MR. O'BRIEN, who spoke amid great and continued interruption, said, he was sorry he could not congratulate the Government, or the Radical Party, on the half-hearted compromise which had been come to between them in this matter. [Cries of "Divide!"] When hon. Gentlemen opposite had exhausted themselves, he would continue his speech. In his opinion, the English Government were responsible for this war; and, as they were responsible for it, they ought not to attempt to get out of paying for it. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He would wait, of course, until hon. Gentlemen opposite had finished their incoherent interruptions.

Bench. He alluded to the right hon. I warned by the statements and the docGentleman the Member for North Devon trine laid down that day, and be care(Sir Stafford Northcote), as the Leader ful about sanctioning in the future the of the first Opposition Bench. The right line of policy which the Premier rehon. Gentleman regretted, some months gretted he was not able to perpetrate ago, before any documents were laid in the past. before the House, that the Government should not have taken the advantage of an ignorant and surprised Legislature, and consented to fling away £50,000 of the taxpayers' money in grants to Lords Alcester and Wolseley, without any knowledge of the real merits of the proposed recipients. The Premier then regretted that the circumstances of the Autumn Session prevented him from asking the House to grant a large sum of money without knowing really whether it would be right or wrong in so doing. Both right hon. Gentlemen were financiers, if they were anything; and yet such were their ideas of the probity which should direct the policy of England, that they avowed themselves ready to snatch from the Legislature a Vote of money without waiting to see whether it was proper that such a Vote of money should be passed. For his (Mr. O'Donnell's) part, he considered that if these Votes were to do any good, if they were to have any effect in stimulating men to do real service for their country, they should be brought forward after grave consideration and deliberation. When such were the principles on which the Leaders on both sides of the House were ready to conduct the financial policy of the country, it was little to be wondered at that a brother of a General should become contractor of the Army, and that another English contractor should send out rotten flour to support English soldiers in Egypt.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question.

MR. O'DONNELL said, he was endeavouring to show that the financial policy of the Government

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Ques

tion before the House.

MR. O'DONNELL said, he would not pursue the subject further, though he did hope that those Radical Gentlemen, who professed so much sympathy with Egypt, would be a little more patient when its affairs were discussed. He protested against the proposal which the Government had made. The country and future Parliaments ought to be Mr. O'Donnell

MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair.

MR. O'BRIEN said, he was about to observe, with reference to the noises from the other side of the House, that if hon. Members continued to interrupt him, he would simply have to wait until they had learned a little more sense and listened to what he had to say. He submitted that the Egyptian War was a shabby and disreputable business, whatever way one looked at it. Now, to him it seemed that a Jingo who had the courage of his convictions, and believed in his heart that the bombardment of Alexandria was a very fine thing, figured in the disreputable business to far greater advantage than the economical Radicals opposite, who were shouting out their interruptions-[cries of "Divide, divide!"]-and who now wanted not to give to their soldiers and sailors a little of that prize money which they had won for them. He, for one, could not agree with those Radicals who, like the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), tried to victimize men for doing what the people of England sent them to do, and which, to use the words that had been used to describe an enterprize nearer home, of about equal courage, was to murder, to burn, and to destroy. He was sent out to do that work, and he had certainly done it in a manner to commend himself to those who sent him. The Government, ap

cussion on this question. [Continued cries of "Divide, divide!"]

