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 jus

tice.

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

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

hanged. Why, how many people deserved to be hanged? He had heard it suggested that he himself, and some of his Friends round about him, richly deserved that punishment; but, if they were tried and condemned in a manner revolting to the instincts of justice, he believed that even the hon. and learned Member for Stockport would hesitate to award the punishment. [Cries of "Divide!"] Suleiman Sami was dead, 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.

police continually fired on the Europeans until about half-past 6 o'clock, when a regiment of Infantry-Suleiman Sami's regiment-arrived and drove them off. A man named Petcovitsch, also said that, although at 6 o'clock there was peace in the city on the arrival of the soldiers, yet that at the Prefecture of Police the massacre continued until 7.30. He did not say that this made out the case; but, at all events, there was a case 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 Suleiman? The Prime Minister knew LORD ALCESTER'S GRANT (re-committed) very well that, having established the Government of the Khedive, he was morally responsible in the eyes of the country and the world for the use the Egyptian Government made of the power thus bestowed upon them. If the Prime Minister did not take care, he would find himself in the most awkward of all political positions-that of supporting an Oriental despotism, the acts of which he could only imperfectly control. He would find himself mixed up with cases of tyranny, injustice, cruelty, and oppression, against which his own conscience would revolt. [Mr. HOPWOOD: Hear, hear!] It was not to be supposed that the conscience of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, who interrupted, would revolt.-instead thereof. How long did the Prime Minister intend to go on in ignorance of the evidence of the proceedings which had taken place? All that Major Macdonald said about Suleiman Sami's case was that the trial was a just one, and the man deserved to be hanged. But surely more was required than that a man deserved to be

Mr. Gorst

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."

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

country had granted a Peerage to these officers, who had, no doubt, done their work well; but he thought that a sum of £12,500, in addition to the Peerage, was quite ample compensation. Amendment proposed,

46

In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words twenty-five thousand," and insert the words "twelve thousand five hundred," (Mr. Macfarlane,)

sum now proposed. There was absolutely no comparison between them. It was said that in the one case the Government only gave a Baronetcy, and that it was usual to grant a smaller sum in the case of a Baronetcy than in that of a Peerage. He failed to see why it was more necessary to confer a Peerage upon Sir Beauchamp Seymour and Sir Garnet Wolseley than it was in the case of General Roberts and General Stewart. He objected altogether to the payment Question proposed, "That the words of blood-money of this kind. He thought|twenty-five thousand' stand part of the reward for soldiers was pro- the Clause." proper motion in their profession, and not so many pounds a-head for every Egyptian they had killed. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

—instead thereof.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, he was opposed to any grant at all; and he strongly objected to the principle of giving annuities for two lives. That part of the proposition which represented the second life he objected to; but he could not go so far as the Amendment. He was quite willing to accept the decision of the House to make a grant to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley; and he was not disposed to cut the amount below the value of the pension originally proposed for one life.

MR. O'BRIEN said, he was not inclined to huxter over the amount of the reward proposed to be given to Lord Alcester; but he thought it grotesque to find the House discussing this enormous grant to a man who was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria, after they had been discussing all the evening and justifying the execution of an Egyptian soldier, who had only had a small share in the burning of that city. Surely an Egyptian soldier had as much right to burn Alexandria as Lord Alcester had to bombard it. Both took the course which they deemed to be most effectual, from a military point of view; and, although he entertained no great hopes of the Liberal Party, he had hoped they would have been consistent enough to advocate the hanging of Lord Alcester, instead of rewarding him for causing much more bloodshed, and with much

MR. ONSLOW said, that, in rising to second the Amendment, he, like his hon. Friend, did so without any intention of disparaging the services Lord Alcester had rendered to the country. He seconded the Amendment for the same reasons as his hon. Friend had moved it. The work General Roberts and General Stewart had done was far superior to anything Lord Alcester had done. The House would recollect that Lord Alcester was fighting against a people who were practically offering no resistance at all, and who could not possibly successfully oppose him; whereas General Roberts and General Stewart encountered a nation of warriors. There was no comparison whatever to be drawn between the achievements of Lord Alcester and those of General Stewart and General Roberts. He had voted in the minority on the last occasion, and he had done so for this reason-because he thought that the rewards given to Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester were far superior to the achievements they had performed. He knew it was said that when they gave a Peerage to a person, they must accompany it by a money grant sufficient to enable the title to be supported. But he did not see why the performance of very insignificant duties should be rewarded in this very ultra-less justification, in bombarding Alexanmagnificent way. He failed to see in the past history of the country that such extravagant rewards had been conferred; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to look at the performances of many officers, who had not been rewarded at all, and compare them with the achievements of Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester. The

Mr. Macfarlane

dria than Suleiman Sami in what he had done. He was quite sure the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and some of his Friends were sincere in opposing the grant, and that he did not object to it in any mere huxtering spirit; but, while he said this, judging from the demeanour of the Radical Party generally during these dis