"Certainly it was a course which had been followed on previous occasions-that, under revive the Motion for the Committee of Supply." such circumstances, the Government should Well, what were the circumstances and previous occasions? Why, that the day was Friday, and therefore the Motion for going into Committee of Supply was revived, according to the rule which was followed for a long series of years, after the speech of Lord Palmerston and the recommendation of the Committee. If it had not been so, how could Lord Palmerston have said that it was his intention on Fridays to leave unrestricted to the amplest extent the opportunities which private Members then enjoyed? That remark afforded a clear indication of what was in the mind of Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston either meant what he said, or he did not mean what he said. If he did mean what he said, an expectation was held out to independent Members of the House that they should have the power of moving Amendments, and also of carrying on a desultory discussion; and a consideration was offered to them for surrendering their privileges. Nothing had happened since to abrogate those privileges, or to get rid of the expectations held out on that occasion by Lord Palmerston. These were the circumstances referred to by Mr. Speaker Denison and his ruling. The hardships which the new practice might inflict upon private Members were obvious. It was clear that, in times of pressure, the Government might find it an instrument in their hands which they would be able to use to the great detriment of free discussion in the House, and in violation of the rights of independent Members. He believed it was not competent for him to move his Notice as an Amendment, and he was glad of it, because he should have been sorry in a thin House, and at that hour of the night, that the House should, by an adverse vote, arrive at a Resolution which would appear to be detrimental to the Privileges of the House. All he did now was to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would answer the observations he had made in a conciliatory spirit, in order to show that he was not disposed to press any further limitations which might be injurious to the interests of private Members. MR. GLADSTONE said, there were several points raised in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). In regard to some of them, he was inclined to agree; while, in respect of others, he differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not desirable for the House to come to a vote on a Motion of this kind; and, therefore, it was satisfactory to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in a position to move it. As to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought he was mistaken in attempting to derive from the declaration of Lord Palmerston any expression of opinion whatever bearing upon the present point. The point the House were discussing at that time was whether there should be a limitation of the subjects which might be brought forward on the Order of the Day for going into Supply; and, upon that point, Lord Palmerston stated that the Committee were opposed to any limitation. The real question in the particular case which had been referred to was whether, when the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply had been decided by the carrying of an adverse Amendment, the Government were bound to set up Supply again, and that question formed no part of the previous discussion at all. He did not quite understand what amount of authority the notes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had; but he certainly dif fered from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the construction he had placed upon them. He understood they were notes taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK said, they were notes corrected by himself. MR. GLADSTONE: And not to be found in Hansard? MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK : No. He had expressly stated they were not to be found in Hansard. MR. GLADSTONE said, that, under the circumstances, he did not know what degree of authority the notes were entitled to claim; but he entirely differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the construction he put upon them. The case arose on a particular occasion, when the Order for going into Committee of Supply having been put aside by the carrying of an adverso He (Mr. Gladstone) recollected quite well, in 1866, calculating the time at the disposal of the Government for Government Business, and he confined himself to two days in the week, Monday and Thursday; but Lord Derby, who then held a prominent position on the other side of the House, pointed out and argued justly that he had forgotten to take notice of the fact that the Government were the residuary legatees of Friday night. That was the view which the Government had always taken of the matter, and the only case in which he could recollect a dispute having arisen was when they had reached the hour of 11 o'clock, and the greater part of the evening had been passed in discussing Motions upon going into Committee of Supply. Amendment, a question was raised, not, residue of the time on Fridays availwhether Supply should be, but whether able for the Business of the Government. it could be, set up again? An appeal was made to the Speaker on the subject, and Lord Ossington, who was then Speaker (as Mr. Denison), pointed out what had been the mode of procedure on previous occasions; but he did not say that it had been the invariable rule on all previous occasions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the ruling of the present Speaker was in conflict with that of Lord Ossington, the present Speaker