MR. GLADSTONE: We find that we are not at present in a position to publish the Correspondence to which reference is made in the Question.

EGYPT-LAW AND JUSTICE-TRIAL

OF SULEIMAN SAMI.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, and perhaps I may be allowed, at the same time, to make a personal explanation. On Friday I, in the House, stated that certain matters had been laid before Lord Dufferin in Egypt, and he did not consider himself at liberty to incur the responsibility of going into them. The Prime Minister, without ascribing exact falsification to me, implied something very near it. I now wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Times to-day from Mr. Eve, solicitor to Arabi Pasha, in which occurs the following passage:

"A portion of this evidence was offered before the close of the trial of Arabi to Lord Dufferin for his private information. Upon reference to a letter now before me, I find the circumstances of the communication most dis

it;

also

tinctly stated as follows: First, it was offered to his Lordship to bring witnesses to prove that Omar Lufti had ordered Suleiman Sami to bring his regiment down unharmed, and that Suleiman had refused to be made a fool of, seeing well the construction that would be put upon that, perceiving what would be said if he stayed away while massacre was going on, after an hour's delay he came with his troops in arms in distinct contradiction to Omar Lufti's orders, and quelled the riots; secondly, it was offered to bring the man who had received the order and taken it to Suleiman Sami; and, thirdly, to bring another who had heard Omar Lufti in the streets exhorting the massacrers to strike home on the heads of the Christians, and not to spare.'"

The letter adds

"Lord Dufferin said it was not his business to prosecute Omar Lufti."

I wish to ask also, whether, in view of such a statement, the Prime Minister still adheres to the allegation made by him on Friday last, that

I also wish to know whether the Prime Minister, in view of his statement on Friday last

"That it was the duty of the Government to investigate any definite charge which was left in their hands, and that they would make the best examination in their power," intends to make such inquiry into the "tremendous charge" make against the Khedive of Egypt of having been concerned in the instigation of the massacres of June 11 at Alexandria, and, if so, when he will state in what manner Her Majesty's Government intend to carry out this duty?

MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to the second of these charges, the noble Lord has correctly stated that I said that it would be the duty of the Government to investigate any definite matter or charge which might be left in their hands, and that we should make the best examination of such a charge in our power. I am bound to say, however, that, on perusing the speech of the noble Lord, I find very little definite matter in it; and, before proceeding to say anything upon it, I wish very much to know whether that speech, or any particular report of that speech, is the basis upon which he proposes to found his Question? The matter is a very serious one, and a Member making a charge of this kind incurs an immense responsibility. But we should not like to make investigation without knowing that we were dealing with the subjectmatter with which the noble Lord desired that we should deal.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL : I shall be perfectly prepared to place all the materials which are in the possession of myself and others in the hands of the Prime Minister, in order that he may judge of their nature, if he will only tell me the character of the tribunal which he purposes shall make the Inquiry?

MR. GLADSTONE: The tribunal, in the first instance, must be the Government itself. It would be our duty to make the examination in the first instance; but it would be a prelimary and not a definite examination, and there would be an appeal to this House in case we should discharge our duty in

an unsatisfactory manner. to the first Question of the noble Lord, I think the misunderstanding that has arisen between us is this. The Question which the noble Lord puts relates entirely, if I understand it aright, to the evidence brought forward against a certain personage named Omar Lufti.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Which would be brought against him? MR. GLADSTONE: The statement of the noble Lord to which I desired to apply the negative and the repudiation of Lord Dufferin was a statement which, as we understood-and I think the noble

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: On what date did the Government receive the despatch?

Khedive.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Acting through Omar Lufti.

MR. GLADSTONE: There is no proof of any connection whatever between Omar Lufti and the Khedive in this question. That would be my first answer. Now, I am bound to say, viewing the nature of the case, that the House takes a very humane interest in every question of life and death, and I fully recognize the title of the House to be informed upon all that the Government have done in regard to such a question. The course which I propose to take at present for the information of the House is this-I propose to read two telegrams from Egypt which touch the vital parts of the case of Suleiman Sami; I propose then to read a letter or despatch which Lord Dufferin has addressed to Earl Granville, in which he notices the case of Omar Lufti. These Papers will be laid on the Table as soon as possible, together with some germane Papers. When I have read the despatch hon. Members will have the most material parts of the case before them, and will be able to found upon it either Questions or discussion. This is a despatch from Sir Edward Malet, dated June 9 (Saturday)

by Lord Dufferin

"My Lord,-As it has been suggested in Parliament that the Khedive of Egypt was the author of the massacres at Alexandria on 11th

