Public opinion in Egypt, especially amongst Europeans, was from the first naturally hostile to Arabi. Those who had suffered by the rebellion were not likely to be over-lenient in their views towards the rebels, and the local European press clamoured loudly for their condign punishment.

Opinion in Europe was divided on the question. In France and Italy, especially, it became the fashion to extol Arabi as a sort of African Garibaldi, whose only fault was his want of success. The same view prevailed to some extent in England also, thanks to the agitation got up by Sir William Gregory, Mr. Wilfred Blunt, and others. Even amongst those who did not believe in either Arabi or the movement of which he was the head, there was a suspicion that he was not more guilty than the Sultan and the Khedive, and a feeling that it would be unjust to punish him whilst they were allowed to go free.

The Egyptian Government, in dealing with the rebels, had not, however, altogether a free hand. Sir Garnet Wolseley, in August, had proposed that prisoners taken in the course of the military operations in Egypt should be handed over to the Khedive. This was approved by the British Government, but subject to the important condition that none of the prisoners should be put to death without the previous consent of the British authorities. This condition the Egyptian Government accepted.

The necessity of some means being found of speedily proceeding with the trial of Arabi was more than once pressed by Sir Edward Malet upon the Khedive. Public feeling in Egypt among the natives was much excited, and all manner of absurd stories were told about Arabi and his relations with the British Government. These circulated freely in the bazaars, and were readily believed by the more ignorant and fanatical of the population.

Early in October, two English barristers, Mr. A. M. Broadley and the Honourable Mark Napier, arrived in Cairo to conduct the defence of the rebel leaders. The Egyptian Government objected that, by the code under which the proposed court martial was to be convened, prisoners were not allowed counsel. Sir Edward Malet, however, insisted, and the Egyptian authorities yielded the point. Next, the Government put every difficulty in the way. At first they refused permission to Mr. Broadley and his colleague to see their clients, and then they were told that they could not be permitted to be present at the preliminary investigation. Thanks to the firmness of Sir Edward Malet, who was determined that Arabi should have a fair trial, these troubles were surmounted, and an agreement as to the procedure to be adopted was come to by Borelli Bey, a French advocate who acted for the Egyptian Government, and Arabi's legal advisers.

The _Acte d'Accusation_, or indictment, was to the following effect:--

1. Arabi, Toulba, Mahmoud Sami, Mahmoud Fehmi, and Omar Rahmi[81] were charged with having abused the flag of truce on the 12th of July, by withdrawing the troops and pillaging and burning Alexandria, whilst the flag was flying.

2. Arabi, Toulba, Mahmoud Sami, Mahmoud Fehmi, Omar Rahmi, and Ali Fehmi were charged with having incited the Egyptians to arm against the Government of the Khedive.[82]

3. All six prisoners were charged with having incited the people to civil war, and with having committed acts of destruction, ma.s.sacre, and pillage on Egyptian territory.

4. Arabi, Mahmoud Fehmi, Toulba, and Mahmoud Sami were charged with having continued the war after they had heard that peace was concluded.[83]

The Counsel for the accused first appeared before the Commission appointed to conduct the preliminary inquiry on the 31st October. In the meantime, the Commission had collected a ma.s.s of hearsay evidence, none of it on oath, and consisting mainly of letters and memoranda and of depositions taken, according to the Egyptian procedure, _ex parte_ in the absence of the prisoners and their Counsel. It is noteworthy that the President of the Commission, Ismail Pasha Eyoub, had been himself a prominent member of the Council of National Defence, and had actually been with Arabi in the camp at Kafr Dowar.

The contention of Mr. Broadley was that, from first to last, the Sublime Porte approved the action of his clients, also that the Khedive for a long period prior to the commencement of hostilities wavered systematically between the two parties, and that after the arrival of Dervish Pasha he acquiesced at three Cabinet Councils in the early phases of resistance to the English (an a.s.sertion in great measure borne out by the ambiguous terms of the subsequent Proclamations). In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Broadley relied on the fact that Arabi, rightly or wrongly, really headed a great National movement, that he received the moral and material support of nearly the whole of Egypt, and that he was only deserted when he failed to secure success. It must be admitted that the doc.u.ments in the possession of the accused went a long way to bear out these contentions.

