HC Deb 02 November 1882 vol 274 cc666-8
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any precedent for the employment of British Troops, as has been the case in Egypt, for the repression of a Military rebellion against the Sovereign or Government of a Foreign State; and, whether such precedents establish that British Troops, having captured the leaders of the insurgents and other similar political offenders, have been instructed by the British Government to hand them over to be dealt with by the Sovereign or Government maintained or reinstated by British Arms; and, if so, whether he can state the precedents?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, in answer to the noble Lord, I would begin by observing that I do not think the assistance afforded by precedent would carry us beyond a certain point. I am not aware of any precedent in history for an arrangement similar to that which existed in Egypt which led to the course of proceedings which has terminated in the recent operations. The position which we held in Egypt was one which I do not think exactly corresponds with any positions we have held in any other country within my knowledge. There are two cases which throw a certain amount of light on the subject, and those cases I will mention to the noble Lord. One of these is the case of the termination of the great French War at Waterloo. At the time King Louis XVIII, having been before the Hundred Days established in France, was regarded in the view of the Government of this country as the legitimate Sovereign of France, and the military movement under Napoleon, and the whole operation of Napoleon, as being in legal strictness resistance to lawful authority. I am not entering into the question of its correctness; but there is a despatch written by Lord Bathurst, as then being Secretary of State for War, on the 2nd of July, 1815, to the Duke of Wellington. I will not read the whole passage, which is not relevant. I will read a part of it, which, I think, is material to the Question of the noble Lord. This despatch refers to a letter received from the Duke of Wellington on the subject of the arrangement that the Military Commander had made, and it contains this passage— It cannot be imagined that in a Convention negotiated with these authorities"—namely, the French—"by your Grace you would enter into any engagements whereby it would be presumed that His Most Christian Majesty was absolutely precluded from the just exercise of his authority in bringing to condign punishment such of his subjects as had, by their treasonable machinations and unprovoked rebellion, forfeited all claim to His Majesty's clemency and forbearance. That passage undoubtedly bears upon the Question. The noble Lord is well aware of the circumstances relating to Marshal Ney. They touch upon the province of the Question with which we are at this moment concerned. Well, then, Sir—[Mr. BOURKE: Were these prisoners of war?] I have not said anything about that, and I do not know whom the right hon. Gentleman means. There is another case—that of the Elliot Convention with Spain. One stipulation of that Convention was that no person, whoever he might be, should ever be deprived of life on account of his political opinions without having been previously tried and condemned in accordance with the laws, decrees, and ordinances enforced in Spain. It was further explained in that Convention that this stipulation was only to be understood with reference to those who were not in reality prisoners of war; for, as regards them, express stipulations had already been made. I have supplied the noble Lord with these two cases. I do not think this is the proper opportunity for entering into explanations; but this I may say—that by the term "prisoners of war," under the Elliot Convention, I understand the term to apply not merely to persons who might be taken with arms in their hands, but those who had to be tried for being engaged in the operations of war, and nothing else whatever.

MR. BOURKE

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the case of the first Afghan War, where British troops were employed to restore Shah Sujah to the Throne when Dost Mahomed rose in rebellion against Shah Sujah, who occupied a position similar to that of the Khedive in Egypt? Dost Mahomed was in open rebellion against Shah Sujah, and surrendered himself to British forces, and was certainly not treated in any way but as a prisoner of war.

MR. GLADSTONE

I conceive that Question to be purely argumentative and contentious. My answer is, that it appears to proceed upon parallelisms between the position of Shah Sujah and the Khedive, which I think to be utterly unsound, and between the position of Dost Mahomed and Arabi, which I conceive to be still more unsound.