parently, had conciliated hon. Members | bably have done, if they had to face the opposite by sacrificing their original long rifles of the Boers at Lang's Nek. programme of hereditary pensions. Such MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, who also pensions were very objectionable; but spoke amid great interruption, said, he they were still more objectionable when should protest against the principle laid awarded for safely and ingloriously down by the Prime Minister and the slaughtering an all but defenceless Leaders of the Opposition in this debate. people. As for the gallantry of the [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] He wonaffair, it seemed to him that Lord dered why it was the Radical MemAlcester, miles from the forts, and stand-bers were so anxious to suppress dising behind his walls of iron, shooting down defenceless men, who had as much right to defend their country as the English had to defend themselves from dynamite, was as safe from the fire of those forts as if the enemy had been pelting him with roasted apples. It seemed to him that Lord Alcester, standing thus, occupied the not less glorious position of an assassin behind a hedge, and certainly one of much less risk. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members wished to prolong his remarks, they could not adopt a better means of doing so than by interrupting him. None the less, he submitted that he had a right to be protected from the stupid and unmannerly conduct of hon. Members on both sides of the House. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not attend to my directions to address himself to the Chair. If he would address himself to the Chair, probably he would receive more attention.

MR. O'BRIEN said, he was sure the Speaker would admit that he received a great deal of provocation, which should also be taken into account. However, he would endeavour to keep to the point. He ridiculed the plea put forward by the Radical Members, that Admiral Seymour was more anxious to commence hostilities than the people of England were. He believed every cannon shot was telegraphed home and gloated over in England. He, for one, believed Lord Alcester was very moderately remunerated indeed for the amount of slaughter he had done; and if hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal persuasion disapproved now of his services, he hoped they would show their disapproval in some less disinterested manner than that of trying to save the ratepayers £20,000. If they had the courage of their convictions, or rather professions, let them give up the advantage they had got by the war; let them do an act of justice and honesty, as they would pro

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it has not been forced upon your attention that an hon. Member, sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House, has kept up continuous cries of "Divide!" ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Longford rose to address the House? I would ask you, Sir, whether my hon. Friend, being in possession of the House, is not entitled to be heard without interruption?

MR. STANTON: As I am one of the Members who has kept up the cry of "Divide!".

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) is in possession of the House, and is entitled to be heard without interruption.

MR. STANTON: I rise to a point of Order. May I be allowed to ask whether it is not the evident sense of the House that the Question should be put, and that we should proceed to a Division?

MR. SPEAKER made no reply.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY said, he wished to protest against the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister, that whenever a Government, on any ground, wished to confer special rewards upon anyone who had rendered services, that House had no business and no right to discuss the nature of the services rendered for those rewards, by way of protest against their being granted, or to say whether it approved of them or not, but was bound to vote what was proposed by the Government in a servile manner.

MR. GLADSTONE: I appeal to the House whether I ever stated anything so absurd as that the House should vote the money because the Government demanded it?

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY said, that he was alluding to that part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman

where he had distinctly said that dis- | bustering and marauding one, and mascussion would take away the grace of the querading in the stolen clothes of those grant, and that it would be undignified, very Jingoes whom they had so veheand more to the discredit of the House mently denounced. than of Lord Alcester, if the Vote was MR. O'KELLY said, that, in his opiopposed; and that, he thought, came to nion, the Government were perpetrating the same thing. He protested against the a practical joke upon the country in doctrine of the Prime Minister. If a asking for a Vote to reward Lord man did his duty, he was entitled to his Alcester for his eminent services in remuneration; but when a special re- cruelly and heartlessly bombarding the ward was proposed that was a very defenceless town of Alexandria. The different thing. He had no intention of fact was, that noble and gallant Lord saying anything against Lord Alcester, had provoked a conflict with the Egypexcept that he had not an opportunity tian people, knowing, with mathematical in Egypt of displaying his ability as a accuracy, that they were incapable of Commander for earning this special re-resistance. The position and power of ward. In the country which had produced men like Nelson, it was absurd to talk of Lord Alcester's services. One would think that this country had never won a Naval battle, or taken a town. The Government would have done more wisely if they had abstained from moving in the matter, and had left Lord Alcester alone with his glory, such as it was. He supported the Amendment.