It soon became evident that the princ.i.p.al part of the charges against Arabi and his a.s.sociates could not be sustained, and Sir Charles Wilson (formerly Consul-General in Anatolia), who attended the proceedings as delegate of the British Government, reported to Lord Dufferin as follows:--

"The only direct evidence incriminating Arabi was that of Suleiman Sami,[84] who stated that Arabi had not only ordered him to burn Alexandria, but to kill the Khedive. The evidence of this man was open to grave suspicion. He was arrested at Crete and brought to Alexandria, where he was received by the Governor and the Prefet de Police, one of whom accompanied him some distance in the train. Immediately on his arrival at Cairo he was brought before an extraordinary sitting of the Commission, which lasted till between eight and nine p.m. No notice was sent to me of the prisoner's arrival, or of the intention of the Commission to examine him, though I live close to the building in which the Commission sits. The next morning, when Suleiman Sami's examination was continued, he was confronted with two other prisoners, who at once contradicted his statements on important points. His bearing before the Commission produced an unfavourable impression, as he was the only prisoner who showed want of dignity, and weakness when questioned. He was also so deeply implicated himself in the burning and looting of Alexandria, that it was only natural he should try to incriminate others. As regards the specific charges against Arabi Pasha it appeared to me--

"1. That if there were any abuse of the white flag on the 12th July, a fact in itself not easy to prove, it was through ignorance and not through design. I may mention that white flags were flying on the Aboukir forts throughout the whole of the military operations.

"2. That there was no evidence to connect Arabi with the ma.s.sacre at Alexandria on the 11th June, and that it is doubtful whether a deliberate ma.s.sacre of Europeans was ever intended. That the ma.s.sacres at Tantah and other places after the bombardment were caused by the low-cla.s.s refugees from Alexandria, and that they ceased as soon as the troops were sent down. That, after the first excitement had pa.s.sed, order was preserved, and that there are instances of orders having been sent by Arabi to the Governors of towns, &c., to preserve order and protect Europeans.

"3. That the evidence which connects Arabi Pasha with the burning of Alexandria is conflicting, and that there is no sufficient proof that he ordered the town to be destroyed. The portion of the town actually burned by the troops seems to have been small. The fire appears to have broken out about four p.m.

on the 12th, and the troops evacuated the town on the same evening. It then became the duty of the Civil Governor to preserve order, as far as he could, until the English occupation of the 14th. It is difficult to say where Arabi's responsibility ended and that of the Civil Governor commenced.

It is also probable that some of the fires were lighted by the Bedouins, who had a.s.sembled contrary to the wish of Arabi, and had entered the town on the 12th, and possibly also by British sh.e.l.ls.

"It is certain, however, that the houses in the Place Mehemet Ali were burned by Suleiman Sami and his regiment. Suleiman Sami a.s.serted that he acted under orders from Arabi. On this point he was contradicted by Arabi and others, and some prisoners stated that Arabi sent messengers to prevent the burning of the houses. It must be remembered that no evidence was taken for the defence, and that no witnesses were cross-examined."

Under these circ.u.mstances it became necessary to consider what was best to be done. On the 18th November Lord Dufferin wrote to Lord Granville as follows:--

"I have the honour to inform your Lordship that I saw the Khedive to-day, and gave His Highness to understand that I thought it very unlikely that sufficient proof would be forthcoming to authorize the execution of Arabi and the political prisoners, and I suggested the alternative of deportation. I was glad to find that His Highness was prepared, if required, to accept this result, provided Arabi and his family were removed from the country _en bloc_, and his property forfeited; in which event the Egyptian Government would allow a maintenance for his women and children, who, the Khedive observed, ought not to be punished for another's fault."

Towards the latter part of November all parties interested became more or less disposed to accept a reasonable compromise, somewhat on the lines indicated in Lord Dufferin's letter.

The English Government was aware of the block caused in Egyptian affairs and in the projected reforms by the trial, the proceedings of which Mr.

Broadley spoke of extending over some months.

