§ MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can mention any document by which Egypt is bound to treat the Law of Liquidation as anything more than an enactment of Municipal Law repeal-able by the State Authority?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, the Law of Liquidation is not repealable by the State authority alone, being the result of an international compact, whereby the Powers surrendered the rights of their subjects to enforce their claims against the Khedive to their full extent in the mixed tribunals, and compelled them in the general interest to accept the composition offered by the Law of Liquidation. For that purpose, the Governments of England, France, Germany, Austria, and Italy, agreed that the law should be binding on the mixed tribunals. That international compact appears in the following documents:—First, in Lord Salisbury's instructions respecting the collective declaration (Parl. Paper, Egypt No. 2, p. 1); secondly, in the declaration of the 31st of March 1880 (p. 4); thirdly, in the decree of the 31st of March, reciting the agreement, and enacting that the Law of Liquidation shall be binding on the mixed tribunals (Ibid. p. 6); fourthly, by the Law of Liquidation itself, which embodies the agreement by reference to the above decree (Egypt No. 4, 1880), and declares that it is issued on the proposal of Commissioners designated by the five Powers therein mentioned; fifthly, by the formal acceptance by all the other Powers who were parties to the establishment of the mixed tribunals of the Law of Liquidation, and the communication by the Egyptian Government of the general acceptance to the President of the International Court of Appeal. The rights acquired under the Law of Liquidation cannot, therefore, be varied without the consent of the Powers.
§ Mr. O'DONNELLasked, whether the agreement of the five Powers, that the arrangement in Egypt would be binding on their subjects, was signed only by the five Powers, and contained the signature neither of Egypt nor Turkey; and whether, consequently, the agreement was by any means binding on Egypt? He also wished to know, whether the Law of Liquidation was not drawn up in the ordinary form of an Egyptian decree, so that nothing of an international Treaty appeared in any way about it; and whether, with reference to the Commissioners of the foreign Powers, it did not specially say that the Commissioners were only designated by the foreign Powers, but were appointed by the Khedive? ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was now entering upon matter of argument.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had already referred the hon. Member to the passages bearing on the subject.
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked, whether, in fact, any complete document existed, having within the four corners of it the signature of Egypt, as well as the signatures of the five Powers; or, whether the statement of the hon. Baronet, that an international obligation existed, was only a matter of interpretation?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, there is no doubt whatever that an international obligation exists; and with regard to what is called the signature of Egypt, I may point out that the agreement of the five Powers was one limiting the rights which their own subjects possessed.
§ MR. O'DONNELLNot as to the rights of Egyptian subjects.