MR. LEAMY, in opposing the grant, said he could not help expressing his surprise that so few of those who represented the working classes had spoken in the debate. He contended that the House could not consider this proposed grant to Lord Alcester's services apart from the policy of which Lord Alcester was the instrument. If the question of the policy of the Government was to be raised, it was impossible that it could have been adequately discussed in the few hours which the debate had occupied. He denied that Lord Alcester's services had been of advantage to the country. Loud and continued cries of "Divide!" The interruption he was meeting with, owing to the impatience which the Radical Party manifested in a discussion which exposed the inconsistency of the present Government, was a strong argument in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), because it showed that the Liberal Party were ashamed of the transaction which allegiance to their Chiefs led them to approve. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was not suprised that hon. Members persisted in shouting "Divide!" must be very hard on hon. Members opposite to find their great Liberal Government, which came into power in 1880 with anti-Jingo cries, turning out a fili

Mr. Justin M'Carthy

It

every gun round Alexandria were known by the noble and gallant Lord before hostilities commenced, and he must have known that the enemy were unable to resist. Such were the military services in recognition of which they were asked to vote the money of the people. He protested against the proposed Vote, for if it were agreed to they would be guilty of a piece of political pick-pocketing. That a soldier, pretending to be civilized, should attack a practically unarmed people, and use the powers of civilization simply for the purpose of destruction, was something a country like this ought to be ashamed of. England had now destroyed three centres of civilization in Africa-Magdala, Coomassie, and Alexandria.

MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to address himself more closely to the Question before the House.

MR. O'KELLY, resuming, said, he thought that the burning of these towns had something to do with the services distinguished soldiers rendered to this country. However, Mr. Speaker had ruled otherwise; and he should conclude by saying that if the House were to be asked to vote enormous sums for such services as those rendered by Lord Alcester, there would always be a great inducement to young men to enter the Navy, for in no other, business would there be such great rewards for such small services.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN said, he utterly scouted the idea that the House of Commons should be debarred from discussing the murderous policy of the Government in connection with the Vote. If the House readily agreed to such a proposition as that now before it, the

effect would be to encourage the Go- the full confidence of the Government. vernment to engage in small wars of In a Report, dated April 30, he inaggression against weaker nations. The formed Lord Dufferin that he had full present Vote gave hon. Members an confidence in the composition of the opportunity of protesting against the Court appointed to try Suleiman Sami; warlike policy of the so-called Peace- and, under these circumstances, Her at-any-Price Party. The Government Majesty's Government have no intention had charged the Tories with blood-guilti- of interfering, unless on the request and ness, on account of the war they had recommendation of Major Macdonald, waged in South Africa; but their hands and that has not been made. were never so red with blood as were LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL those of the present Government, in asked, whether Major Macdonald had crushing the efforts of patriotic men been watching the trial on behalf of the who had been endeavouring to free prisoner; whether he had any legal themselves from the most disgraceful knowledge; and, if it was true that thraldom. By rejecting the Bill, the Suleiman Sami's counsel had left the House would put some little check Court, because he was not allowed to upon such outrage in the future. He call certain witnesses for the defence, looked upon the Egyptian Campaign therefore being unable to obtain justice as a most miserable and disgraceful war. for his client? No one attempted to disguise the fact that the war, which was originally one of aggression, had become one of annexation; and the House ought not to countenance the voting away of public money for such purposes at this, for the result would be only to encourage such adventures. England now had Egypt in her clutches, and would never let her loose so long as she had anything of which she could be plundered; and, that being the case, he must decline to condone such an infamous proceeding by voting for the Bill.

EGYPT-LAW AND JUSTICE-TRIAL

OF SULEIMAN SAMI.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE : I wish to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which I gave Notice at the beginning of the Sitting-namely, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered and ascertained if it is in their power, and if they ought to take any steps to interpose in the matter of Suleiman Sami ?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (for Mr. GLADSTONE): Her Majesty's Government have been informed by Sir Edward Malet that Suleiman Sami, who had been accused of burning Alexandria, was sentenced to death yesterday by the Court Martial held in that city. The trial has been watched by Major Macdonald, a distinguished officer, enjoying

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE : Sir, Major Macdonald, as I think I explained the other day, was watching this trial, as he has watched the others, in the interests of justice and humanity. He was appointed by Her Majesty's Government, with certain other gentlemen who have special legal knowledge, to watch these trials generally. As to the report of the abandonment of the case by the prisoner's counsel, we have, as yet, no information; but, naturally, neither Her Majesty's Government, nor the Egyptian Government, are in any way responsible for the action of the counsel in question.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL asked, whether the noble Lord would inquire whether it was not the fact that Suleiman Sami's counsel wished to produce fresh evidence before the Court, and that the Court refused him permission to do so?

