to the present case. We know that Major Macdonald is cognizant of the whole of these proceedings, and that he is a man who we know would perform his duty; but he would have grossly departed from his duty if, observing a miscarriage of justice, he had not reported that miscarriage to us. Major Macdonald and Sir Edward Malet we consider as standing in the same position; they are bound to communicate with one another upon all the important interests that are involved in questions of this kind; and the evidence we derive from the statements of Sir Edward Malet is precisely to the same effect as that which we draw from the fact that Major Macdonald takes no objection to the proceedings in this trial the methods of procedure adopted towards those of whose persons we had become possessed in the course of the military operations, and who never could have been brought to justice by the Egyptian authorities at all except through our agency; and with regard to those we had a responsibility totally different from any responsibility that could attach to us in respect to persons who were arrested by the Egyptian Government in the exercise of their functions, without any assistance whatever from us. It is quite true that Major Macdonald, in whom we have every confidence, had been chargedI will not say with the supervision, because that implies authority, but with the consideration of the circumstances which have been described in regard to the trial; but the business upon which we went to Egypt was to restore the Egyptian Government. That was a work which did not take place by a single formal act; it was to be effected by several steps, governed by good sense and judgment. I think we may fairly argue that we did not think it right to ignore our consideration and observation of the prosecution of criminal justice in Egypt in matters connected with the war, although we stand in a totally different footing with regard to Suleiman Sami from our position in regard to Arabi. With respect to those whom we had delivered into the hands of the Egyptian Government, we deemed it our duty to lay down positive conditions under which a fair trial was to take place. With regard to the present case, I do not greatly complain of the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote). He carefully guarded himself against asserting any doctrine of positive interference. What he stated was that we could not divest ourselves of all responsibility. To that extent I am disposed to go with the right hon. Gentleman; but the limit of our responsibility, as we view it, is this-that we are not to interfere, except in cases where there was, or had been, either a palpable departure from the rules of justice, or some strong presumption that there has been a miscarriage of justice. On all these questions we shall form our judgment mainly through the representations of our able and trustworthy agents in Egypt. These considerations are distinctly applicable Mr. Gladstone namely, that there is no presumption of a miscarriage of justice in this case. That being the case, my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is, that while we would freely interfere, if we had reason to believe that there had been a violation of the rules of justice, we distinctly decline to interfere when the information which we receive from our agents on the spot is to the effect that there has been no such miscarriage of justice. And this I must say, in corroboration of my right hon. Friend, is from no selfish or idle idea of exempting ourselves from responsibility. It is from a deep consideration of what is necessary for the welfare of Egypt. We have given certain assurances to the Government of Egypt, and to all the world at large. We have stated that our intervention in Egypt is limited by the necessities of the case, and that we have not gone there to make ourselves governors of the country. Our object has been to re-instate the Government of that country in credit, security, and stability. If we are to redeem that pledge which we have given-and that is as much required by sound policy as by honour and good faith- -we must beware of taking such measures as would be suggested by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and of pursuing a course which would paralyze the Government of Egypt, and, upon grounds which we think most frivolous, discredit that Government in the eyes of its own subjects; and revive all the difficulties and dangers which it has cost this country so much to neutralize and put aside, and cover ourselves and the whole country, in my opinion, with the discredit of well-de- when he thought he could do without served failure. That is the line which England. When the turn of the tide the Government have determined to went against the Egyptian movement, to take. It appears to us that our duty Suleiman Sami, as well as Arabi, was is marked out clearly by considerations to be given up. Major Macdonald was on the one side and on the other, and a regimental officer who knew all the we are by no means disposed to apply ins and outs of the Service; and he was any abstract doctrines to this case. We not so great a fool as to embarrass the shall be governed by those motives Foreign Office and the present Liberal which sound policy and justice dictate; Government by reporting anything whatand, acting on that principle, we say ever concerning these high matters of that, because we do not find any evi- State policy, which, according to the dence to show a miscarriage of justice, common sense and belief of the civilized we decline to interfere with the dis- world, rested in the hands of Suleiman. cretion of the responsible authorities in A miserable attempt had been made, Egypt. both by the right hon. Baronet the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and by the Prime Minister, to distinguish between the cases of Arabi and Suleiman, because Arabi fell a prisoner to the British arms, and Suleiman did not. What distinction could there be between the two cases? If British arms had not gone to Egypt, if British arms had not overborne the wills of the Egyptian people and the power of the unfortunate Arabi, the dupe of the Khedive; if British arms had not gone there and destroyed the hopes of that people, into whose arms would Suleiman have fallen? Not into the arms of anyone in the world. Constructively, if not actually, he had fallen a prisoner into British arms; and if British arms had not gone to Egypt, and if British policy did not now control the miserable Ruler of that country, Suleiman Sami, instead of dying the death of a criminal that morning, would be a Minister of State