, according to the noble Lord, occurred. Well, Sir, if these matters are to be handled in this way, it is impossible to make any progress with public affairs. I do not pretend to say that we have the same knowledge of the trial which is now in question as we should have had had it been conducted on this floor, in our own language, and within our own personal observation; but I stand entirely upon the assurances of competent, upright, experienced, and responsible officers, bound by the most stringent instructions and by the clearest rules of duty as to the reports which they might make. Sir Edward Malet and Major Macdonald report to us that the sentence has been just, and that the trial has been conducted, not, indeed, according to our procedure, but in conformity with the rules of substantial justice; and I am bound to say that the assurances of competent persons, over and above the letter of those reports, give reason to believe not only that this man was guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced and has been executed, but that the circumstances of his guilt on the day of the burning of Alexandria, were circumstances of great aggravation, and such as are opposed to the supposition that he was acting under superior orders. The noble Lord seems to think that if he was acting under the orders of a superior, he has an immunity from guilt.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

No; from hanging.

MR. GLADSTONE

That is an argument which cannot be maintained. We did not inquire when we had eight men hung for the Palmer murder, whether those eight men were all originally guilty. It is not possible to lay down such a doctrine as this, that in regard to murder, assassination, and other great crimes, no man shall be punished except the person in whose mind the idea originated, and from whom the command proceeded. In no case do we act upon such a principle. We have had other men hung—[Mr. BIGGAR: Innocent men]—for the massacres in Alexandria, and this man has now been hung for his participation in the burning of Alexandria, for deeds distinctly proved, and not only reported not to have been done under the orders of superiors, if that argument were good for anything, but distinctly reported to have been executed in defiance of the orders of Arabi Pasha. The noble Lord says it was a political necessity that this man should be executed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I did not say it was. I said the man might have proved it if he had had the chance.

MR. GLADSTONE

I understood the noble Lord to say that the man had proved it. Well, Sir, we stand here perfectly ready to give the House any intelligence a reasonable or an unreasonable curiosity may require as to the details in connection with this matter. I do not pretend to be in possession of all the details of these trials, any more than I am in possession of all the details of the trials in Ireland. We stand upon the reports obtained from our trusted and trustworthy agents, some in Egypt, some in London, and all of them worthy of every possible confidence. The noble Lord seems to think that we are perfectly free in the matter, and that the Government have not been acting with a distinct principle all along. I believe the letter of September, 1882, has long ago been in the hands of hon. Members. In that letter, addressed by Lord Granville to Sir Edward Malet, the Government give the following pledge:— Her Majesty's Government would not, however, take any steps to prevent execution in any cases such as the following:—(1), having been guilty of taking part in the burning of Alexandria; and then follow a number of other categories, in regard to which we solemnly pledge ourselves not to interfere, and the House of Commons knew that we had pledged ourselves not to interfere.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

What about Arabi?

MR. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord throws upon me a mode of conducting this question which it is impossible for me to follow out. Arabi never was found guilty of the burning of Alexandria, but this man was. Arabi was a man to whom our pledge had no application. Here is a pledge on record unchallenged by the House of Commons. Had it been challenged, we should have been ready to defend it before the House and the country. But it exists, and must be held to bind us. I am, therefore, not content to plead not guilty to the charge of the noble Lord, or to put in a plea for consideration or indulgence; but I contend that, in the absence of any clear presumption or proof of the miscarriage of justice in the trial for the burning of Alexandria, we had bound ourselves to the Egyptian Government not to interfere with the sentences or the execution of the sentences; and had we attempted so to interfere, we should have been guilty of gross bad faith.

MR. BOURKE

said, it was quite clear that on that occasion the House could not decide the grave questions raised by this discussion. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that on both sides of the House they had every reason to be perfectly satisfied that the trusted agents of the Government would see justice done. But upon that occasion no question of that sort arose. On the present occasion they found that certain facts were brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government which were considered so grave as to induce them to make certain inquiries. It was perfectly clear that everything the Government had done within the last three or four days had been perfectly useless. Now, Her Majesty's Government said that they never had any doubt on this question. It had been proved that that was not a plea which the Government could urge, for if it were true that Lord Granville came to the conclusion to make inquiries and sent to Cairo before the matter was mentioned in the House, it was clear that there was a primâ facie case for inquiry made out in the minds of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that he was in his place in the House for 10 hours on Friday and had no opportunity of consulting with Lord Granville.

MR. BOURKE

said, that it was clear that Lord Granville, before the question was mentioned in the House, thought that there were certain features connected with the case which made it expedient that he should send another telegram to Cairo. That was clearly sent for the purpose of stopping the execution of this man, provided Sir Edward Malet thought there was any reason for it. If the telegram was not sent for that purpose, would the noble Lord say what it was decided to do?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, that he had already stated that it was decided to send the telegram for the purpose of obtaining fuller information, so that they would not only have the negative argument against the necessity for interfering with the execution derived from the silence of Major Macdonald, but the positive testimony of the Representatives of this country. There never was any idea of sending a telegram to stop the execution.

MR. BOURKE

said, it was then clear that the Government wanted information at that time on a subject as to which they now said they had no reasonable doubt. It had been abundantly proved that the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government was an illusory one, as it was perfectly impossible that any good could be done by it. Whether this man was guilty or not, the House had certainly been misled into believing that the action taken on Friday last had induced the Government to adopt a course which, under the circumstances, could not be effective in saving this man's life. With regard to the merits of this case, there would be abundant opportunity of discussing it; but the House should bear in mind that the Court which sentenced the man to death did not hear one word of the evidence. What was the ground for asking for delay? It was not that he could bring forward evidence that he was acting under superior orders; that upon the report of Major Macdonald did not arise. he was accused of burning Alexandria, and upon the facts he admitted he was guilty; but the defence he wished to urge before the second Court could not be raised before the first. It was a case where they were told it was clearly the opinion of this wretched man and his advisers that he would have involved others in the trial. This man was the first accused of burning Alexandria; but that was a different crime from the massacre, and the question would arise whether this country should not interfere with the execution of any man alleged to be guilty of that offence. It would, he thought, require a considerable amount of argument on the part of Her Majesty's Government to show that the execution of a soldier's duty in carrying out an act of war of that kind was to be treated as a crime of the deepest dye, and the offender was to be treated simply as a civil prisoner guilty of the offence. These were questions which, no doubt, would be raised hereafter. He hoped that the Government would give the House an opportunity of discussing the question at an early day. They understood that Papers were to be submitted forthwith, and he should take an early opportunity of asking what day Her Majesty's Government would give for the discussion of the whole subject.