June last year, and as it has been publicly stated that I hurried the trial of Arabi Pasha to a premature conclusion, lest, were it to have been injurious to the character of His Highness, I prolonged, revelations might have been made beg to say that such a supposition is quite erroneous. It is perfectly true that during the course of some preliminary conversations I had with Mr. Broadley in regard to disputed points of procedure between himself and the Egyptian Public Prosecutor, that gentleman occasionally hinted, in ominous but vague language, that in the interests of his clients he would be compolled to make very damnatory disclosures in regard to a number of eminent Egyptian personages. To these observations, which were more than once repeated, I invariably replied, as I am sure Mr. Broadley will himself testify, that such a result would be a matter of indifference both to myself and to Her Majesty's Government, who could have no possible desire to shield anyone to whom such a dreadful crime as murder could be brought home. Nor did I ever utter a word to discourage Mr. Broadley from executing his intentions. It is true I did not regard these minatory suggestions as serious-at all events, so far as the Khedive was concerned; but even had I attached more importance to them, I should not have held different language. It was during the course of one of these conversations that Mr. Broadley said to me that in strict justice it was Lufti Pasha, and not Arabi, who ought to be in the dock, and that he could mention facts to support this assertion. The circumstances which he referred to did not, however, appear to me to make out a case against Lufti which could be seriously sustained, and if, as Mr. Eve has asserted in his letter to The Times of to-day, I replied during the course of what was expressly a privileged,' and therefore unguarded, conver

Mr. Gladstone

the Minister of War,' I can only congratulate myself upon having made so sensible a reply. The circumstances under which the trial of Arabi was concluded I have already related to your Lordship in my previous despatches, and especially in the despatch of the 5th instant.

The narrative speaks for itself and disposes of the theory that I did anything to hush up the proceedings. Only one other person, and that an English gentleman, in some degree professionally connected with the Arabi interest, ever submitted to me a suggestion that the Alexandria massacres could be traced to the agency of His Highness the Khedive; but the accusation was not supported or substantiated by any tangible fact or circumstance which could bring conviction to a reasonable mind, especially when account was taken of the avowed sentiments of my interlocutor. Nor during the whole of my stay in Egypt was a tittle of evidence brought to my notice which would in the faintest degree have authorized so strange an allegation. After the conversation in question, however, I thought it worth while to sound a number of trustworthy and unprejudiced persons, both European and Native, on the point, and I especially discussed the matter with Sir Charles Wilson. As I have already stated, Sir Charles Wilson's sympathies were absolutely impartial. In fact, he was considered by the Egyptian Government to have taken a far too indulgent view of the the idea of the Khedive's complicity in the massacres, as I am bound to say did every other person to whom I mentioned the subject. Under the foregoing circumstances I have never been able to come to any other conclusion than that the accusation in question was one of those thousand baseless calumnies which teem from Egyptian soil, for whose origin there is no accounting, and which, being unsupported by any substantial or tangible evidence, are the more difficult to refute."

Arabi movement. Sir Charles Wilson ridiculed

Then comes a postcript

"With regard to Mr. Eve's statement as to the witnesses to whom the safe-conduct was to be given, I have no recollection of the circumstance to which he refers. Had Mr. Broadley required a safe-conduct for any of his witnesses, he would have made me an official demand in writing to that effect, and, as a matter of course, I should have requested the Egyptian Government to comply with his desire."

The two important questions are the execution that has lately taken place, and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in regard to it, and the question which, I deeply regret to say, has been raised by the noble Lord with regard to the Khedive of Egypt. But I hope we may be allowed to place these documents in the hands of Members; and I think it would be better that I should make no collateral or subsidiary statements, because the main points raised are, I think, fully dealt with in the Papers I have read.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I do not propose to enter into the questions raised by the Papers we have heard read. But with regard to the execution of Suleiman Sami, the House will expect to have some information as

to the course the Government have taken. Therefore, I wish to ask a Question of which I have given Notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Will he undertake to communicate to the House the several telegrams that have passed between the British Government and their Representatives in Egypt, or between the British and Egyptian Governments, on the subject of Suleiman Sami's execution? In asking for the telegrams that have passed, I wish to have the dates, not only of the days on which they were despatched, but the hours. I hope the Government will also be good enough to make the proper correction for the difference of time between this meridian and that of Egypt. There is another question; reference has been made to a telegram on Saturday from Major Macdonald. I wish to know what is the position he holds, and by whose authority he is acting?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, the right hon. Gentleman very kindly gave him Notice two hours ago of his intention to ask for the production of these telegrams; and he might mention that these telegrams, with the dates and hours corrected in the manner asked for, would, of course, form a portion of those Papers mentioned by the Prime Minister, which would be presented to the House with the least possible delay. He thought that it would be better for the House to have full details presented at once rather than piecemeal information. With regard to Major Macdonald's position, he did not think he could give a better description of it than by saying that when Sir Charles Wilson left Egypt, after rendering most valuable services, Major Macdonald was appointed to watch the trials on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and now he was performing the duties previously performed by Sir Charles Wilson.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What regiment does he belong to ? LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A Highland regiment.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would have any objection to producing the text of the telegram sent at 3 o'clock on Friday to Sir Edward Malet; also, whether, among the fresh evidence that Suleiman Sami wanted to call was that of Arabi Pasha; and, if so, why Her Majesty's Government, considering the