§ 5. Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, according to the dispatch he received from Lord Kitchener respecting the arrest of Alexander Adamovitch (Cd. 6874), the only charge brought against this man was that he had committed an offence outside Egyptian territory, namely, that he had led the revolutionary movement among the crews of the merchant vessels at Odessa and put himself at the head of their strike; whether he is aware that the various articles of the Capitulations set out in the dispatch refer entirely to offences alleged to have been committed in Ottoman territory, and that it is expressly provided that subjects of the Capitulatory Powers who are neither accused nor convicted of any crime or offence shall not be molested; and whether, in view of the fact that the four cases quoted by Lord Kitchener as precedents for this case are all irrelevant to it, being all cases in which the accused persons were charged with offences alleged to have been committed in Egypt, he will now cause further inquiry to be made into the matter?
§ 1. Mr. KEIR HARDIEalso asked the Secretary for Foreign. Affairs whether he will invite Lord Kitchener to state the information upon which he bases the statements contained in his dispatch (Cd. 6874), to the effect that the Russian prisoner Adamovitch was shown to have been in the habit of boarding all Russian ships arriving at Alexandria for the purpose of carrying on a revolutionary propaganda among the crews; whether there was any documentary evidence to support this accusation, or whether it was shown by the books and documents seized that the only object aimed at by Adamovitch in these visits was to invite seamen to join a bonâ fide trade union; and whether this is an offence justifying the Consul-General in permitting the Alexandria police to be used for his arrest?
§ Sir E. GREYI do not know what the evidence was nor whether it was ever in the possession of the Egyptian authorities. I can, if desired, inquire as to this, but it is not a material point, for it is not necessary according to the practice under the 264 Capitulations for any offence to be stated in order to secure an arrest. For instance, in October, 1908, the French Consulate requested the arrest of a French citizen. In December, 1910, the same Consulate applied for the arrest of three of its nationals, and in February, 1913, the Greek Consulate applied for the arrest of a Greek subject. In none of these cases was any charge specified. I do not therefore propose to make any further inquiry into the matter.
§ Mr. MORRELLMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any precedent in support of what he says as to the practice that no offence need be stated so far as regards offences committed outside the territory?
§ Sir E. GREYIf no offence is stated, we do not know whether it is committed inside or outside the territory. I have had cases brought before me in which arrest is asked for by foreign Consuls without stating any offence, wherever committed.
§ Mr. MORRELLMay I take it there is no precedent for an arrest in which it has been stated clearly that it was for an offence committed outside the territory?
§ Sir E. GREYI do not say that. It is covered by the fact that it is not necessary to charge any offence at all.
§ Mr. MORRELLThen it is simply a question of practice, and is not covered by the Capitulations?
§ Sir E. GREYIt is certainly a question of practice, and practice of many years' standing.