MR. O'DONNELL

observed that the Prime Minister had formerly made the same declaration with respect to Arabi Pasha that he had now made with regard to Suleiman Sami. The Premier asserted that there was no parity between the cases of Arabi and Suleiman Sami, the former being a political prisoner and the latter an ordinary criminal. Now he found, from the report in the Press of the discussion which took place in the House on the 10th of August last, the Premier attacked the reputation of Arabi Pasha precisely as he attacked that of the unfortunate Suleiman Sami to-day. The right hon. Gentleman declared that Arabi had falsified the most sacred obligations in war—those attaching to the use of a flag of truce, and he charged Arabi with having abused a flag of truce "for the base and abominable purposes of conflagration and loot." Having himself made an interjection on hearing that statement, the right hon. Gentleman rebuked him for doing so, asserting that the matter was one admitting of no dispute, but which was absolutely as certain as the bombardment of Alexandria. Notwithstanding that certainty in the Premier's mind, Arabi was not even brought to trial, although unquestionably, if he had been brought by the Khedive before one of his assassination Courts, he would have been found guilty and murdered, as his subordinate, Suleiman Sami, was murdered on Saturday. That case afforded an illustration of the right hon. Gentleman's method of carrying on war in Egypt, "on the principles of peace." Soldiers were hanged for acts of war, as if those acts had been committed by private persons in time of peace. Unless some stronger guarantees were afforded to the House than any yet given to it, it would be difficult for the House to have any confidence that a bonâ fide inquiry would be instituted into the trial of Suleiman Sami, or of any other person whom the Khedive and his supporters were interested in removing. The Khedive and his "ring" were as much engaged by every selfish consideration in cloaking the facts as to the case of Suleiman Sami, as the men in whose interest the Egyptian Finance Minister—a person inconvenient to the bondholders—was murdered some years ago, were interested in cloaking the facts of that monstrous crime. The men in Egypt on whom they were relying were just as likely to light upon the truth in this instance as any other band of criminals would be, except under a pressure of terrorism, which the Government certainly would not apply. He hoped that the promised Papers would be soon forthcoming, and that at the eleventh hour some consideration for plain dealing would induce the Government to prevent any more judicial murders. His own belief was that nothing would be allowed to appear in those Papers from Egypt which could possibly be kept out of them by any hair-splitting refinements and wire-drawn distinctions.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he rose for the purpose of obtaining an explanation. He had been accused by the hon. Member of having said, on the 10th of August last, that Arabi Pasha was personally guilty of the burning of Alexandria, and of having used the same terms against him as he had that night used against Suleiman Bey; and that charge the hon. Gentleman said he could support by a reference to Hansard.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he had quoted from a leading article in to-day's Echo, which gave, in inverted commas, the words of the report of the Premier's speech on the 10th of August, in which was the statement that Arabi Pasha had employed the flag of truce for the base, abominable purpose of looting and conflagration.

MR. GLADSTONE

I hope the hon. Member will be a little more careful before he quotes leading articles of newspapers against his fellow-Members in this House. I fortunately caught enough of the quotation to be able to make reference to Hansard myself; and I find, at page 1394, vol. 273, that I distinctly charged upon "the Military Party" in Egypt that that Party did not scruple to falsify the most sacred of all obligations in war—namely, those attaching to the use of a flag of truce—and that, while pretending to have pacification in view, not only had no such purpose, but used the hours gained by the employment of that flag of truce for the base and abominable purpose of conflagration and looting. I carefully avoided the name of Arabi Pasha, and it does not appear in Hansard at all. I did not, and could not, know whose the guilt was—I knew the guilt was there. The hon. Member has misquoted me in a manner for which I hope he will proceed to apologize.

MR. O'DONNELL

I certainly have to bear evidence to the fact, on reference to Hansard—which I had not previously seen—that the quotation referred to is exactly as the Premier has stated, and that the report in the newspaper materially alters the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) had said that the Government on Friday gave an illusory pledge; but that was not the case. On three occasions during the debate on that day, it was stated that the Government would not interfere to prevent the execution taking place. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in his speech, which had been disposed of by the Prime Minister, spoke of this execution as the foulest judicial murder that had ever been committed, and he cheered the hon. Member for Dungarvan when he referred to it in similar terms. He also spoke of the Court as the Khedive's assassination Court. Was the noble Lord aware of the fact that a distinguished English Naval officer of the highest character and discretion was a Member of that Court?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. I called it a foul judicial murder, because the prisoner was condemned by a Court which did not allow him to call witnesses, or to cross-examine witnesses called against him; and that, I say, is judicial murder.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the noble Lord went a great deal furthur, for he told the House that the reason why these steps were taken was in order to cover a shameful intrigue, and to spare the Khedive from compromising evidence. Considering that Morice Bey, an Englishman and an officer of the highest reputation, was a Member of that Court, he thought that the conduct of the noble Lord was hardly to be described in Parliamentary terms. He had received from Sir Charles Wilson some notes on the trials, which he would like to read to the House.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he objected to documents being read which were not official documents. He wished to ask the Speaker for a ruling on that point.