having stated that there was no obligation on the part of the present Government to renew the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. The right hon. and learned Gentleman contended that that ruling was contrary to the usage of the House, and contrary to the dictum of Lord Ossington; but, in his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion, there was no discrepancy whatever between the ruling of the two Speakers, and the dictum of Lord Ossington did not, in the slightest degree, conflict with the ruling given a short time ago by the present Speaker. Nor was there, in truth, any practical difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and himself; because they both agreed in substance that Friday evening was to be at the disposal of private and independent Members. He should, however, have objected to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the ground, among other things, that much depended upon the hour of the evening and the circumstances of the case. It might be a very late hour in the evening, or 1 o'clock in the morning, when an adverse Motion was carried; and it was not obligatory, nor would it be convenient, as a general rule, that a Motion for going into Committee of Supply should in such a case be renewed. That was a point upon which he differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but, as regarded the proposition that in ordinary circumstances, where it was inconvenient to the House, or where urgent Public Business did not require a different course to be pursued, it would undoubtedly be a very rare case where the Order for going into Committee of Supply was not set up again. There was one point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not notice, and that was the expectation of Lord Palmerston, when the arrangement was made, that there would be an appreciable Mr. Gladstone SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he did not suppose it was necessary, under the circumstances, that he should enter very largely into the question which had been raised by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). He must say, however, that he agreed to some extent in his contention. He thought that the intention of the Rule which was made in regard to taking Supply on Fridays was that an opportunity should be given to Members of the House to bring forward, in the free manner they were in the habit of doing, on the Motion for Adjournment from Friday until Monday, such subjects which they thought ought to be discussed. He thought it was entirely in accordance with the principle of that Rule that the Government, at all events in ordinary circumstances, should set up Supply again on such occasions as those which his right hon. and learned Friend contemplated. He did not understand, from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that he really differed from that view of the case. If the House were now in a position to come to a vote on the subject, he should, of course, have considered it necessary to say a few words more in order to support his vote; but they were not in that position. They were simply engaged in an academic discussion; and he thought the effect of it would be to express, on the part of the House, an opinion that the Rule which should be followed should be of the character described by his right hon. and learned Friend, although it could not be made absolute. EGYPT-LAW AND JUSTICE-TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI. OBSERVATIONS. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, the reason he had risen on this occasion was not for the purpose of entering into what might be called an academic discussion, but for the purpose of bringing forward again a very practical and pressing question, which was briefly alluded to in the earlier part of that day's Sitting, but which he thought it was necessary they should press upon the consideration of the Government. The question to which he referred was the position of the condemned man, Suleiman Sami, in Egypt. He had received information, on which he could place entire reliance, that this man was not only under sentence of death, but that the sentence was to be carried out to-morrow-or, he believed he might say, seeing that it was past 12 o'clock, that day. He understood, from communications he had received, that the entrance of the Khedive into Alexandria was to be delayed on account of the execution that was to take place, as it was desired that the Khedive should not enter that city until the execution was over. He did not desire for a moment to express any opinion in regard to the justice of the sentence after it was passed. He was quite prepared to believe that everything that had been done had been done rightly and properly. He knew nothing of the case that would induce him to form another opinion; and if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to say they had reason to believe that all was right, and that everything that had been done had been done in accordance with justice, be should, of course, accept such a statement, founded on their own responsibility. But he must point out that, under the circumstances in which he stood, and in the peculiar relations which this country had now adopted towards Egypt, it was not for us to shut our eyes and to say that it lay with the Egyptian Government, and that we had nothing, as a British Government, to do with it. It could not be denied for a moment that the whole system of Egyptian administration at present rested upon the support of Her Majesty's Government. It might, or might not, be right that that should be case; but if it was the case, as he believed it was, Her Majesty's Govern His ment must be prepared to accept the circumstances of