§ LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to call the attention of the House to the recent transfer of British Consular jurisdiction over British subjects in the Regency of Tunis to the French tribunals lately established in that country; and to ask Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consequence of such surrender, Her Majesty's Government proposes to take any steps as to the abrogation of Consular jurisdiction or modification of the capitulations in Egypt? said, he wished to do so, because the Regency of Tunis possessed a British Colony, numbering at least 11,000 persons, most of these Colonists being Maltese. England had, for 200 years, consistently resisted the 818 endeavours of France to acquire predominance in Tunis, and with that object, had always maintained the political dependence of Tunis as a Province of the Ottoman Empire. England enjoyed the Treaty rights of the "most favoured nation" in Tunis since 1651. She possessed (1), the exclusive power of judging her own subjects; and (2), certain important commercial privileges. In 1871, the Sultan—mainly at the suggestion of England—affirmed his relations with Tunis by a new Firman, concerning which both the Bey and the Sultan received our diplomatic congratulations. At that time, the Treaty then existing between this country and Tunis, as well as those between Tunis and other Powers, were renewed. A Liberal Ministry was at that time in power. Ten years later (1881)—the present Ministry being in power—the French Republic invaded the Regency of Tunis on the flimsy pretext of frontier raids supposed to have been committed by persons called Kroumirs. In the result, the French eventually occupied the whole country with an army of 40,000 men, and now this country was excluded from exercising any political influence in the affairs of Tunis. M. Barthélémy Saint Hilaire gave Lord Lyons, on two occasions, the most positive and categoric assurances that France sought only the punishment of the lawless frontier tribes. In consequence of these assurances, the English Representative advised the Bey to comply with the demands of France. On the 12th of May, a French General appeared in force before the Bey's palace, and compelled him to sign the Treaty of Kasr-es-Said. By Article 4 of that Convention, France agreed to guarantee the execution of the Treaties at present existing between the Government of the Regency and the different European Powers. Six days later, England, in virtue of her ancient Treaties with Tunis, constituted by an Order in Council, called the Ottoman Order of 1881, a British Consular Court at Tunis. Her Majesty's Government admitted so recently as 1881, that Tunis was a portion of the Ottoman Empire, in which other Governments had no moral and international right to interfere; and, subsequently, on the 7th of May, Lord Granville wrote thus to Lord Lyons—
Any measures which would affect the existing state of the African Provinces on the Mediterranean 819 could not be matter of indifference to the European Powers, many of whom, like Great Britain, have special Treaties with Tunis, entitling them to most-favoured nation treatment in the Regency, while all would, it is to he presumed, lay claim to such treatment under their Treaties with the Porte.On the 20th of May—the very day after the issue of the Ottoman Order in Council—Lord Granville again wrote to Lord Lyons thus—In order that there may he no misapprehension hereafter, Her Majesty's Government desire explicitly to state that the general Convention of the 19th of July, 1875, between the Governments of Great Britain and Tunis, is, and remains in force. This Treaty secures to British subjects, vessels, commerce, and navigation, all the privileges, favours, and immunities which might then or thereafter be granted to the subjects, vessels, commerce, and navigation of any other nation whatever.…Her Majesty's Government feel confident that M. Barthélémy Saint Hilaire will appreciate the friendly intentions of Her Majesty's Government in being thus explicit in their views with regard to the rights of British subjects under existing Treaties.In March, 1882, M. Peter Paul Cambon became French Resident in Tunis, and, at the same time, Tunisian Minister of Foreign Affairs. In this last capacity he claimed to be sole intermediary between the Representatives of the Powers and the Beylical Government. Since that time the complaints of ill-treatment by British subjects had been frequent and serious. In fact, M. Cambon openly stated that redress of grievances on the part of the Tunisian authorities would be made difficult, if not impossible, in order to compel the Foreign Powers to abandon the Consular jurisdiction they enjoyed by Treaty. The consequence of such a course of procedure as was comprised in that intimation was a practical denial of justice wherever a British subject was the complainant and a Tunisian the subject of the complaint; and, as a result, the Foreign Office had a list of pending differences of the most serious description. Six months ago the French authorities opened French Courts in the City of Tunis and elsewhere; and then, on the 30th of December, 1883, only a few weeks before the assembling of Parliament, and without waiting to consult that body at all—without any definite settlement as to the equitable adjustment of pending cases, and without any reference to the relative