MR. SPEAKER

said, if the right hon. Baronet was now quoting from an official document he was bound to present it, unless it would be against the public interest to do so.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, it was not an official document; but the moment he was able to communicate with Sir Charles Wilson he would ask him to place it in that form, so that it might be presented to the House.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet was in Order in quoting from the document? There was no guarantee that it could be examined hereafter.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that, not being an official document, the House could take it for what it was worth.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would promise the noble Lord that when he had had the opportunity of communicating with Sir Charles Wilson it should be laid on the Table. Sir Charles Wilson said that while watching the trial he had on many occasions visited the prisoners in their cells; and every one of them stated that Suleiman Sami had taken a leading part in the firing of Alexandria. He never denied it himself, but pleaded, in justification, that he had Arabi's orders to do so. But there was no direct evidence that Arabi had issued such an order; and he and his officers, who during the trial were in separate and solitary confinement, denied issuing such an order. If the destruction of Alexandria had been ordered as a military measure the destruction would have been systematic, and those buildings which would be useful to our troops when landed would have been destroyed. His impression was that Suleiman carried out a threat which he had often made to burn Alexandria, and also to gratify his wish for revenge upon his personal enemies, and that he took advantage of the disorder which existed to do so. During the destruction Suleiman rushed about on horseback like a madman, and forced the soldiers to set fire to the different buildings in the city. He thought those facts would be serviceable to the House.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

But they are not evidence.

Sir CHARLES W. DILKE

No; but Sir Charles Wilson was present at every trial.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

It never came out. Is that the evidence that was given at the trial?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he was not in possession of the evidence given at the trial, or he would have produced it. Sir Charles Wilson went on to say that the conduct of Suleiman at the Commission of Inquiry produced an unfavourable impression; and, although the other prisoners showed some spirit, this man appeared to be one of those in whom power could only exist together with great ferocity. His conduct on the scaffold also seemed to bear out this view. He would add nothing to that statement of Sir Charles Wilson. He thought it spoke for it itself. As regarded the action of Sir Edward Malet, he had been guided by the instruction laid down in a despatch which would be laid before the House shortly. The noble Lord had argued that it was the duty of the Government to direct the procedure of Courts of Law in Egypt. But he would remind the House that the Government did not attempt to direct the procedure of the Courts of Law in this country. Why, then, should they do so in Egypt? The real point for the consideration of the House was, whether an innocent man had been done to death, or whether a man had been executed who was really guilty?

MR. WARTON

said, that was not the point. The point was, whether there had been a fair trial?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that with regard to that Her Majesty's Government did everything they undertook to do in appointing officers of the highest integrity and character to watch the proceedings. Lord Dufferin, in his despatch of the 28th of April, 1883, told them that when Sir Charles Wilson left Egypt he requested Major Macdonald to discharge the same duties in conjunction with other gentlemen. The Members of the tribunal were men of intelligence and honour, some of them having a considerable knowledge of law, and two of them were Europeans. From first to last English officers had been present, with instructions from the Government not to interfere in the general conduct of business, except in case of any gross and flagrant infraction of justice; and Major Macdonald had reported that he was generally satisfied with the result arrived at. Lord Dufferin expressed his opinion, in terms which he hoped the House would soon have an opportunity of seeing, to the effect that if there had been any miscarriage of justice, it was in the fact that numbers of persons had escaped who ought to have been convicted. Suleiman Sami was arrested in Crete by the Turkish Government as a man who had been chiefly concerned in the burning of Alexandria, and, after his arrest, was immediately handed over to the Egyptian Government. There was no gross or flagrant violation of justice. The Government had satisfied themselves of that. They did all that the House ever asked them to do, and all that it was wise, prudent, and right that they should do. Lord Dufferin bore testimony to the indefatigable way in which Major Macdonald had discharged his duties; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) maintained that the Government had adopted the best possible course under all the circumstances of the case.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, he had listened with the greatest possible attention to the observations of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board; and, although he had had many opportunities of admiring both his knowledge and ingenuity, he had never before seen him to greater advantage. The right hon. Gentleman had tried, in a few well-chosen sentences, to turn the issue on the point before the House. According to him, the whole question was simply whether an innocent man or a guilty man had been convicted; whereas the real question was whether an innocent or a guilty man had had a fair trial, and there was a very broad difference between those two propositions. If it had been simply a question of consigning Suleiman Sami to the tender mercies of an Egyptian tribunal, the House and Her Majesty's Government would have had no responsibility in the matter; and here arose one point which struck him as showing how strangely illogical was the conduct of the Government in this matter. They argued, on the one hand, that they had no right to interfere; and, on the other hand, they said they were sure of the justice of the sentence, because it had been watched by an English official. But the whole question before the House had been so extraordinarily mixed up that it was necessary to remind the House that the real question—a very simple and clear one—was, whether the Government were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the hasty manner in which that capital sentence had been carried out? He maintained they were. He had ventured to say on Friday evening, when the question was before the House, that the cases of Arabi Pasha and Suleiman Sami were on all-fours; and he now maintained that statement. The President of the Local Government Board, a year ago, in answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), told the House that, in his opinion, Arabi Pasha was guilty of complicity in the murders.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, it was better to be accurate on these occasions; and the words used were, that there were grave reasons to suspect the complicity of Arabi.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, it made no difference whatever that Arabi had been taken by our troops. There were grave reasons why Arabi should have been treated as a criminal, and Suleiman was only his lieutenant. Why was it that some 34 hours were allowed to elapse before the first telegram was sent on Friday by Her Majesty's Government? Could any reasonable man accept the explanation of the President of the Local Government Board that the delay arose in consequence of the time required for reading and sending a cipher telegram? Were they to suppose that the clerks of the Foreign Office were engaged for 30 hours in putting into cipher the words—"Will the sentence be carried out?" How was it that Her Majesty's Government came to inquire whether the sentence would be carried out? They ought to have known that it would. When requested to delay the execution, they sent a telegram of inquiry, and not, as they ought to have done, a telegram demanding that the execution should be stayed. According to their own account, they had the statement of Major Macdonald, who, they said, was watching the trial, and of Sir Edward Malet, that the trial was a fair one. Why, then, did they send a telegram at all? The reason was because they wanted to make it appear to their Radical friends that they bad no control over affairs in Egypt. To such an unworthy consideration of Party expediency was this man's life sacrificed with such unseemly haste. If the Conservative Government had been sitting on the Treasury Bench while these things were being done, every platform in England—and in Scotland, too—would have been made to ring with words of disapproval and denunciation of that want of humanity which, in the opinion of certain philosophical Radicals, was a characteristic of the Tory Party. When the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) quoted a statement of The Times Correspondent as to certain witnesses not being examined, was that statement refuted? Not at all. The Prime Minister was extremely indignant; but simple negatives were not arguments, and the mere assumption of indignation did not bring conviction to the minds of those who saw it. In point of fact, a man had been done to death, and Her Majesty's Government had allowed an official of the Crown to be present at the proceedings, thus giving the sanction of England to doings which were ab initio illegal. It was said that we had no right to interfere. But a very few months ago, at the bidding of the United States, we stayed the execution of Dr. Lamson. Surely we had it in our power, at all events, to delay the execution of Suleiman; and it should be remembered that this was the Government which had introduced a Bill for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. He would say that the blood of this man was unquestionably on the Government of this country, and a stigma would attach to the Government so long as it existed. He did not say whether the man was innocent or guilty. [A laugh.] Would any hon. Gentleman who laughed allow an Englishman to be hanged upon such evidence? He did not for a moment urge the innocence of Suleiman; but what he maintained was that the man had not had a fair trial, and that the Government were responsible for the trial not being fair.

