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 steps 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. He 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 charges so recklessly made by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. 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 one 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 June, after the massacre, the correspondent of The Times wrote "I have seen the Khedive; he is behaving admirably. He said 'I 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 | not mean according to English formsof gossip in Egypt with reference to the for he was not a great admirer, in many massacre and the burning of Alexandria, respects, of our procedure, but admired and it was pretty consistent. It pointed rather the Scotch, which was more like to a very different quarter than the the French system-but he hoped that Khedive. He hoped the generosity of a fair and decent trial would in all cases that House would prompt it to remem- be granted to the remaining prisoners. ber 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 Mr. Villiers-Stuart 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 earlierwhy 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 | persons in power - namely, Arabi and his going to abide by? If they had no coadjutors ?"-(Ibid., 1948-9.) 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. 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 MR. GORST said, that it was quite that matter? No; they had remained clear that no Members of the Govern- in wilful and persistent ignorance, and ment intended to make any further state- that was a circumstance pregnant with ment on the subject. He hoped, there- suspicion. If, however, they looked into fore, the House would pardon him for events, it would be seen that it was the intruding in the debate. The conclusion civil authority, as distinguished from the to be drawn from the speech of the Prime military, that caused the massacre. The Minister was, that he was extremely un- Civil Governor at that time was Omar easy about the events which had been Lufti, who hoped to succeed Arabi as taking place in Egypt. The Prime Mi. Minister of War in case of his dismissal. nister said very hard things about the The Military Commander was Suleiman, noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, who was, no doubt, responsible, to a cerbecause he quoted from anonymous com-tain extent, to Arabi. He was in constant munications 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 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 | hanged. Why, how many people deuntil about half-past 6 o'clock, when a served to be hanged? He had heard it regiment of Infantry-Suleiman Sami's suggested that he himself, and some of regiment arrived and drove them off. his Friends round about him, richly deA man named Petcovitsch, also said served that punishment; but, if they that, although at 6 o'clock there was were tried and condemned in a manner peace in the city on the arrival of the revolting to the instincts of justice, he soldiers, yet that at the Prefecture of believed that even the hon. and learned Police the massacre continued until 7.30. Member for Stockport would hesitate He did not say that this made out the to award the punishment. [Cries of case; but, at all events, there was a case" Divide!"] Suleiman Sami was dead, 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 Prime 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 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. ORDERS OF THE DAY. 10.00 Suleiman? The Prime Minister knew LORD ALCESTER'S GRANT (re-committed) BILL.-[BILL 207.] (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone.) COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [8th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (for Committee on Lord Alcester's Grant (re-committed) Bill." very well that, having established the Mr. Gorst And which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," (Sir Wilfrid Lawson,) Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed. MR. BIGGAR said, he opposed the grant, on the ground that no particular skill was shown in the bombardment of Alexandria, and that no great victory place, he protested against pecuniary was achieved by a Fleet of overwhelm- rewards being given for military services ing power silencing a few comparatively at all. If the officers who commanded weak forts. If a real fight had occurred our Army and Navy were not adequately between our Fleet and a Fleet equal to paid, let them be so; but he objected it in power and armament, and the to their receiving large grants of this former had been victorious, he thought kind in addition to their pay for the the grant would be thoroughly justi- services they rendered; and he hoped fiable; but he protested against a grant this would be the last time they should for services which had given no evi- hear of such a thing being done. The dence of skill or ability. practice was not observed in the other Departments of the Public Service; and he wished to see the same principles brought to bear on the Army and Navy as were applied to them. MR. WADDY said, he felt it impossible to give a vote on this occasion without explaining the reasons why he gave it; because, while he felt it impossible to vote for this grant to be made to Lord Alcester on the one hand, and Lord Wolseley on the other, he should be sorry if it were imagined that the motives that actuated him were such as had been too obvious a great deal in the remarks of some hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. The proposal had been made an opportunity for attacks on the character of Lord Alcester, which he much deplored, on his skill, on the bravery and conduct of our troops, and on the policy of the Government-points which ought not to have been introduced into the discussion, and with which the question had really nothing to do. He based his opposition to the grants on broader grounds. In the first place, because the services rendered-however well they might have been performed-were not such as, according to the history of the country and the precedents of former times, warranted the bestowal of such large amounts of money. He contended that, compared with those precedents, the present proposal was an extreme and a very exceptional one; and, in proof of this, he might refer to the case of Lord Rodney. He gave this instance simply as one illustration out of scores, and it was not necessary to multiply cases. Lord Rodney had performed many services far more dangerous and far more important than those rendered by Lord Alcester before any rank whatever was conferred upon him, and before any pecuniary reward was given to him. When those honours were conferred they were given slowly and by degrees; and the Peerage was conferred only as an acknowledgment of most distinguished services. Yet, in the present case, they were to proceed at once per saltum to such a reward as that proposed. In the next MR. WARTON said, there were pensions and rewards in the Civil Service, and pensions were enjoyed by ex-Ministers of State. Peerages ought to be accompanied by pensions, in order to enable the recipients to maintain the dignity of their position. He was sorry the Government had changed the annuities into lump sums, for they had lost a day, which might have been saved by firmness in adhering to their original proposition. It was a pity that such grants should provoke opposition, for that deprived them of half their grace. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 229; Noes 45: Majority 184.-(Div. List, No. 125.) Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 (Grant of £25,000 to Baron Alcester). MR. MACFARLANE moved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "twenty-five thousand," and insert the words "twelve thousand five hundred." He did not think it was necessary that there should be a protracted discussion upon the matter; but his object was to reduce the Vote to the same sum as that which had been granted to General Sir Frederick Roberts and General Sir Donald Stewart. He should carefully avoid saying one word in disparagement of Lord Alcester; but there was no comparison between his achievement and that for which General Roberts and General Stewart received sums of £12,500, or only one half the |