that position, and be prepared to be challenged and to meet the challenge when any question was raised as to the administration of justice in Egypt. They had now altogether passed the time for inquiring whether the original Expedition to Egypt was or was not necessary, or whether the events that occurred there might or might not have been avoided by a different course of action. They had passed all that; but they had practically before them the question of the relations which the Government of this country now bore towards the Government of Egypt. They knew that that Government had no strength of itself, but that it stood on the support of this country; and, therefore, there was a responsibility attached to this country for anything that might take place. The information he had received was to the effect that the Khedive had postponed his departure for Alexandria until Saturday. Highness had intended to make the journey to-morrow; but it had been decided that the execution of Suleiman Sami should take place to-morrow morning, and he did not wish to enter the town on the same day as the execution. A petition for the pardon of Suleiman was presented to the Khedive by the counsel for the defence, but rejected. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) wished. again to say that he knew nothing about the merits of the case, and he was not at all prepared to deny that there might not have been a perfect reason for the rejection of the petition of Suleiman's counsel for a pardon; but either Her Majesty's Government had something to do with the matter or they had not. The House ought to know which it was. They ought to know on what footing the Government of Egypt rested. It was a crucial case, in which they had a right to demand that Her Majesty's Government should acknowledge their share of responsibility, and state their opinion and the conclusion at which they had arrived in regard to the matter. LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, no one would, he was sure, think for a single instant of complaining that the question had been mentioned again that day; because the moment at which his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was able to raise the question at the Morn exa ing Sitting precluded anything beyond | another Court. What took place was a very brief conversation, which was, no this. At the preliminary proceedings, doubt, of an unsatisfactory character to witnesses, both for the prosecution and everybody concerned. It was, therefore, the defence, appeared and were desirable that there should be a fuller mined, but counsel was not admitted. discussion of the question. In regard The preliminary stage was similar to to this man, Suleiman Sami, whose case that which was called in France the had been brought forward by the right making of an Acte d'Accusation. After hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford the Court had fully heard the whole Northcote), he (Lord Edmond Fitz- case, it made out what we should call maurice) wished to make it perfectly an indictment, but, as it was called clear to the House that he was not one in Egypt, a dossier, and that dossier was of those who were known as political used as the basis of the proceedings prisoners. He felt it necessary to say in the higher Court. The proceedings that; because he found, from conversa- of this higher Court were the proceedtion with several of his hon. Friends, ings of a Court Martial sitting at Alexanthat an impression existed that he was dria. It was presided over by an Egypto be classed in the same category as tian in whom, he was informed, every those persons of whom the well-known person who had been brought into Arabi was chief and Toulba another. contact with him had every relianceOwing to that impression, a considerable namely, Riouf Pasha-and the President amount of sympathy and attention had was assisted by two Europeans, men of been excited which otherwise would solid reputation-Morice Bey, an Engnot have been the case. Suleiman Sami lishman, and Fanedirigo Bey, an Italian. was not one of the political prisoners at That Court Martial had the evidence all. The facts were these. The main before it which had been given at the charge against Suleiman Sami was a preliminary proceedings, counsel were charge of arson and plunder, com- admitted, and the examination and crossmitted on the day, and subsequent to examination of witnesses were allowed. the day, of the attack on Alexandria. Counsel, excluded from access to the After that event, Suleiman Sami and prisoners at the preliminary proceedcertain other persons escaped to the ings, had, at the second trial, access to Ottoman territory, to a place from which their clients as a matter of right, so as they were surrendered by the Ottoman to be able to prepare the defence. The Government, and the charge brought prisoners had also the right to ask that against Suleiman Sami on his return further evidence should be produced; was that of ordinary crime-a charge but the Court was not obliged to give of arson and plunder-and his name permission, unless it considered the defigured in the lists of various prisoners mand to be really bond fide, and not who, a short time ago, were awaiting made simply for the purpose of delay, trial, under the procedure he had de- and to prevent justice taking its fair and scribed the other day. Now, he thought natural course. It appeared that Suleiit desirable once more to dwell, if only man Sami, even before his witnesses for a moment, on the character of that or dossier were prepared, was deserted procedure. They must, he thought, in a by his counsel. As to what the reason case of this kind, however repugnant it was, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had might