The Egyptian Government, after being informed of the inconclusive character of the evidence, and being given to understand that no capital punishment would be allowed, lost all heart in the business, and only longed to get the rebels out of the country. Mr. Broadley, on behalf of the accused, was equally willing to accept a compromise. With a tribunal such as that before which he was to plead, he felt that his chances of success were small. He might, indeed, drag on the proceedings for an indefinite period, but in the end the solution would probably be less satisfactory to his clients than would result from a well-considered arrangement "out of court."

The details of the compromise arrived at were that all charges except that of simple rebellion were to be withdrawn, and that as regards this the prisoners should plead guilty. A sentence of death was to be recorded on this plea, but a Decree should be signed commuting the sentence to exile from Egypt. The prisoners were to forfeit their rank and property, and to give their _parole_ to proceed to any British possession indicated, and to remain there until permitted to leave.

Only a very few persons in Cairo were informed on the evening of 3rd December that Arabi and his confederates were to be brought before the Court-martial the following morning.

The proceedings were exceedingly simple, everything having been arranged beforehand. A room had been fitted up as a Court House in the old Dara Sanieh, where Arabi was confined, and the proceedings were public. At nine o'clock on the 4th, Raouf Pasha, the President, and the other members of the Court-martial, took their seats. General Sir Archibald Alison sat at a desk to the right of the President, and Sir Charles Wilson on the left. Arabi was on Sir Charles Wilson's left, his Counsel sitting just beneath him. He wore a dark greatcoat with a white cachemire scarf round his neck. He looked somewhat thinner than he was previous to the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria. He had grown a short beard, which was partly grey.

The report of the Commission of Inquiry to the Court-martial was then handed in. The following is a translation of this doc.u.ment:--

"We have the honour to inform you that, having terminated the inquiry concerning Arabi, the Commission considers that there are grounds for sending him before the Court-martial charged with the crime of rebellion as provided for by Article 92 of the Ottoman Military Code, and Article 59 of the Ottoman Penal Code.

It therefore sends the said Ahmed Arabi before the Court for trial charged with the said crime. We send you at the same time the complete _dossier_ containing the results of our inquiry into this affair."

The President of the Court asked the prisoner if he acknowledged himself guilty of rebellion against His Highness the Khedive in the following terms:--"Arabi Pasha, you are charged before this Court, after due inquiry by the Commission of Inquiry, with the crime of rebellion against His Highness the Khedive. Are you guilty, or are you not guilty, of the crime with which you stand charged?" Mr. Broadley then handed in a paper to the effect that, acting under the advice of his Counsel, Arabi pleaded guilty to the charge.

The Court then rose, the President remarking that judgment would be delivered that afternoon at three p.m.

At the time named the Court was densely crowded, several ladies being present, and there was a gathering of natives outside the prison. The President, first of all, handed in an official doc.u.ment condemning Arabi to death, which was read, and of which the following is a translation:--

"Considering that Ahmed Arabi Pasha has pleaded guilty to the crime of rebellion, a crime provided for by Article 92 of the Ottoman Military Code and Article 59 of the Ottoman Penal Code. Considering that in consequence of this plea, no other course is open to the Court but to apply Article 92 of the Ottoman Military Code and Article 59 of the Ottoman Penal Code, already quoted, which punish with death the crime of rebellion. For these reasons, the Court unanimously condemns Ahmed Arabi to death for the crime of rebellion against His Highness the Khedive, in accordance with the terms of Articles 92 of the Ottoman Military Code and 59 of the Ottoman Penal Code. This sentence is to be submitted for the sanction of His Highness the Khedive."

Immediately afterwards the Decree commuting the sentence to exile for life was read.

Arabi saluted the Court and sat down, and the Members of the Court prepared to retire, the sitting having lasted only six minutes. At this moment, Mrs. Napier, wife of the junior Counsel for Arabi, had brought into Court a bouquet of white roses for the accused, which, immediately after the reading of the Decree, was presented to Arabi in open Court.

This was a little too much for the audience, who had restrained their feelings during the reading of the Decree, and loud hisses arose. After this manifestation the crowd gradually dispersed.

