HL Deb 07 April 1881 vol 260 cc860-3
EARL DE LA WARR,

in rising to ask, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the Protocol of the 18th of June 1867, establishing the jurisdiction of the local courts in the Regency of Tunis in cases relating to real property; and whether any information can be given relative to the alleged raids on the Tunisian Frontiers? said, so much uneasiness existed with regard to it, that he was quite sure noble Lords opposite would excuse him if he asked for such information upon it as it was convenient to give. From the previous answers of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), he was led to believe that the matter would be settled in a satisfactory manner by the usual Courts of Law. Both the French and English Governments, he understood, agreed that it was a matter in which political influence ought not to be used; and, further, the noble Earl stated on the 8th of February last— At the end of last week the French Government informed me that they had sent orders to their Representative at Tunis not to intervene."—[3 Hansard, cclviii. 330.] This assurance produced a very salutary effect, not only in this country, but also at Tunis, as he was informed. But, on a recent occasion, a further statement was made by his noble Friend to the effect that the question was under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown. Now, it was not easy to understand where the difficulty of the question lay. The Regency of Tunis was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. The Bey received investiture from the Sultan. He had given contingents and money in time of war, and the general law of the Ottoman Empire prevailed throughout the country. As regarded this case, it seemed to have been specially provided for by the Convention of 1863 and the Protocol of 1867. In Article IV. of the Convention between the Governments of Great Britain and Tunis, in 1863, it was provided that all cases of litigation respecting immovable property and relating to the ownership or occupation of houses or lands between a British and a Tunisian subject, should be referred for adjudication to the competent legal tribunals. Then, if any doubt existed whether this was applicable to the case, when both parties were foreigners, the Protocol of the 18th June, 1867, Article II., cleared up the doubt, by saying such persons—that was, owners of real property— Are directly amenable to the Ottoman Civil Courts in regard to all questions relative to landed property and to all real actions, both as plaintiffs and as defendants, even when both parties are foreign subjects, the whole on the same footing, under the same conditions, and in the same forms as Ottoman proprietors, and without the power of availing themselves in such matters of their personal nationality. Now, he thought it would be difficult to have anything more decisive than that with reference to the Enfida case. Both parties were foreign subjects; but under this law they were made directly amenable to the Ottoman Civil Courts, and without the power of availing themselves of their personal nationality. All that was asked was that the case should be decided in the usual Ottoman Courts, and not, in any way, made a political question. There was a further matter upon which he trusted to receive information. Well authenticated statements had been made relative to the concentration of French troops on the frontiers of Tunis and Algeria. The avowed object was alleged to be to put a stop to the lawless acts of some Tribes in the forest and mountainous districts lying between Tunis and Algeria. The Government was probably aware that other motives had been assigned for this movement of French troops, and that it had created considerable alarm. References had been made in various ways and in various places to the action of the Government of this country with regard to Tunis, and he could not but think that it would be most desirable that information should be given relative to the future course of Her Majesty's Government. Not only in this country, but elsewhere, the same feeling existed. In Italy, not a little alarm had been caused by events which had been regarded as menaces of the independence of Tunis. Friendly relations had long been maintained between the Sovereign of Tunis and this country, and it was to be hoped that they might continue. Not less had kindly feelings been shown by the Bey, both by words and actions, towards the Government of France. But the question was not confined to this or that country; it was a great European ques- tion. The geographical position of Tunis and its possession of the harbour of Bizerta, which might be converted probably into one of the finest naval stations in the world, were, among others, considerations which rendered it highly important that the independence of the Bey of Tunis should be secured in all matters which did not concern the sovereign rights of the Sultan.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, that since the question of Tunis was last before the House its aspect, in a certain sense, had rather improved, on account of the assurances said to have been given by the French Government. It now appeared to have been one of French subjects rather than of the French Government. Nevertheless, there was still danger from the action of the French in Tunis and Algeria. He had little doubt that the French Government was in ignorance with regard to the proceedings of M. Roustan, the French Consul General, and of his coadjutor, the Tunisian Consul, in Algeria, who was also a Frenchman. These persons had much exaggerated the importance of the disturbance caused on the Frontier of the Khoumis Tribe. It was, however, an important question, as there wore 10,000 English subjects profitably engaged in trade in the country, and all the communications between the country and Europe came through the French. A year ago the Bey sent 3,000 men to keep order amongst them, and he succeeded, though at that time the French only sent 200 men to co-operate with the Tunisian troops. The Bey of Tunis only learnt from England about the recent disturbance of the Khoumis. It was now announced that the French intended to cross the Frontier on Sunday next, instead of leaving it to the Bey of Tunis to reduce the Khonmis to order. If the French troops should unfortunately, cross the Frontier, what was now a small affair might become much larger, and precipitate matters beyond recall; for then the Arabs and inhabitants of the plains, seeing Tunis invaded, would not be able to refrain from flocking to the defence of their country. The French troops would then be unable to avoid operations much more extensive than those contemplated at Paris with regard to the Berber Tribe, the Khoumis, and if they went beyond the mountains occupied by the Khoumis, the demands of the French in Tunis and Algeria on their own Government would be such as it would be most difficult then to satisfy. The telegraphic communications were entirely in the hands of the French, so that between Fridays and Tuesdays, when the Italian steamers sailed, Tunis was cut off from communication with Europe. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would remonstrate, while there was yet time, with the French Government, and prevent all the bloodshed and misery of an invasion of an orderly and well-governed country.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I am sorry to say my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) is unable to be in his place this evening, and he has asked me to reply to the noble Earl's Question. I will confine myself to giving an answer to the Question of which he has given Notice. There is no Protocol of the 18th of June, 1867. There was a Turkish law of that date which had the object referred to, and which was confirmed by a Protocol of July, 1868. That, with the other Papers, is in the hands of the Law Officers, who have the whole case before them. With regard to the alleged raid on the Tunisian Frontiers, I have to inform the House that the Foreign Office has not obtained any official information on the subject.

EARL DE LA WARR

said, he believed there was a document such as he had described signed at Constantinople.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he could only repeat the information which had been given to him.