FITZMAURICE

LORD EDMOND said, that he could give an answer at once. So far as he knew, Suleiman Sami himself, after the trial, wished to bring forward 25 new witnesses. These were entirely new witnesses. The Court had the power of admitting new evidence at the trial, beyond that which had been given before the preliminary Court of Instruction; but they did not consider that there was any necessity for allowing these new witnesses to be brought forward. ["Oh, oh!" and Mr. HEALY: Green Street.] [Cries of Order!" Let him explain that these were entirely new witnesses, and the evidence on both sides had been fully gone into, in the first instance, at the

preliminary proceedings; and then, according to French law, it had been examined and cross-examined upon at the Court Martial.

MR. O'KELLY asked, how it was possible that the witnesses could have been examined and cross-examined, if their evidence was not admitted at all?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, he was not referring to the new witnesses.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE asked, whether any day had been fixed for the execution?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE:

MR. GLADSTONE: This evening.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Does the

No, Sir; there is no mention of any day. right hon. Gentleman really intend to LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: pursue the course of taking the susCan the noble Lord say positively whe-pended debate at the Evening Sitting? MR. GLADSTONE: Unquestionably. ther Suleiman Sami produced before the If it is the intention of the House, we Court Martial any witnesses for the deintend to do so. We do not wish to fence who were examined and cross-dictate anything to the House; but after

examined?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE:

Certainly. I understand distinctly from
Lord Dufferin that he had the right to
examine the witnesses in open Court.
Whether he actually exercised the right
I cannot, of course, know.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to abandon this man to his fate, when the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tells us that the examination of witnesses brought forward in his defence is not allowed?

MR. GLADSTONE: What I understand to be the case is this, Sir. There is, in every trial, a time appointed for those who conduct the prosecution and the defence to give in their lists of witnesses. The list of witnesses in this case was regularly and properly given in; and, so far as we know, the examination of all these witnesses was regularly and properly conducted and dealt with; and that when that was over the defenders claimed to bring in a number of new witnesses. Well, now, I believe that it is in the power and practice of a Court Martial and of Courts of Justice to judge when it is, and when it is not, proper to bring in new witnesses. I give this information, of course, subject to correction, according to such further. accounts as we may receive from Egypt; but, as at present advised, I believe that to be a true and correct statement of the

what we have seen of the debate this afternoon, I think it will be the wish of the House that the debate should be taken this evening.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Up to what hour?

the convenience of the House.
MR. GLADSTONE: We shall consult

In reply to a further Question by Sir
WILFRID LAWSON,

MR. GLADSTONE said, the debate on the grant to Lord Wolseley would be taken on Monday.

NAVY-LOSS OF H.M.S. "LIVELY."

MR. W. H. SMITH asked, Whether the Prime Minister, or any other Member of the Government, could give the House any information with regard to the circumstances connected with the loss of Her Majesty's Ship Lively yesterday afternoon? The matter was one of great gravity, and he was sure the House would be glad to have any information the Government could afford.

MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry I cannot.

CRIMINAL LAW-CASE OF
SMART-THE CALNE BENCH

OF MAGISTRATES.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS gave Notice of a Question with respect to the case of a labourer named Smart, who was summoned before the Calne Bench of Magistrates (Lord Lansdowne in the chair) for leaving his work without leave. The man's wages were 10s. a-week, with 18.