On the 7th December, Mahmoud Sami, Abdel-el-Al, Toulba, and Ali Fehmi were arraigned before the Court-martial on the charge of rebellion, and on being called on to plead, they all pleaded guilty. The prisoners were again brought up in the afternoon for sentence to be pa.s.sed on them.

They were all sentenced to death, and immediately after the Khedive's Decree commuting their sentence to banishment for life was read.

On the 10th December the same formality was gone through with regard to Yacoub Sami and Mahmoud Fehmi.

A day or two later Ceylon was announced as the prisoners' place of exile, and on the 26th December the seven princ.i.p.al rebels left Cairo by special train at 11 p.m. for Suez, there to join the British steamship _Mareotis_. They were accompanied by a guard of thirty men of the 60th Rifles, and a suite of sixty persons, male and female. Morice Bey, an English officer in the Egyptian service, was appointed to take charge of the exiles. The satisfaction of Arabi, who had all along suspected treachery, at finding that he was to make the voyage in a British steamer, and accompanied by British soldiers, with an Englishman in charge, was unbounded, and he more than once expressed his acknowledgments.[85]

It was, of course, impossible, after the lenient sentences pa.s.sed on Arabi and the other leaders of the National Party, to attempt to inflict capital punishment on any of those who simply followed their lead.

On the 29th December a Decree was issued exiling a large number of the chief prisoners remaining for various periods to Ma.s.sowah, Souakim, and other places. Others were released either with or without bail, on their undertaking to live quietly on their country estates.

The result of the trial of the rebel leaders produced, at first, a feeling of stupefaction on the European colony in Egypt. When the nature of the judicial farce which had been enacted began to be understood, the sentiment above mentioned gave place to one of profound indignation against the Egyptian Government and its advisers. In pa.s.sing upon Arabi and his a.s.sociates a sentence which was regarded as merely nominal, it was said a premium was put upon rebellion, ma.s.sacre, and pillage.

Such was the view universally entertained. Amongst the foreign population, England lost in one day all the popularity she had gained at Tel-el-Kebir. "On ne plaisante pas avec la justice," remarked an eminent foreign advocate to the writer. With the natives the worst impression was created. The idea of a compact having been made by England with Arabi was strengthened and confirmed. With many the belief in Arabi's Divine mission was raised to a certainty. The action of England was by a great cla.s.s of the population attributed to fear. It was given out that Arabi was never really going to Ceylon, and that if he did he would return to raise an overwhelming army and expel the unbelievers. The most moderate charged England with having bribed Arabi, or, at the very least, with having held out, as a reward for his surrender, the promise of immunity for his past misdeeds.

However much the result of the trial of the rebel leaders may be deplored, it was, perhaps, the best solution of the question. After a painstaking examination Sir Charles Wilson came to the conclusion that there was no evidence forthcoming on which Arabi could be convicted of complicity with the riots of June 11th; neither was the evidence adduced as to Arabi's complicity with regard to the incendiarism of Alexandria of a satisfactory nature, and it did not appear possible to connect him with the other ma.s.sacres. The only evidence against Arabi was of a negative character; that he could have prevented the ma.s.sacres and other atrocities appears to be freely admitted by his best friends, but this was not sufficient ground for hanging him.

Such being the state of the case, it became necessary to consider what steps should be taken to rid the country of Arabi and his accomplices.

The preliminary proceedings had already occupied upwards of two months, fifty-two days alone having been spent in the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution; the defence would probably have required as much time; thus it would have been at least three months before a verdict could have been arrived at. This delay was intolerable, the current business of the Ministries and Administrations was seriously interfered with in consequence of the great attention being paid to these rebels. Even the consideration of the Alexandria Indemnity Question was in abeyance.

It was determined that if Arabi could be induced to plead guilty of rebellion, an easy way out of the difficulty could be found. As has been stated, he was accordingly arraigned on the charge of simple rebellion, and pleaded guilty. The trial, it is true, was generally looked upon as a farce, and it appeared to be so, but in the face of so many complications, it was about the only course to be adopted.

CHAPTER XXVI.