position of France and England in Egypt—an Order in Council was issued by Her Majesty's 820 Government abolishing the Consular Courts in Tunis, and surrendering our own exclusive jurisdiction over our own subjects, not to the Tunisian authorities, but to the French Courts which had been recently established, and of the working of which no opinion could possibly be formed. As he had said, there were 12,000 British subjects resident in Tunis, the whole of whom had been so handed over, and, as a consequence, had lost their nationality entirely. To his idea, that was a strange and extraordinary proceeding. Would the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explain this strange change of policy? The answer of the noble Earl might be that this was a fait accompli; but he (Lord Lamington) wanted to see the Papers and Correspondence, in order to learn what arguments were used. If the proceeding held good in regard to Tunis, it might also be applied to Tripoli and to Egypt. It seemed to him that Mr. Gladstone's Administrations were famous for giving up our possessions and authority in other countries; for when the right hon. Gentleman was in Office so far back as 1864, or thereabouts, he gave up the Ionian Islands. But now, having directed attention to the transfer of British Consular jurisdiction over British subjects in Tunis, he (Lord Lamington) wished to ask the noble Earl the Question of which he had given Notice—Whether, in consequence of such surrender, Her Majesty's Government proposed to take any steps for the abrogation of Consular jurisdiction or modification of the Capitulations in Egypt?—for it was strange that, being in Egypt, and having now possession of that country—though only, it might be said, for a temporary purpose—they were not abolished there. But the French Capitulations still remained there, and enabled the French to publish a paper daily, which contained abusive articles against England; and yet there was no power to stop it, because it was under French protection. Even the decree of the Khedive could not stop it, and his Government were impotent in carrying the decree out. He did not himself approve of the occupation of Egypt; but as this country was there in possession, the Government ought, as the French in Tunis, to have the courage of their opinions; and having allowed the Consular Courts to be abolished in 821 Tunis, and British subjects there to be handed over to the French Courts, they should abolish the Capitulations in Egypt. That would be a consistent course to follow, and the British Government would then assume her proper position in Egypt.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I wish to begin by pointing out to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) that he said that the Ionian Islands were abandoned by Mr. Gladstone's Administration. That was not so. If I recollect rightly, Mr. Gladstone was sent out as High Commissioner by a Conservative Government, and those Islands were subsequently given up by Lord Palmerston's Government. With regard to the Question the noble Lord has put to me, I rather expected, both from the form of the Question and the subject under discussion, that the noble Lord would have confined himself to the recent action which he has, quite inaccurately, described as having been taken by Her Majesty's Government in Tunis. But he is perfectly right to do as he has done, to go further back, and ask why we did not oppose the French occupation of Tunis. There was no concealment of our policy in that respect. Her Majesty's Government thought that there was a concurrence of circumstances which made it difficult, if not impossible, to oppose the occupation by the French of Tunis. That being the case, we thought it was neither desirable for our interests, nor consistent with our dignity, to do what has been done in the case of Algeria; for we went on making abortive protests against the occupation, of Algeria by the French, and at last we were obliged to give it up. We thought it was of no use, if we did not mean to oppose it, to keep up any form of that sort, and I am bound to say that, excepting from the noble Earl on the Bench opposite (the Earl De La Warr) and one or two individual Members in the other House of Parliament, there has not been the slightest complaint for two years past of that policy. But that being the policy, whether right or wrong, the question arises as to what right we had to abolish the capitulations of Tunis. The noble Lord asks that question, and, in reply, I say that they have not been abolished. What has been changed is the Consular jurisdiction, and that only. I think 822 your Lordships are aware that that Consular jurisdiction is a very anomalous state of things, and that it is only justifiable, in certain circumstances, by the mode in which justice is administered in different countries. But when we have to deal with a country like France, one of the most civilized in the world, and whose justice stands so high, then the anomaly becomes very great indeed, and is one which it is not desirable to keep up. I may appeal to the noble Earl opposite to say what is the feeling of Englishmen in Tunis on this subject. I believe the noble Earl is interested in a Company who have a concession of a particular kind from the Government of Tunis, and on the proposition of that Company and upon their demand before this change was made, they