in Egypt. It was idle, it was vain, for Her Majesty's Government to attempt to get rid of the responsibility. All the difference between the possible position of Suleiman Sami as a Minister of State in Egypt and his actual position as a criminal, according to the laws of the Khedive, rested upon Her Majesty's Government's rules and upon their policy; and all the water in the seas could not wash from their hands the blood of that unfortunate man. What story was the House to believe from the Treasury Bench? Time had been shamefully lost. The Government knew, as they all knew, as the public of this country knew at an early hour yesterday (Friday) morning that that unfortunate man was to die. What course did the Government take? The House MR. SEXTON said, the conduct of the Government in this matter was wretched and revolting in the extreme; and the verdict of all rational and impartial men would be that this Liberal Government chose that this unfortunate human life should be sacrificed that morning, rather than materials should be given in that House and the country to call in question their miserable policy. Suleiman Sami must be shot or hanged that morning, rather than the world should know the inner circumstances and facts of the policy of the Khedive, and of his backers and champions in England. There had been two men chiefly concerned in that business-Arabi Pasha and Suleiman Sami. They stood before the Government of Egypt precisely in the same position; they were both guilty, practically, of the same offence; and this miserable Government, the Government of that puppet in Egypt, set up by a Liberal Administration in England, got rid of one inconvenient person by putting him out of his native country; and now they proposed to get rid of another inconvenient person by putting him out of life. Was it by the bullet of the platoon, or by the rope of the hangman, that this Liberal Government hoped to preserve its character? Major Macdonald had not reported that there had been any infraction of justice. Who was this Major Macdonald? Was the conscience, and honour, and position, and power of a great Liberal Government in England to be placed in the hands of an obscure and unknown Major of Infantry? Major Macdonald knew his business too well to report anything which might in any way show that Suleiman Sami and Arabi were the political agents of the Khedive had been treated to the recital of two narratives. They had had that of the noble Lord the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), and they had had that of the right hon. Baronet the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Which story were they to believe? The late Under Secretary of State informed the House that Lord Dufferin was seen last (Thursday) night and early to-day (Friday)-a curious combination-and that a Resolution was arrived at. Now, was it arrived at last night or early to-day? Or was it arrived at both last night and to-day? When the right hon. Gentleman was pressed as to the hour at which the telegram to Egypt was despatched, he informed the House that the telegram had been drafted, that the clerks had been assembled to place that single telegram in cypher, that that occupied a considerable time-how many minutes or hours he left hon. Gentlemen to speculate. The right hon. Gentleman would have the House to believe that the action of the Foreign Office was taken before the good feeling and humanity of the House interfered in the matter; he would have them believe that the delay in the despatch of the telegram arose not from any vacillation or indisposition in the mind of the Foreign Office, but because of the incapacity of the clerks of that establishment to put the telegram into cypher. The noble Lord the present Under Secretary of State informed the House that he was absent from the House at half-past 2 to-day (Friday), because he was engaged in considering this very matter in regard to which the clerks, according to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), had been engaged all day in putting the telegram into cypher. It was perfectly evident, from the story of the noble Lord, that when he went back to the Foreign Office at 3 o'clock, Lord Granville had not made up his mind, and that the telegram was not then drafted. Indeed, it was quite plain that the Foreign Office had not arrived at any decision until the force of that House impelled it. The Prime Minister had admitted that the task of the British Government in Egypt was to restore the Government of the Khedive. It was evident to the world that the Khedive was the puppet of the British Government. It was evident that a Mr. Sexton telegram from the Prime Minister, or from the Foreign Office, would respite the life of that political dupe, so far as to enable inquiries to be made. He must question the reply made by the Prime Minister to the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). He distinctly heard the right hon. Gentleman say that inquiry would be made, and that the Government would feel it their duty to put themselves, as far as possible, into possession of the facts of the case, so that they might satisfy themselves, whether the trial had been fair and honest. From the position taken up by the Prime Minister earlier in the day and now, it was apparent that they were not in possession of sufficient facts to decide whether that man ought to be executed or not. Admitting this Major Macdonald, this obscure military gentleman, to be a competent judge of high policy, he could not admit the responsibility of the Government to be shifted upon the shoulders of this Major of Infantry; and he called upon the Government, in the name of humanity, justice, and common sense to possess themselves of the real facts of the case. He supposed it was now 3 or 4 o'clock in Egypt. If they shot that man at sun-rise, he was now within two hours of his death. Suleiman Sami was the victim of the Government policy, and the responsibility of his blood would for ever lie on the heads of that LiberalRadical Government. MR. W. H. SMITH said, he thought the House would be right in dividing upon this question, as a protest against the course which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government. The question whether this man was justly or unjustly sentenced to death was one which was certainly of the greatest possible gravity, looking at the position England now occupied in Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had sought to draw a great distinction between the case of Arabi and the case of Suleiman. His (Mr. W. H. Smith's) view was that the country, at all events, would not see