MR. LABOUCHERE

felt bound to say that, though there was no absolute proof that the Khedive was the insti- gator of the massacre at Alexandria, there was an exceedingly strong primâ facie case made out against him; and he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would place the evidence upon which he relied in the hands of the Prime Minister. An old proverb said that if you wanted to discover the author of a crime you must find out who profited by it. In the present case no one but the Khedive could have profited by it. The statement that Arabi was directly interested in bringing about English intervention in Egypt had always appeared to him particularly absurd, for if we had not interfered Arabi would have remained master of the situation, and that was not the object of the Khedive. The fact was, the Khedive, while desiring British interference, was unquestionably willing that the National Party should be prejudiced in our eyes. It was now admitted by the Government that Arabi Pasha had nothing to do with the massacres, yet the President of the Local Government Board declared, on the 25th of June last, that Arabi was guilty of complicity in the attack on the Europeans. That showed how imperfectly the Government were informed at that time on this subject. As regarded Suleiman, he thought there was no doubt he interfered, by means of his troops, to put a stop to them. In that he did a good action, which ought to be remembered to his credit now. The noble Lord said he interfered because he was ordered to do so by order of Omar Lufti; but he declared he acted in pursuance of a despatch from Arabi. Arabi telegraphed to Suleiman because Suleiman was at the head of the troops, and he could trust him. It was likely enough they were now making a similar mistake as to the Khedive. But, after all, what if Suleiman Sami did burn the city? Alexandria had been bombarded, the white flag had been hoisted, Arabi and his troops were retreating; Suleiman was left to cover the retreat, and the English were shortly expected to land. Surely it might be contended that in setting fire to the town he was only exercising his rights as a belligerent? It was a terrible act, no doubt; but war could never be made pleasant or humane, and a military measure, however severe, if it was expressly ordered, would not be punished by any Court Martial in the world. The Prime Minister had imported into the discussion what was not before the tribunal. Suleiman was not condemned for obeying orders, but because, as the Court contended, the orders never had been given. He thought it highly improbable that this man had burned down Alexandria. When the noble Lord said he was condemned, not for obeying orders, but for having disobeyed them, he wished to know whether they were to understand that Arabi had ordered him not to burn the town, and that he had replied, "I will burn it," and did so? It was strange a Commission was not sent out to Arabi to ask him what his orders were. A great deal had been said of the French procedure, and of this he knew nothing; but, whatever it was, it was contrary to the most elementary principles of justice. At the preliminary inquiry neither Suleiman nor his counsel were allowed to cross-examine any of the witnesses, and the dossier was forthwith submitted to the Court Martial. That was certainly not in accordance with our own notions of justice. It was true, of course, that an inquiry could not be held into the details of every trial that too place in Egypt; but, in this instance, the Government had put themselves into a thoroughly false position. On the one hand, the details of all the trials could not be watched; on the other, we maintained the Khedive by our soldiers, and were, therefore, responsible for all the acts of his Government. The Egyptians hated the Khedive; and, should they one day refuse to pay the taxes, English troops would be called upon to help to enforce payment. So long as we maintained the Kdedive in his position against his people, so long should we make ourselves directly responsible for the consequences. He hoped the Government would elect to do one thing or another in Egypt—either to take the country or to leave it, but no longer to occupy a position in which we were de facto rulers, while de jure we had nothing to do with the administration of the country.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he desired to bring back the attention of the House to the more precise charge against Her Majesty's Government which he had urged against them on Friday last, and which he was prepared, in a few words, to urge against them again this evening. He did not propose to discuss the question of the guilt or in- nocence of Suleiman Sami, though, after the very able speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) which they had just heard, no one could doubt that a very grave question might be raised upon that point. And as regarded the unofficial, but disparaging account of Suleiman Sami read to the House that evening, he must observe that the Government could not have been influenced by that account, which was only received after the man had been hung. Nor did he propose now to discuss the system of procedure which was adopted at this trial, though here, again, it could hardly be doubted that the system was one which must be, in the highest degree, distasteful to Englishmen. Whether the sentence was just or unjust did not affect his (Sir Henry Holland's) charge against the Government. That charge was that doubts having been raised, rightly or wrongly, with or without foundation, against the proceedings, the Government ought, in a case of life and death, at once to have telegraphed off and requested that the execution, which was shamefully hurried on, should be postponed for, at all events, a few days. It had been urged by the Government that this was an ordinary criminal case, and that they had no right or claim to interfere; but the debate had shown that there was a strong political flavour about the case. Granted that the charge was for arson, what was the defence? Suleiman Sami did not deny that he had set fire to the town; but he said that this step was taken for military reasons, and under the orders of his superior officer, Arabi. This defence brought the case within the category of a political trial, and, in truth, made it closely similar to the case of Arabi, in which the Government had practically interfered. This ground, then, failed the Government, as it was impossible fairly to divest the trial of a political character. He must add that our peculiar position in Egypt, and the fact of our engaging Major Macdonald to attend and watch the proceedings, made it further incumbent on the Government to see that those proceedings were regular and in accordance with justice. He had heard with some regret that the Government had only authorized interference or remonstrance in cases of "flagrant infraction;" and he thought that in cases of life and death those instructions should be enlarged. He was satisfied that the country would approve of an alteration of those instructions, so as to secure a fair trial in such cases. It must be remembered, however, that in the present case the Government were not blamed for not demanding a new trial, but for not having asked that the execution should be postponed until certain information had been obtained by the Government, and certain doubts removed. But then the Government said that they had no doubts, and the Prime Minister denied more than once that he entertained any doubt; and he distinctly stated that they had only decided to ask for information for the purpose of satisfying the doubts of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. He (Sir Henry Holland) was astonished when he heard this statement, as the Colleagues of the Prime Minister, the President of the Local Government Board and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had stated, with a view to show their readiness in the matter, that there had been a conference at the Foreign Office on Thursday, and that a decision had then been arrived at to telegraph out for information to Egypt. That showed the absolute inconsistency of the statement of the Prime Minister, that the information was only sought for to satisfy the noble Lord. That decision on Thursday showed that the Government themselves entertained some doubts, either as to the proceedings at the trial, or as to the rapidity with which the execution was hurried on, and it could not have been arrived at merely with a view to satisfy the doubts of the noble Lord; doubts which, in truth, the Prime Minister seemed to consider as unfounded and uncalled for. The Prime Minister said the Government entertained no doubts, because Major Macdonald had been present at the trial, and had been silent. But it was a remarkable fact that in The Times of Thursday, in a letter from the correspondent of that paper, it was stated that Major Macdonald, while satisfied with the preliminary inquiry, and with the manner in which it had been conducted, had protested to Sir Edward Malet against the Court Martial proceedings, and had asked for a suspension of the proceedings. That report might have been without foundation; but as the Government stated that they entertained no doubts because they had not heard from Major Macdonald, it surely was their duty to have made inquiry at once into the truth of this statement, and to have demanded postponement of the execution of this unfortunate man until they were satisfied upon the point. They ought not to have waited for the meeting of the House on Friday, and they would not have done so had they been in earnest, or recognized the gravity of the case. There was great reason to doubt whether, if the House had not met on Friday morning, and if strong pressure had not been put upon them, any telegram would have been sent. And when they did send a telegram, what was the nature of it? Simply an inquiry whether the sentence would be carried out. Not an inquiry for information, not a demand that the execution should be delayed, but merely whether it would take place. True, a further telegram was sent for information; but Suleiman Sami was hung before an answer could arrive. The charge against the Government was a grave one—indeed, there could hardly be a graver — namely, that they had been reckless about the life of a man, when there was reasonable doubt as to the fairness of his trial. Whether the man was or was not guilty, the Government was bound, when a doubt had been raised, to send a telegram to stop the execution until there had been time to make inquiries as to the manner in which the trial had been conducted.