HC Deb 13 November 1882 vol 274 cc1300-3
MR. BOURKE

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table that portion of Sir Garnet Wolseley's confidential Despatch in which he asked whether he should hand over to the Khedive the chief rebels whom he might capture; whether the request of Sir Garnet Wolseley, referred to by Lord Granville in his note of the 28th of August to Sir E. Malet, did not apply exclusively to three officers who surrendered at Ismailia, saying they were loyal to the Khedive, and wished to go to Alexandria; and, whether these three officers are to be put upon their trial?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. CHILDERS)

I learn from the War Office that there is no objection to lay upon the Table that portion of Sir Garnet Wolseley's confidential despatch to which my right hon. Friend alludes. It is as follows:— Mahmoud Fehmi Pasha, Arabi's chief engineer and military adviser, is now prisoner in my camp. I intend sending him to Alexandria to be handed over to the Khedive. Shall do the same with the other chief rebels whom I may capture, unless I receive other orders from you. "You," of course, means the Secretary of State for War. The telegram from Sir Edward Malet of the 22nd of August, stating General Wolseley's intention with regard to three prisoners, required no reply, and remained unanswered. On the 28th the War Office received from Sir Garnet Wolseley the telegram giving the proposal which I have just read. Directions were given for a reply to this latter telegram to be sent to Sir Edward Malet. The text of the actual telegram contains no reference to the telegram of the 22nd; but in drafting the recorder (that is, the despatch concerning the telegram), in accordance with the usual routine, a reference was sought, and on its being found that the last telegram on a similar subject addressed to the Foreign Office was that of the 22nd, reference to that telegram was by mistake made. As far as I am aware, the three officers mentioned are not among those now put upon their trial.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the order for the surrender of Arabi Pasha to the Egyptian Government was given before the Code under which he was to be tried was arranged between the English and Egyptian Governments?

SIR H. DRDMMOND WOLFF

I beg to ask the hon. Baronet a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, and which will enable him to explain a discrepancy between a statement which he made in this House and the despatch of Lord Granville. He stated, in answer to my right hon. Friend the other day, that Arabi Pasha was being tried under special conditions which were to be found in no Code whatever; and Lord Granville, referring to the despatch of Sir Edward Malet on the 10th of March, said— The Egyptian Government had informed him (Sir Edward Malet) that, by the Code under which the court martial was constituted, prisoners were not allowed counsel. I should like to know under what Code the court martial is to be formed?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

There is no contradiction. Sir Edward Malet said that under the Code by which Arabi is to be tried there was no provision for counsel for the prisoners, and we understand that they are now to be allowed to have counsel. Therefore, they are not to be tried under that Code to which reference was made. In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that I stated to my right hon. Friend some time ago that there never was at any time any question of arranging the Code under which Arabi was to be tried between the English and Egyptian Governments—that is, as regards law. The only variations in the procedure usual in such cases, according to Egyptian practice, of which Her Majesty's Government are aware, are in favour of the accused—that is, allowing counsel and a public trial.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

What I want to know is, the time at which that alteration in the procedure was arranged—whether it preceded or followed the order for the surrender of the prisoners to the Egyptian Government?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I did not appreciate the point of the noble Lord. There are no facts beyond those which are already in possession of the House on this subject. The noble Lord will see the dates. The arrangement was concluded piecemeal, and not all at once; and, therefore, it is difficult to give an answer, whether affirmative or negative, to that Question.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

May I ask whether the order for the surrender of Arabi Pasha was given before any of the proposed alterations were submitted to the Egyptian Government?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I do not know the facts with regard to any orders that may have been given to Sir Garnet Wolseley by the War Office.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

Then may I ask the Question of the Representative of the War Office?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I understand the noble Lord to refer to the actual transfer of the prisoner from the English to the Egyptian guard. That would be under the War Office orders. I think the noble Lord had better ask the same Question of the Secretary of State for War.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I wish to ask the hon. Baronet if there is any truth in the statement which appears in some of the morning papers, that the Egyptian Government have declined to confirm the arrangement with regard to procedure which was come to between the Government and prisoner's counsel?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

The noble Lord (Lord John Manners) has given private Notice of a similar Question, and I will answer it now. We have no reason to suppose that the statement is true. We have stated that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the Egyptian Government have accepted the procedure agreed to between the advocate of the Egyptian Government and counsel for the defence. We have no reason to suppose that there has been any departure from that.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

Is the House to understand that Arabi is to be tried under the Egyptian Military Code as varied by the conditions subsequently agreed to between the Egyptian Government and the counsel?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

That is our understanding.

MR. BOURKE

I wish to ask the hon. Baronet whether one of the Rules proposed by Lord Granville, under which Arabi Pasha was to be tried, was not— That no arguments or evidence as to political motives or reasons in justification of the offence charged should be admitted, but only such as wont to establish or disprove the truth of the charges made. I wish to ask whether the hon. Baronet considers that Rule in favour of the prisoner?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

If the right hon. Gentleman will read the context, he will Bee that the very language shows that what was in view was trial for ordinary crime; and, of course, that Rule does not apply, in our opinion, to political crimes.

MR. BOURKE

Is it to be one of the Rules under which Arabi is to be tried?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I believe that such evidence is to be admitted as regards political crime.

MR. BOURKE

Then this Rule is not to be one of the Rules.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

No; we inserted this Rule when we had in view ordinary crime.

MR. GORST

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any information has been given to Sir Edward Malet or the Egyptian Government that these Rules have been withdrawn?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

No; we understand that the course of procedure is admitted to be perfectly satisfactory.

MR. ONSLOW

Is Arabi to be tried under an Egyptian Code of any sort or kind whatever, or under special conditions laid down?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

That is the Question of the noble Lord which is on the Paper, and which has been already answered.