heard it from Lord Dufferin, when I was engaged in this House. I make my self responsible for that declaration, in as full a sense as if I were speaking from what I had myself directly heard.

co-operation of the Naval Forces of the two municate with the British Consul General on countries in the present crisis in Egypt:-'Comarrival at Alexandria, and in concert with him propose to co-operate with him, with France, to support the Khedive and British subjects and Europeans, landing a force if required. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, On the 11th of June, Lord Alcester did he fully accepted the right hon. Gentle- not land troops, and it was on that occaman's explanation; but still it was hear-sion he put a Question to the Secretary say, and he wished to be able to crossexamine Lord Dufferin on this question. The question was this-Suleiman Sami, it was generally believed, was to be executed, with the view to getting out of the way important evidence against some of the higher authorities in Egypt. [A laugh from Mr. GLADSTONE.] The right hon. Gentleman laughed; but he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did not think the right hon. Gentleman really knew what the opinion in Egypt was.

What he said was, that the Government were colluding- he would not say intentionally, but practically-with the authorities in Egypt, in the execution of the man who had in his power the means of bringing formidable evidence against the Khedive as to the massacres. He did not think the Government were quite free. He did not mean that they were guilty, but a very great responsibility rested upon them with regard to the massacres. On a former occasion, he had asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether Lord Alcester, who was then Sir Beauchamp Seymour, had been reproved by the Government for not taking further steps on the 11th of June, with a view to saving life and property in Egypt? He was met by the hon. Gentleman with an imputation that he was casting an aspersion on Lord Alcester; and yet he had reason to believe that after he had received instructions on the 15th of May to land troops in the event of disorders in Alexandria, Lord Alcester had received counter-instructions from the Government on the subject. Upon that, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, with that promptitude of denial which so distinguished him, told him he was within a measurable distance of calumny. On the 15th of May, the following despatch was addressed by Lord Granville to Lord Lyons:

"I have to state to your Excellency that the following are the instructions which have been sent to the British Admiral with regard to joint

to the Admiralty. What did Lord Gran-
ville write to our Representatives at
Vienna, St. Petersburg, Constantinople,
and other capitals? Lord Granville
wrote-

"Foreign Office, May 23rd, 1882-As my
telegram of the 15th instant has informed you,
the two Governments of France and England
have sent a Squadron to Alexandria. The events
which gave rise to this determination were so
sudden, and the danger which seemed to menace
our countrymen were so pressing, that time was
absolutely wanting for us to come to a previous
understanding with the other Powers. Since
then a reconciliation has taken place at Cairo;
but, besides that it did not appear durable, the
news did not reach the two Governments until
their ships were already on their way. No one
can have mistaken the character and the objects
of this demonstration; the declarations made

to the British and French Parliaments have
prevented all doubts in this respect. The Eng-
lish and French Governments have gone to
Egypt not to make a selfish and exclusive policy
prevail, but to secure, without distinction of
nationalities, the interests in that country of
the authority of the Khedive, such as it has
the several European Powers, and to maintain
been established by the Firmans recognized by
Europe. They have never proposed to land
troops or to resort to a military occupation of
the country."

On the 15th of May, Lord Alcester was
told to land troops; but, on the 23rd,
the Foreign Representatives were told
that the Government never intended to
land troops; and, in the face of such
evidence as that, the noble Lord (Lord
Edmond Fitzmaurice) stated that, be-
cause Major Macdonald had not reported
that the trial had not been properly con-
ducted, the Government would not inter-
fere. [Mr. WARTON: He has not re-
ported.] No; he had not reported that
it was not a correct trial; and, notwith-
standing that evidence had been refused,
and that the right hon. Member for
North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)
had stated that the execution was to take
place to-day, the Government had taken
no steps to prevent the execution. It
was said we were not bound to look into
the question. But we were bound not
to allow injustice to be committed in
Egypt. We went to great expense in

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, he thought he had already answered it. He had said that the determination of the Secretary of State to send a telegram was arrived at before the discussion in the House; in fact, he might, perhaps, inform the House that one of the reasons why he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not present at Question time was, that there were no Foreign Office Questions on the Paper, and he was at work on this very matter. He came to the House in the hope that he might state what had been done. He arrived, however, just after the discussion, and then he went back to the Foreign Office and reported to the Secretary of State (Earl Granville) what had happened, and the telegram was then