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, the case before the House had been fairly and temperately put by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). They were not discussing whether Suleiman Sami was or was not guilty of the offence laid to his charge. He might have been the greatest scoundrel in Egypt, or he might have been the opposite. That was not the point. The question was whether he had had a fair trial, and whether the Government had fulfilled the engagement they made with the House on Friday. The facts lay in a small compass. Intelligence of Sami's conviction reached this country on Friday morning. The Government were questioned about it on Friday afternoon. They were told that men of experience—well competent to judge—believed that the trial had been hurried forward, and that the man had not had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Those charges might or might not be correct; but they were made by men of character and authority, and they were entitled to respect. The Government were asked to telegraph to Egypt and get the execution postponed until such times as the truth or falsehood of these accusations against the tribunal and against the sentence could be investigated. This request was not preferred by an irresponsible person, and it was not made in a frivolous manner. It was made by the recognized Leader of the Opposition in that House—a Gentleman who had held high Office in the State, who, in all probability, would hold high Office again, and who, by disposition and training, was not likely to take an extreme or strongly partizan view of the question. The Government, at the right hon. Gentleman's request, undertook to telegraph to Alexandria—the object of the message being to stay the execution. They did telegraph, it was true; but they telegraphed at a time and in a way that was ineffective. The wording of the telegram in itself was most extraordinary; and it was sent at an hour when, even if the authorities had been disposed, they would have had some difficulty in complying with its request. The House complained that the Government—having agreed to telegraph—did not telegraph sooner; that they did not couch their demand in more decided language; and that they did not prevent the execution. They certainly had power to do so, and could have done so if they had desired. It was useless to say that it was not customary for one foreign nation to interfere with another in such matters. They had an instance in England quite recently, where a foreign country had interfered on behalf of a man who was not a citizen of that country, but from which it was thought evidence in his favour could be supplied. The House would recollect the case of Dr. Lamson. His execution was stayed for three weeks, if not longer, in order to allow time for evidence to come from America, which, it was supposed, would induce our Government to forego the sentence of death. If the United States Government were justified in making that representation to England, and we acted upon it, surely the Egyptian would be much more justified in acting upon the request of the English Government to stay the execution of a man for a few days, or a few weeks, if it had been necessary. England stood in a very different relation to Egypt to what America stood in relation to England. Whatever we asked the Khedive to do, he had no alternative but to comply; and, therefore, having neglected to interpose, the hanging of Sami really took place with the approval of this Government. In their own interest, it would have been well if they had interfered; for, whatever might be said, the fact remained that a considerable amount of suspicion surrounded the whole transaction. It might be true that the insinuations against the Khedive were justified. He hoped they were not justified. He knew that Tewfik had been placed in a position of terrible responsibility; that great pressure had been brought to bear upon him; and it was quite conceivable that his course of action might have furnished grounds for some of the reports that were circulated to his detriment. He (Mr. T. Cowen) made no charge against him. But still the impression prevailed in this country, in Egypt, and throughout the East, that, with a view to get quit of a disagreeable witness, the witness's death had been hastened. Now, if the Government had allowed these charges to be investigated, the suspicions might have evaporated. If it had been proved upon investigation that there was no ground for the accusations against the Khedive, and if everything the Ministry had said had been borne out by further inquiry, then their course, the Khedive's course, the character of our interference, and the position of the Government in Egypt would have been largely strengthened. As it was, the suspicion that had been generated would hang round the whole of our action. The Government placed great reliance upon the testimony of their agents. He did not say a word against either the character or credibility of these personages. Lord Dufferin, Sir Edward Malet, and Major Macdonald might be—he believed they all were—honourable and trustworthy men. But they were not infallible. They might be mistaken. Our Agents had been mistaken before. Ministers might excuse or explain it as they liked; but it was an undeniable fact that they succeeded in leading the House to believe — and through the House the country—that Arabi and his Colleagues were a gang of unprincipled adventurers. They were playing for their own hand, and that alone. They had no end in view but one, and that was a selfish one. They would sacrifice the lives of their countrymen and the interests of the world to gain their own purpose. Again and again these accusations were made in that House, and by Ministers out of it; and now they had to confess that some of the charges were unfounded, and some of them unjustifiable. They had admitted that Arabi was a patriot, and they treated him as such. Recently they had had panegyrics pronounced in that Chamber upon an Italian patriot who had also been a rebel. There was as good reason for speaking favourably of the character of this Eastern soldier who had fought for his country as of either Italian or Hungarian soldiers who had fought for their countries under like circumstances. As the Government had been wrong in the case of Arabi and his Colleagues, might they not also be wrong in the case of Sami? They had said ninny hard things of Sami, some of which, perhaps, might be true; but it should be remembered, to his honour, that he was instrumental in putting down the riots in Alexandria on June 11. It should also be remembered to his credit that he served with the Egyptian Contingent under Hussein Pasha in Bulgaria; and they had the evidence of independent witnesses that he acquitted himself admirably in that campaign. His reputation was nothing to him now, and it could not be much to his friends; but these facts should be stated when such unqualified condemnation was passed upon him. But the moral of the whole discussion was this—Our Government occupied an anomalous position in Egypt. Sometimes we asserted absolute authority; at other times we pleaded the authority of the Khedive as a reason for our not interfering. We should have to make up our minds whether we intended to remain in Egypt, or whether we intended to leave. We could not hang—as Mahomet's coffin did in mid-air—between responsibility and non-responsibility. He believed we should be compelled to remain, whether we liked it or not. The Government might talk about retiring, and they might wish to retire; but the circumstances would he too strong for them. We were as little likely to retreat from Egypt as from India. If it was criminal for us to go there, it would, under the present aspect of affairs, be almost equally criminal to leave. We had overturned the Government that existed; we had rendered the establishment of National Government impossible; and we should be driven to remain to sustain the shadowy authority that we had called into existence. It was well for the country to realize that position. It was highly unsatisfactory, and might be dangerous. The discussion that had taken place that night was one of many discussions they would have of a like character. Every case of the kind that turned up would be debated in that House, and the Government would be held responsible for it. They had better, therefore, either leave altogether or resolve to stay.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that at that time there were on the Treasury Bench three Ministers, of whom one knew very little of this matter, while the other two were absolutely ignorant. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was asked on Friday whether a day had been fixed for the execution; and the noble Lord replied, "No, Sir."