be to them as Englishmen, make no information, nor could he say that up their minds to detach themselves the course thus taken necessarily told in from the prevailing notions, however dear favour of the prisoner, because it might to them, in regard to their own jurispru- be that the counsel for the prisoner saw dence. They must make up their minds that the case was a perfectly hopeless that, in dealing with the facts of the one. Suleiman also wished to call cercase, they were dealing with a foreign tain additional witnesses; but the Court procedure, and a procedure which, partly considered, either that the demand was from national prejudice, was objection- one which it should not accede to, or able to the feelings of this country. that it was not made in a bond fide Nevertheless, it existed over a large por- manner. But the most important point tion of the civilized world. There were for the House was, that not merely this preliminary proceedings before one trial, but all the trials, had been watched Court, and the final stage was before a by English officers. This particular trial Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice had been watched by the gentleman, I had been sent to Sir Edward Malet, whose name he had mentioned the other specifically asking whether there was day-namely, Major Macdonald, a gen- anything in this case to leave in his tleman of great reputation, in whom mind any doubt as to whether Suleiman Lord Dufferin had the greatest con- Sami had, or had not had, a fair trial. fidence. He had had the assistance of That was one of the many proofs which certain gentlemen, well acquainted with might be adduced of the great anxiety Oriental languages and Egyptian legal of the Government, by their own exaffairs, and acquainted with the techni- ample, to set an example in Egypt of calities of the law in that country; and that love of justice which it was, their general instructions had been to above all things, necessary to instil report, either to Lord Dufferin or to Sir into the minds of the people of that Edward Malet, if they saw anything at country. But there was yet another these trials which they considered an in- point which he wished to urge; and fraction of justice, or anything to show that was, to place clearly before the that the prisoners had not had a fair House the essential distinction which trial. Major Macdonald had watched there was between the case of Suleiman the proceedings, and he had not reported Pasha and the case of Arabi Pasha. to Sir Edward Malet that there had been Neither he, nor anyone else upon the any infraction of justice. They had, Treasury Bench, had spoken against indeed, received a telegram from Sir Arabi Pasha as they had been said to Edward Malet stating that Suleiman have spoken. What had been said Pasha had been condemned; but he did against Arabi was, that he and certain not state the exact day fixed for the of his associates raised a great moveexecution. The right hon. Gentleman ment, which they proved themselves opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), how- perfectly unable to control or direct, ever, had informed the House that the and that thereby they were producing execution was to take place to-day. He-nay, that they had produced-a con(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not in a position to state that that was not so; but what he wished to put before the House was, that there was no reason to suppose that, in this case, there had been any miscarriage of justice or infraction of justice such as ought to lead Her Majesty's Government to intervene. If, because a particular man had been sentenced to death, the Government were to consider it their duty to telegraph to Egypt to stop the proceedings, it seemed to him that the Government would be logically involving themselves in an interference with every trial in Egypt. Her Majesty's Government clearly could only act in a case of this kind-a case which was one of ordinary and not political crimeupon the report of the gentlemen who had been deputed to watch the case, that they considered there had been some miscarriage of justice; but there was no reason to suppose that there had been any miscarriage in this case. Nevertheless, when the telegram came from Sir Edward Malet, stating that Suleiman Pasha had been condemned, Lord Granville did consider it desirable to telegraph for fuller information owing more particularly to certain statements in the newspapers which were likely to cause an early inquiry here; and a telegram dition of anarchy in Egypt, and that taking advantage of that anarchy various men, of whom Suleiman Sami was one, indulged their own vices, and committed acts which would be wrongful, wheresoever and by whomsoever committed. These men stood in a totally different position from that of Arabi Pasha, Toulba Pasha, and those other prisoners who were now at Ceylon. Those prisoners were political offenders, and it was for that reason, and also to a certain extent because Arabi Pasha and his battalions had surrendered themselves to an English General, that the Government considered it their duty to lay down, in regard to their trial, certain rules, and to obtain for them certain securities; but they had not considered it their duty to claim the same rights and privileges for prisoners such as Suleiman Sami and others, who were accused of ordinary crime-of massacre, of murder, of pillage, of plunder, and of arson; and he did not believe that it was the wish of the House that they should do so-that they should intervene in these cases; and that for two reasons. In the first place, because, by the intervention of such men as Major Macdonald and the other officers, whose names he had mentioned, who wero watching the |