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked | between Arabi and the other Leaders of if the telegram was sent before or after the Egyptian National Party, and Suleithe discussion in the House? He thought man Sami. In the first instance, Arabi he had a right to an answer to that and his comrades were accused of comquestion. plicity in the massacres of Alexandria. But what took place was this-that, on condition that they confessed their guilt of the political offence, they were let off any trial on account of the Alexandria massacres. Suleiman Sami, however, who happened to have in his possession, as he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) believed, the most compromising evidence against the Khedive and some of his Counsellors, was, in order that the evidence against the Khedive might be concealed, to be hurried on to death, without any interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government, except after discussion in the House. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) appealed to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) not to insist upon knowing everything about the Court of Trial. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) considered that was a question in which the honour of the Government and the honour of the country were at stake. The Government were allowing a man to done to death without inquiring into the circumstances-without receiving any information from the Agents who had been appointed to inquire into the case itself?

sent.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, he was, therefore, to understand that the telegram was sent after the noble Lord had reported to the Secretary of State what had occurred in the House?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE asked the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) not to misrepresent what he had said. What he had said was, that the determination to send a telegram was arrived at independently of the discussion in the House. When he said a decision was come to, independently of the proceedings of the House, he had no wish to be discourteous to the House. The Secretary of State very naturally felt strengthened in his determination to make inquiries, when he heard what had occurred in the House. As a mere matter of time, he admitted that the telegram was sent subsequent to the meeting of the House. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, he now understood that the determination of the Secretary of State was arrived at at an unknown period, but that the telegram was forwarded after the discussion in the House. Why did not Lord Granville, when he had determined to send a telegram, send it at once? He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) maintained that there was no telegram sent until the House insisted upon it. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) sought to draw a distinction

MR. STAVELEY HILL asked, whether the Government knew what were the contents of the dossier, and what was the charge on which the man was to be killed?

MR. MOLLOY said, the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had adopted a habit which was somewhat odd in one so young in Office. Whenever the noble Lord was asked a Question in the House, especially with reference to Egypt, he rose in his place, and, instead of replying to the Question, turned to his interrogator, who was probably much older than himself, and delivered a lecture to him, much in the style of a Professor in a College-for instance, when the noble Lord turned to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson), and asked him to avoid any further Questions respecting the Government's policy in Egypt. He (Mr. Molloy) was afraid that neither the hon. Baronet nor any other hon. Members would be likely to comply with the

noble Lord's request. In reference to do so. He must remind the hon. Genthe peculiarity of the noble Lord, to tleman that it turned out that what he which he (Mr. Molloy) had already re-imagined was the case had never hapferred, he might refer to another matter, pened at all; Mr. Sheldon Amos had and it was quite pertinent to the ques- simply had certain drafts submitted to tion now before the House. It might him. be in the memory of hon. Members that he (Mr. Molloy) asked a Question some time ago in regard to Mr. Sheldon Amos. He received no satisfactory answer; but he repeated the Question. At last, the noble Lord came to him privately, and gave him the information, or, rather, offered to give him the information he wanted. The noble Lord would remember that the answer he (Mr. Molloy) returned was-" What use is it now that the whole matter is over?" The matter had then been before the country for weeks and weeks. ["Question!"] Hon. Members would find it was the question. The whole matter had been before the public for weeks and weeks. He had asked the Question with a particular object; but that object, however, was destroyed by the unwillingness of the noble Lord to answer his inquiry. In point of fact, a telegram was sent out, and when the other matters became public, the noble Lord very courteously offered him information in his (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice's) pri

vate room.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) had just said a telegram was sent out. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) told the hon. Member a telegram was despatched, and that they were waiting for an answer. The Question was merely whether Mr. Sheldon Amos had been employed in a particular manner. The hon. Gentleman was under the impression that Mr. Sheldon Amos had been employed to carry out, in certain districts of Egypt, the new Constitution; and he thought that Mr. Sheldon Amos was a very improper person to employ in such a matter. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) never believed the facts were as stated; and he did not think it was a sufficiently important matter to put the country to the expense of a long telegram. An ordinary despatch was therefore sent; and, as hon. Members were aware, despatches took some little time in transmission. As soon as a reply came, he at once communicated with the hon. Member, and said if he wished him to answer publicly he would