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

was understood to dissent.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

read the Question and the Answer.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, that the Answer was accurately reported, but not the Question.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked whether the noble Lord knew at the time the date fixed for the execution?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, that he did not.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that was all he contended for; and the Government had known nothing about it all through. They did not know the opinion of Major Macdonald, and they did not telegraph to him until it was too late for the execution to be stopped. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, speaking on the 16th of August, 1882, said— Remember the flag of truce ! Who sent that flag of truce? Was it an unauthorized act F Will anyone tell me that it is rational to believe that act was otherwise than the act of persons in power—namely, Arabi and his coadjutors How were the hours employed which were basely gained by the abuse of that flag of truce? They were employed in letting loose anarchy and conflagration upon Alexandria."—(3 Hansard, [273] 1948.) When the right hon. Gentleman was taxed with having accused Arabi of being the author of these outrages he denied having done so, and called on the hon. Member for the quotation on which he founded the assertion. That quotation did not refer expressly to Arabi; but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that four days later he referred to Arabi by name. He wanted to know whether the Government received any Report or information as to this trial after the 30th of April? Did they, between the 30th of April and the 8th of June, the day on which the sentence was passed, have any communication with Major Macdonald as to the course of the trial? The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had quoted a passage from The Times which had been previously quoted by his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and which stated that Major Macdonald had protested against the trial. Had the noble Lord opposite any information on that subject? If not, the absence of such information showed the levity with which the Government had connived at this atrocious act in Alexandria. They had a right to know not only the truth as to this trial and hurried execution, but also whether any stops were being taken to prevent a similar course of proceeding with regard to Said Khandeel? Did the Government intend to carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister before Whitsuntide in favour of Said Khandeel? The Government felt that they were responsible, to a great extent, for what was really a judicial murder. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government knew that it was so. In one of the lamest speeches he ever delivered, with no argument, and nothing but a certain amount of arrogant bravado, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to escape the consequences of this most wicked and mischievous transaction. [Murmurs on the Government side.] He protested in the strongest manner against the levity with which the Government had treated this whole question, and asked the House to consider seriously what would be the result of this sentence and hurried execution upon our reputation in Egypt. If the country had one mission more than another when it went into a country of that kind, it was to see that justice was properly administered.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART

said, that, as far as public opinion in this country went, he should not have thought it necessary to say a word in vindication of the Khedive from the mischievous chares so recklessly made by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. He maintained that not a word on the subject would have been necessary in this country, because the sacrifices which His Highness had made in order to carry out loyally his engagements to England were fresh in our recollection. But it was otherwise with regard to the effect of these insinuations in Egypt. There was no story, however wildly improbable and absurd, which might not be received with credence among such an excitable people as the population of Cairo and Alexandria. It was impossible, therefore, to overrate the mischievous consequences of such statements made in the British House of Commons if they remained uncontradicted. He had the honour of an interview with the Khedive last winter, and His Highness gave him a graphic description of the condition of helplessness to which he was reduced during the rebellion. He said—"The Princess and my children were in the power of Arabi, and my own life was at his mercy. I was perfectly helpless, and I was not responsible for anything that was done during the rebellion." That was the statement of the Khedive; and it was borne out by the statements of almost all the Europeans and Natives with whom he had conversed in Egypt. The correspondent of The Times, writing from Egypt on the 6th of June, said— The Khedive sits in his palace powerless, helpless, and almost hopeless. Only ono man rises paramount out of the confusion—Arabi Pasha. This is a sad picture, when one thinks of the steady progress of only one year ago. That was written five days before the massacre. On the 14th of Juno, after the massacre, the correspondent of The Times wrote— I have seen the Khedive; he is behaving admirably. He said—'cannot express the disgrace I feel. But for my wife and family I should not care to live.' It seemed that the Khedive at that time, so far from being in a position to take the initiative in a great public crime such as the burning of Alexandria, could not count on the safety of his own life from one hour to another. He heard a great deal of gossip in Egypt with reference to the massacre and the burning of Alexandria, and it was pretty consistent. It pointed to a very different quarter than the Khedive. He hoped the generosity of that House would prompt it to remember that the danger in which the Khedive had been placed was owing to his loyalty to England. He trusted they would not desert their ally on the present occasion, and that they would give unmistakable evidence that they regarded this charge as being utterly groundless. A charge had also been brought against Lord Alcester—namely, that he sanctioned the bombardment of Alexandria in order to avenge the massacre. But, when in Alexandria after the bombardment, he had made it his business to visit the Native quarter to see what damage had been done; and he was able to state that there were very few traces of the bombardment in that part of the city. If Lord Alcester's wish had been to avenge the massacre, he would have directed his fire on the Native quarter, and not have limited it to the forts, as he had been careful to do. It was well known by whom the European quarter was destroyed. He believed that our policy in Egypt had the approbation of the great majority of Englishmen; and the unanimous testimony of the Natives with whom he spoke was that our intervention had saved Egypt from ruin.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

thought a great many things had been said that evening which had better have been left unsaid. In his opinion, the charge against the Khedive of being responsible for the bombardment was almost absurd, and the accusations against the honour and truth of Her Majesty's Government were wholly unjustified. There was no doubt, however, that Suleiman Sami had been executed in a most precipitate manner; and the House was entitled to some assurance from the Government that they would take care that the trials of the prisoners who were still to be tried should be conducted in a fair and just manner. He was one of those who felt that we ought never to have gone to Egypt; but as we were there, we were responsible for the fair administration of justice; we were bound to provide that in regard to this matter of judicial procedure there should be decent and fair procedure. He did not mean according to English forms—for he was not a great admirer, in many respects, of our procedure, but admired rather the Scotch, which was more like the French system—but he hoped that a fair and decent trial would in all cases be granted to the remaining prisoners.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that at 2 o'clock on Saturday morning he asked the Government whether they would telegraph to their own authorities at Cairo to ascertain whether this man had had a fair trial, and, if they got no satisfactory answer, whether they would interfere to delay the execution? To that question he received no answer. The House wanted some assurance from the Government that the man had had a fair trial, and that their own accredited Agents were satisfied on the subject. The Government afterwards gave two most extraordinary answers, which were contradictory of each other. The first answer, as far as he understood, was that the Government had no right to inquire. They would have a right, it was said, to interfere in the case of a political crime; but this was not a political, but an ordinary crime, and one which was exclusively within the cognizance of the Khedive. What was the other answer? It was entirely contradictory of the first. [Mr. COURTNEY dissented.] He did not expect the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to agree with him. It was that the Government were quite satisfied that the man was guilty, and that the trial had been a fair one, because they had not heard to the contrary from their accredited Agents. The Prime Minister said that the Government had never doubted this. But Lord Granville evidently had the greatest doubt. [Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE dissented.] The noble Lord shook his head; but why did he telegraph—why did he interfere at all in the matter? For if he was not satisfied, why did he not telegraph earlier—why did he not telegraph till Saturday morning? Then, at 2 o'clock on Saturday morning, the noble Lord promised to telegraph within an hour. But the man was executed at 4 o'clock on Saturday morning; and, bearing in mind the difference in time between Egyptian and English time, anyone could see the uselessness of the whole proceeding. By no human possibility could the telegram be of any use. The conduct of the Government was wholly inexplicable. Which defence were the Government going to abide by? If they had no right to interfere, why did they telegraph at all? If they had a right, why did they not interfere when some good might come of their interference? They could not ride both horses at once. The House ought to have some assurance that those criminals who remained to be dealt with should have a fair trial. They were not satisfied that there had been a fair trial in this case; and every means ought to be taken that in future cases there should be no miscarriage of justice.