that there was any great difference in the responsibility of this country with regard to the trial of the two men. might be that Suleiman had been found guilty justly. Arabi was handed over, undoubtedly, by the officers of the British Army to the authority whatever it was, which existed in Egypt; but the autho It THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, he had made the Motion, because he was afraid the House would consider it too late to go on with those measures. Question put, and agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next. REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (IRE- COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. Amendments made. Motion made, and Question proposed, Bill, as amended, to the House." rity which existed in Egypt existed, at] the present moment, by virtue of the British arms. The British Army maintained the authority of the Khedive in Egypt; and it could not but be remarked with what extraordinary rapidity the sentence upon Suleiman Sami was to be carried out. He was not aware whether it was a course which was usual in Egypt; but, certainly, it was a course which struck him as being a most extraordinary one-namely, that a man should (Dr. Lyons, Mr. Maurice Brooks, Mr. Findlater.) be tried and found guilty on Thursday, and executed probably at daylight on Saturday. There did not appear to be time for Her Majesty's Representative in Egypt, assuming he was doing his duty, to satisfy himself that everything had been done that ought to be done;"That the Chairman do now report the there was not time for the British Representative in Egypt to communicate with Her Majesty's Government, and bring to bear that influence which it was the duty of the Government to bring if wrong had been done. He was far from saying that wrong had been done; but, undoubtedly, the position which Her Majesty's Government occupied in Egypt was such that they were bound to see that wrong had not been done, and the rapidity with which the sentence was to be carried out was such as to leave a dreadful responsibility upon the Government. Under the circumstances, he considered it was the duty of the House to divide upon the Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," simply as a protest that, in the judgment of the House, it was incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to have satisfied themselves that the verdict was a just one. Main Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 97; Noes 58: Majority 39.-(Div. List, No. 123.) SUPPLY-considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."-(The Marquess of Hartington.) SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF wished to know why Progress was to be reported at that hour? Hon. Members ought to know, before the Motion was agreed to, whether or not it was intended to go on with the Lords Alcester and Wolseley Annuities Bills. MR. HEALY said, he wished to know if the Government would object to having the Bill re-printed? While the Irish Members assented to the principle of the measure, they would like to see what Amendments had been made in it before the Report stage was disposed of. MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, that it was hardly worth while going to the expense of having the Bill re-printed. The Amendments had only been for the purpose of correcting an obvious oversight, by which Christmas Day had been left out of the list of holidays which the Bill was to give the clerks of the Irish Registry of Deeds Office. Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next. DRAINAGE (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL. On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. TREVELYAN. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 220.] YORKSHIRE REGISTER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. On Motion of Mr. PEASE, Bill to amend the Yorkshire Register Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEASE, Mr. NORWOOD, and Mr. BARRAN. Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 221.] House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next sional Orders* (68) Third Reading-Local Government (Ireland) EGYPT-LAW AND JUSTICE-TRIAL EARL DE LA WARR asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could state the terms of the telegram sent to Sir Edward Malet relative to the trial of Suleiman Sami, and also the reply of Sir Edward Malet? EARL GRANVILLE said, he would present the telegrams to their Lordships with some other Correspondence on the subject. MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.-(No. 56.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, I need detain your Lordships but a very few moments. This Bill has already been brought forward three times during the last four years; and it is barely a year since it was last before the House. I then had the honour of stating at some length its object and the grounds on which it is based; and I really think it is quite unnecessary that I should now take up your Lordships' time in going over arguments with which you are already familiar. These arguments, in my opinion at least, have never yet been answered, and certainly were not answered last year in this House. There was one very remarkable feature in last year's debate. Only two Members of your Lordships' House spoke against the Bill, the noble similar declaration. But I think that this striking difference of opinion in regard to a most important point on the part of two such eminent opponents of this measure ought not to be forgotten by your Lordships. I may also remind. the House that last year the Bill was only rejected by a very narrow majority in a very large division. The numbers were 131 to 128. There was, in fact, an actual majority of 12 lay Peers in its favour. But, unfortunately, the great majority of the right rev. Bench is on this question in opposition to the majority of lay Peers, and the Bill was rejected because 16 right rev. Prelates voted against it. It is, and always has been, an uphill struggle for the supporters of this Bill, owing to the fact that there is invariably cast into the scale against them the votes and influence of the Spiritual Peerage. Although the right rev. Bench is not unanimous, there are at this moment only two right rev. Prelates in favour of the Bill. They are very strongly in its favour; but every one of their right rev. Brethren votes against it in this House, and nearly every one works against it in his diocese. They have been unusually active during the past year. Convocation has adopted. what is called an articulus cleri condemning the Bill. At 12 Diocesan Conferences |