insisted upon a clause which secured to them that if any differences arose, those differences should be referred to the French tribunal and not to the Native one. That shows the evil is not so great as the noble Lord has assumed. The Courts are constituted like the Courts at Havre and Marseilles, or anywhere else, and there would be an appeal to the highest Consular Court in France. We have reserved entirely the remainder of the Capitulations and all our ancient Treaty rights to which the noble Lord has alluded. We agreed to this abolition of Consular jurisdiction, as all the Powers have done with the exception of Russia, which is waiting for some matter of form, and that only subject to the perfectly fair and equitable arrangement at present existing as regards all claims against Tunis. That is the substance of the case, though I might go into more detail. I think that shows that what we have done is not hurtful to the interests of our fellow-countrymen, and certainly not to the interests of this country. But the noble Lord said—"If you have abolished the Capitulations in Tunis"—which we have not done—" why do you not abolish the Capitulations in Egypt?" The analogy is between the Consular jurisdiction in the one country and the other. It happens that, by successive steps, the Consular jurisdiction of all the other countries of Europe in Egypt is extremely limited; and I do not believe one case arises in them in a month for Mr. Cookson to try. As it is now, all the Powers have agreed to the general 823 principle, subject to the consideration of a Commission, that the criminal jurisdiction should be extended to the International tribunals, and all the practical objects which the noble Lord desires will be attained by that arrangement.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I wish to add my testimony to what has been said by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), that the abolition or suspension of the Consular Courts in Tunis is, under existing circumstances, not a matter to complain of. The question of the Capitulations is one of the most difficult and complicated of modern times. I think that there is no doubt that in the past they have done more to injure the Turkish Empire than any other circumstance. They have paralyzed the Turkish Government in its own home, and on its own soil, and made the levying of taxes at Constantinople almost a matter of impossibility; and I will certainly say that, where other circumstances are equal, if it be possible to obtain judiciary systems more suitable to modern ideas, it will be far better to substitute them for the old Consular jurisdictions, which, I think, never worked very well. In Cyprus we substituted the English Courts upon the English plan for the Courts of the Capitulations, the Consular Courts; and the French Government, though they made a certain remonstrance at the time, received from us arguments very much of the same character that the noble Earl has given to the House, and gave way in a very ready manner. I believe on both sides that is a sound view to take, and, so long as you are dealing with a Power like France, the character and integrity of whose Courts you can thoroughly trust, I think it wise to accept their Courts as not only a fitting, but a desirable, substitute for the old Consular jurisdiction. With respect to Egypt, I believe the case is more complicated; still I am not one of those who very much admire the International tribunals set up some years ago. They have done a certain amount of good work, but, undoubtedly, there are many considerations of difficulty in connection with their operation. Without asking the noble Earl—it would be hardly fair to do so—what he intends to do with respect to the particular question brought forward by my noble Friend behind me 824 (Lord Lamington), I am bound to say that the establishment of the International Courts does not seem to me a sufficient ground for ousting the supreme power, whatever it is, of such jurisdiction as may be necessary for political purposes. To plead the existence of these International Courts, or any doctrines founded on the Capitulations, against such authority as may be necessary to prevent the uttering of seditious publications, injurious to the Government actually in power, whatever that Government may be, seems to me to be decidedly straining the tenor of the Capitulations, straining the agreement under which International Courts were set up, and by a claim which the English Government would be justified in resisting.
§ EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) for some further explanation. He wanted to know whether civil as well as criminal cases were to go before the French Courts?
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I can only repeat what I stated before, that the rights are reserved as to criminal cases, and the only change regards the abolition of Consular jurisdiction. I am not sure that I was absolutely correct when I stated that all the European Powers have agreed in principle to the transference of the criminal jurisdiction to the International tribunals in Egypt. Russia, Italy, Austria, and France have expressed opinions favourable to that principle; but I now remember that Germany has not expressed any opinion on the subject. I have, however, reason to believe that the opinion of that Power will be favourable to the principle.