MR. GORST

said, that it was quite clear that no Members of the Government intended to make any further statement on the subject. He hoped, therefore, the House would pardon him for intruding in the debate. The conclusion to be drawn from the speech of the Prime Minister was, that he was extremely uneasy about the events which had been taking place in Egypt. The Prime Minister said very hard things about the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, because he quoted from anonymous communications in newspapers against the Khedive. He was, perhaps, a little open to a sense of incongruity; and he could not help recollecting the Prime Minister himself, on the strength of writings which were anonymous, made some extremely severe remarks on the Sultan of Turkey.

MR. GLADSTONE

When was that?

MR. GORST

At the time of the Bulgarian atrocities.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong.

MR. GORST

said, well, in any case, he was not wrong in what he was then going to say. The right hon. Gentleman took the noble Lord to task for saying that he held Arabi Pasha at any time responsible for the massacres; but the Government had taught them to believe that that was the case. The then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, on the 25th of July last, that— There is no doubt, I fear, that that leader was guilty of complicity in the preparations for the attack on the Europeans in Alexandria on the 11th of June."—(3 Hansard, [272] 1769.) And on the 16th of August the Prime Minister said, with regard to the flag of truce— Will any one tell me that it is rational to believe that act was otherwise than the act of persons in power — namely, Arabi and his coadjutors?"—(Ibid., 1948–9.) So that, although it now suited the convenience of the Government to say that Arabi had nothing to do with it, it then suited them to say that he had. The case was, however, to his mind, proved by the documents. Anybody who studied them must see that Arabi was not guilty of these crimes. After Arabi was a prisoner Sir Charles Wilson wrote home to say that there was no evidence to connect Arabi with the massacres. Well, if that were so, who was guilty? Had the Government ever instituted an inquiry into that matter? No; they had remained in wilful and persistent ignorance, and that was a circumstance pregnant with suspicion. If, however, they looked into events, it would be seen that it was the civil authority, as distinguished from the military, that caused the massacre. The Civil Governor at that time was Omar Lufti, who hoped to succeed Arabi as Minister of War in case of his dismissal. The Military Commander was Suleiman, who was, no doubt, responsible, to a certain extent, to Arabi. He was in constant communication with the Khedive, and had been quite recently at Cairo. There they had very valuable evidence.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the definite matter of urgent public importance which had been brought forward on the Motion for Adjournment was the action of the Government in the recent trial and execution of Suleiman Sami at Alexandria. He must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to confine himself to that Question.

MR. GORST

said, he begged respectfully to point out to the Speaker that he was now travelling over ground which had been gone over by more than one speaker. It appeared that Suleiman Sami had been executed in great haste by the Egyptian authorities, because they were afraid that he might give evidence which would implicate persons of high position; and he was only following the events of the 11th of June, in order to show that Her Majesty's Government had failed in their duty. Various Naval officers, including Lieutenant Forsyth, Surgeon Joyce, and Lieutenant Bradford, declared in their depositions that they did not notice a single case of a policeman interfering to stop the riot; that, in their opinion, the riot was premeditated, and that the police continually fired on the Europeans until about half-past 6 o'clock, when a regiment of Infantry—Suleiman Sami's regiment—arrived and drove them off. A man named Petcovitsch, also said that, although at 6 o'clock there was peace in the city on the arrival of the soldiers, yet that at the Prefecture of Police the massacre continued until 7.30. He did not say that this made out the case; but, at all events, there was a case for careful inquiry by the Government, and there was a case for the Government stepping in to prevent the Khedive's Ministers hanging up right and left everybody who might throw light on these mysterious proceedings. The Primo Minister's statement with reference to the instructions given to the officers of the English Government in Egypt, that they were not to interfere with the administration of justice in certain cases, really amounted to a direct indication to the Egyptian Government to hang up everybody whom they might connect in any way with these events. Did the Government really intend to leave the Egyptian tribunals to judge and sentence anybody they pleased? Was Major Macdonald to watch the proceedings in the case of Said Khandeel in the same way as in the case of Suleiman? The Prime Minister knew very well that, having established the Government of the Khedive, he was morally responsible in the eyes of the country and the world for the use the Egyptian Government made of the power thus bestowed upon them. If the Prime Minister did not take care, he would find himself in the most awkward of all political positions—that of supporting an Oriental despotism, the acts of which he could only imperfectly control. He would find himself mixed up with cases of tyranny, injustice, cruelty, and oppression, against which his own conscience would revolt. [Mr. HOPWOOD: Hear, hear!] It was not to be supposed that the conscience of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, who interrupted, would revolt. How long did the Prime Minister intend to go on in ignorance of the evidence of the proceedings which had taken place? All that Major Macdonald said about Suleiman Sami's case was that the trial was a just one, and the man deserved to be hanged. But surely more was required than that a man deserved to be hanged. Why, how many people deserved to be hanged? He had heard it suggested that he himself, and some of his Friends round about him, richly deserved that punishment; but, if they were tried and condemned in a manner revolting to the instincts of justice, he believed that even the hon. and learned Member for Stockport would hesitate to award the punishment. [Cries of "Divide!"] Suleiman Sami was dead, but there was another Egyptian, Said Khandeel, now awaiting trial; and were the Government going to allow him to be tried and executed in the same unceremonious fashion? Were they going to send out any instructions to our Representatives? Unless the Government treated this question with more seriousness, the conscience of the country would be thoroughly awakened, and they would find they had a very awkward question to meet.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he did not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division, and would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Question put, and negatived.