HC Deb 12 June 1913 vol 53 cc1756-8
1. and 2. Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether it has been the practice for Powers desiring the extradition of politicals from Turkey to base their claims upon Capitulation privileges or upon other treaty rights; and whether he can state, as regards Russia, what has been the practice previously adopted; and (2) whether there is any precedent in Russia's own action or in that of any other Power having Capitulatory privileges with Turkey for Consuls extraditing their nationals for alleged political offences committed outside the Turkish Dominions and inside the Turkish Dominions; and, if so, can he give references to the cases?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey)

No question of extradition arises. Extradition implies executive action by the Government, or legal procedure in the Courts, of a country by which an alleged criminal who has taken asylum there may be recovered. But as I have explained to the House in previous answers under the Capitulations no administrative or legal procedure by the Egyptian Government or Courts is necessary and therefore I am not in a position to say what foreign countries may have in past years in the exercise of their extra-territorial rights, recovered their own subjects or citizens through the intermediary of their own Consuls or Courts in the Ottoman Dominions or for what offences, whether political or otherwise. I can only say what the position of this country would be should we desire to recover a criminal from the Ottoman Dominions. Our claim would arise under the Capitulations, and the Statute which would give our officers power to act is the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881, which has been applied to the Ottoman Dominions by Order in Council. That Statute does not distinguish between political and other offences. I may add that the letter from Lord Cromer in the "Times" this morning gives a case of Russian action in January, 1907, which appears to be a precedent such as the hon. Member asks for. And I would draw attention to a sentence quoted there from Lord Cromer's annual report for 1906 (Command Paper 3394). "It must therefore be understood that under the regime of the Capitulations political offenders who are not accused of any offence at common law are liable to be deported from Egypt, and that the fact of a British garrison being in occupation of the country in no degree lessens the liability." The Capitulations entail all sorts of inconvenience, but until they are abolished or modified they must be complied with.

Mr. MACDONALD

May I take it from the statement made in the "Times" this morning that if my right hon. Friend had seen any reason for interfering, or had power to interfere, it would have rested with him to make that interference?

Sir E. GREY

I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's question. He asks, whether, if we had power to interfere, it would have rested with me to do so.

Mr. MACDONALD

Supposing the Capitulations had not debarred the Egyptian Government from taking action, would action have been taken at the instance of my right hon. Friend?

Sir E. GREY

I do not see that I can answer a hypothetical question of that kind. Our position in Egypt is that of being in occupation, and we require the Egyptian Government to accept our advice as to matters on which we are in a position to offer it.

Mr. MACDONALD

In view of the reply perhaps it will be more convenient to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, to-night.

Mr. MORRELL

With reference to previous answers may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that the precedent Lord Cromer quotes is not a real precedent for this reason. On that occasion the Russian prisoners were arrested by the Egyptian police and were charged with an actual offence against Egyptian law, whereas in this case a man is arrested by the Egyptian police at the instance of the Russian Consul for no offence whatever against Egyptian law?

Sir E. GREY

I do not, believe it was under Egyptian law at all. I have told the House what Lord Cromer said in his report for 1906. In his letter in to-day's "Times" he quotes the following passage:— Towards the end of January. 1907, three Russians were arrested at Alexandria under grave suspicion of having conspired to blow up a Russian ship then lying in that port. Under the rights conferred by the Capitulations, the Russian Consular authorities demanded that the prisoners should be handed over to them, with a view to their being sent for trial to Russia. The legality of the demand did not admit of doubt. The obligation of the Egyptian authorities to comply with it was equally certain.

Mr. MORRELL

Is that not merely Lord Cromer's own dictum. It is not a precedent?

Sir E. GREY

It is a statement of what the Capitulations are. The hon. Gentleman asks me to undertake the responsibility of interfering between foreign Consuls and their own nationals. That is a grave extension of responsibility which I cannot undertake.

Mr. MORRELL

Will the right hon. Gentleman be present when the question is raised this evening?

Sir E. GREY

I cannot promise that I will be present. Even if I were present, I could say nothing further than I have already said, that I have no responsibility for cases of this kind.