§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a letter from Mr. Mark Napier, in the "Times" of May 3rd, in which, as counsel for Ahmed Bey Khandeel and other prisoners at Alexandria, he describes the obstacles placed in the way of defending his clients, who have already been upwards of six months in prison, on no specified charges, but, as it is believed, on a general accusation of implication in the massacres of June 11th; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to secure for them the same facilities for a fair trial which were afforded in the case of the Egyptian prisoners who were lately defended by English counsel at Cairo?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEYes, Sir; the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to Mr. Mark Napier's letter; but the facts, as to Khandeel, were already known to him. Khandeel is in prison on a charge of being privy to the murder of certain Europeans on the 10th of June, when he occupied the post of Prefect of Police at Alexandria. His case will come before the Commission sitting at Alexandria, which, after examining into the charges and hearing the witnesses, will embody the conclusions at which it has arrived in a dossier, and send them to the Court Martial at Alexandria which tries the case. The proceedings, both of the Commission and the Court Martial, are watched by English officers, and on the Court Martial there are two European officers, one of them an Englishman. The complaint made by Mr. Napier is that, as counsel to Ahmed Khandeel, he has not been allowed access to his client previous to the preparation of the dossier of the case by the Commission as a preliminary to the trial. The Secretary of State is informed by Lord Dufferin that this would be contrary to the French procedure, which is in use in Egypt; and he has, consequently, declined to interfere in the matter, as he cannot undertake the responsibility of controlling the Egyptian tribunals, when dealing with persons who are accused, not of political crimes, but of murder, arson, theft, and burglary; and his Excellency altogether denies that the cases of Arabi and of Ahmed Khandeel have any connection, or that the instructions received in regard to the trial of the former can be held to apply to the latter.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI beg to ask the noble Lord whether one of the counts in the indictment against Arabi Pasha was not that he was privy to the massacres at Alexandria on the 11th of June, which is precisely the crime with which Ahmed Bey and other prisoners were charged?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEYes; these charges against Arabi Pasha were carefully gone into, and the inquiry was watched by a distinguished English officer specially deputed for the purpose. The charges not being proved, they were withdrawn, and Arabi was not condemned upon them.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIs it not the case that, owing to the in- 1874 fluence of the Secretary of State, English counsel were allowed to have access to Arabi, to enable him to disprove the charges; and, if Ahmed Bey and the other prisoners were detained under similar charges, why was it the Secretary of State did not use his influence in a similar way?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The trial of Arabi was before a different tribunal altogether. That tribunal has been dissolved, and this is a tribunal which has been carefully arranged, with a view to secure a fair trial; and it is also watched by English officers, as I explained just now, which is owing to the action—I will not say the interference—of the English Government. This tribunal will proceed according to the ordinary law of Egypt.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI should like to ask whether, by the words "carefully arranged," the noble Lord meant the tribunal which is to try these men has been composed under the advice of Lord Dufferin, acting under instructions from the Secretary of State; and why, if the Secretary of State had arranged the tribunal with the Egyptian Government, he did not use his influence with that Government in the same way as in the case of Arabi that counsel should have access to the prisoners?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI did not say carefully arranged; I said carefully arranged with a view to secure a fair trial.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI wish to ask why the English counsel, the charge being the same as in Arabi's case, were debarred from having access to the prisoners; and whether the Government will or will not interfere to enable Ahmed Bey to prepare his defence?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI cannot answer that Question without Notice; but I have already answered that this tribunal is not the same tribunal. [An hon. Member: What has that to do with it?] It had a great deal to do with it, because Arabi and his immediate associates come fairly under the distinction of being political prisoners. The men now referred to were charged with crimes in no sense political, but murder, burglary, arson, and theft,
MR. GORSTWill the noble Lord state what are the precise peculiarities of the tribunal, as now "arranged," which makes the appearance of English counsel impossible, or does he object to do so?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEIf the hon. and learned Member refers to Mr. Mark Napier's letter, out of which the Questions have arisen, he will find the information he desires.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLrose again, but—
§ MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said. Various Questions have been already put to the noble Lord upon this matter, and many of them without Notice; and though I will not say they have been out of Order, yet I am bound to state that this practice of putting Questions without Notice is inconvenient.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI beg to give Notice that on Monday I shall put a Question on the subject to the Prime Minister, who is the only Minister from whom we can get information.
§ MR. O'DONNELL, who rose amidst cries of "Order," asked whether the noble Lord could say whether the British officers of whom he spoke were the same as those who had supervised the trials of the alleged assassins in the Palmer case? [Renewed cries of "Order!"]
§ [No reply."]