§ MR. BOURKEI beg to ask the Prime Minister, Whether the Secretary of State for War ordered the rebels in Egypt to be treated according to the recognized rules of civilized warfare, including the exchange of prisoners; and, is the delivery of such prisoners to be tried by the civil authorities of their enemy in accordance with these instructions? At the same time I beg to ask him another Question—namely, Whether the following statement is a correct report of the surrender of Arabi Pasha:—A prefect of police was ordered by Colonel Stewart to invite Arabi to attend upon him. He came at once, accompanied by Toulba. He was received by General Drury Lowe. Arabi asked an officer of the Queen's Service what he was to do. He was told to surrender his sword. He was asked if he surrendered unconditionally, and he said, "Yes; that he surrendered to the clemency of England?" If this be a correct report, I should like to ask what justification there is for trying him by the Egyptian authorities?
MR. GLADSTONEI had better, perhaps, first take the second Question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. He asks me whether a statement is accurate in respect to which, as far as I understand, I have to say that it is anonymous as well as unauthoritative, and not accurate at all, because it gives 861 the impression that by a request of an optional character Arabi Pasha was invited to surrender himself, and in that way, by an act of his own free will, came into our possession as a prisoner. That is exactly the reverse of the case. The Prefect of Police was not commissioned by the Military Commander, Colonel Stewart, to invite Arabi Pasha; but he was ordered to bring in Arabi Pasha, and, I think, within a very narrow limit of time, and under penalties to himself that he knew were pretty severe—Arabi Pasha being within reach, as Colonel Stewart knew very well. It was a simple command to bring him in. That being so, the basis of the statement is, I think, in the main, taken away. It is quite true that he surrendered himself—that was his own language—unconditionally. With respect to the Question which the right hon. Gentleman has put on the Paper—namely,
Whether the Secretary of State for War ordered the rebels in Egypt to be treated according to the recognized rules of civilized warfare, including the exchange of prisoners; and, is the delivery of such prisoners to be tried by the civil authorities of their enemy in accordance with instructions?that raises a point of great importance on which I shall endeavour to give an answer. The direction that the rebels under Arabi Pasha should be treated by the General Commanding-in-Chief of the English Forces according to the rules of civilized warfare was given, in the first place, in the interests of humanity; and, in the second place, it was advantageous to the position of the English Army, and would be in accordance with usage and with authority. The men under Arabi Pasha's command were a disciplined force, controlled by their acknowledged officers; and, in order to subdue them, operations of regular warfare had to be undertaken. For the sake of humanity, and in order to avoid reprisals upon the British Force—on both the one ground and the other—such men, during the operations of war, had to be treated as soldiers in the field. About that we had no doubt whatever; and if a different doctrine were to prevail, the horrors of civil war would be increased a hundredfold. But as soon as those operations in arms against the Sovereign of the country—or against the Ruler of the country, 862 as I had better call him—were subdued, the municipal rights of the Ruler of the country became capable of being enforced, notwithstanding that during the civil war the rights of belligerents had been acknowledged; for their belligerent rights were acknowledged within certain limits and for the special purposes of war. [Mr. BIGGAR: Oh!] The hon. Member will, perhaps, answer the Question himself. I say the rights of belligerents were acknowledged for certain purposes relative to the operations of war. But directly the military operations were brought to a close a new state of things supervened, and we then had to acknowledge the rights appertaining to the Government of the country. We were not there as conquerors; and, in our opinion, it would have been exceedingly wrong if we had not acknowledged the rights of the Government of the country. And those rebels who are left outside of the amnesty are liable to be proceeded against under the municipal law of Egypt.
§ MR. BOURKEWill the right hon. Gentleman state whether the act of Colonel Stewart was not one of the ordinary operations of war, carried on by one of Her Majesty's officers?
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONI understood the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state a few days ago that the third charge against Arabi and three others was continuing war after peace was concluded. I have puzzled over these words, and I am still at a loss to know what they mean.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI have already stated in a previous answer that Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for any of the charges made against Arabi Pasha.