Mr. Molloy

MR. MOLLOY said, he merely stated the fact that they could not get information from the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). He considered that much of the difficulty that had arisen was due to the unwillingness to give information on the subject of Egypt which had been exhibited during last Session and the present Session by Members of the Treasury Bench. Now, after lecturing hon. Members in the House, the noble Lord gave an exhibition of inaccuracy which he (Mr. Molloy) thought must have astonished the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and all hon. Members who took an interest in the matter. The noble Lord sought to draw a distinction between the case of Suleiman Sami and Arabi. The noble Lord said the offence of Suleiman Sami was not of a political, but of a criminal character; and then he said that no one on the Treasury Bench ever stated that Arabi Pasha was guilty of crimes which had been laid to the charge of Suleiman. He (Mr. Molloy) would not wonder to find the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle astonished when he heard that statement. Some time ago he (Mr. Molloy) asked a Question of the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) regarding Arabi ; but it took him (Mr. Molloy) and other hon. Members two months to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman what the charge against Arabi Pasha was. After the distinction which the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had tried to draw between the cases of Suleiman and Arabi, it might, perhaps, be somewhat interesting to the noble Lord if he (Mr. Molloy) read an extract from a speech of the noble Lord's Predecessor in Office (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The speech in question did more, he would venture to say, to obtain the consent of the House to the prosecution of the war than any other speech which was made at that time. He drew the noble Lord's attention to the following words of his Predecessor:

"There is no doubt, I fear, that that leader" that was Arabi Pasha--" was guilty of com

June."

plicity in the preparations for the attack upon | Court Martial had been appointed. Had the Europeans in Alexandria on the 11th of it been appointed by the Khedive? If it had been, he should like to ask the further question, was it likely that the Khedive would appoint one which would deal out that equal justice that everyone was entitled to? The statements which had been now made had been made not only in the House, but all over the country, and in every foreign countrynamely, that the Khedive was the man who had appointed the Court Martial to try the man who was believed by many to have in his possession knowledge which, if it were made known, would be very disagreeable to the Khedive. It was all very well for the noble Lord to say it was not for the Government of England to interfere in the affairs of Egypt; it was all very well for him to say, This is a matter for the Egyptian Government alone." It was folly to say this and to talk about the Khedive having authority in Egypt. He wore the Crown, and enjoyed a golden repose; but who pulled the string? There was no doubt at all that he was the nominee of this Government. It was as well known in Egypt, as in this country, that the Khedive had no power except that which received the approbation of the British Government. The whole point of the case was this-that during the events which occurred in Egypt accusations of the wildest character were made on all sides; but that it had been stated, and never denied, that evidence of a very disagreeable character was in the possession of Suleiman Sami. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister laughed at this, and may be it was not true; but, whether that was so or not, it was believed by most people. It was believed in the Khedive's own country; nay, he would go so far as to say that it was believed in the Khedive's own family. The point he wished to put before the Government was this-and he did not wish to attack them, or offer obstruction to a policy with which some hon. Members disagreed-whether they ought not, at the eleventh hour, to take a course which many believed they ought to have taken a long time ago-namely, to lay the evidence taken at the Court Martial before the proper authorities in England, so that if the execution took place it would be with their full knowledge of the circumstances.

At the time he said it, no doubt, he be lieved it. He (Mr. Molloy) was not imputing to him a desire to give false information to the House; but the fact was pertinent to the case. The hon. Baronet, at that time, certainly questioned the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, and Lord Dufferin had since examined into the matter, and had stated, on his own part, that Arabi was not guilty. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] The Prime Minister said "No, no!" But he (Mr. Molloy) would venture to say that those who read the statement of Lord Dufferin could only come to one conclusion namely, that he believed Arabi was not guilty of the massacres of the 8th of June. If he was guilty, and the Government believed him to be so, why was it they followed the course they did? If Lord Dufferin had admitted that Arabi was not guilty, why had the Government prosecuted him, and why, having prosecuted him, had they not pardoned him? These two cases ran in an exact parallel. In the case of Arabi, the Khedive, with that miserable duplicity which had marked him during the whole of his career, first induced Arabi to take the action he did, in defending his country against us, and then, taking the hand on which he could win, threw Arabi over, and left him to be condemned by the authorities by whom he was tried, and by whom he would have been executed but for the intervention of this country. What was Suleiman's case? It had been stated not only in this House, but by the highest authorities outside, and it had, practically, never been denied, that Suleiman had in his hands evidence that would be awkward in the last degree to the Khedive. He knew that the Khedive was as particeps criminis in what had taken place as Arabi was. The Government had taken up a new line of policy in this matter, because, last year, when he had put a Question about it, the Government had said it was understood that Arabi would not be executed without the full consent and approbation of the British Government; and now, this year, they said Suleiman had been tried by an Egyptian Court Martial. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had not informed them by whom the