No. 188.
Sir
Edward Thornton to Mr. Fish.
Washington, May 31, 1873.
(Received May 31.)
Sir: In my note of the 1st instant, I had the honor
to transmit to you a copy of a dispatch which Earl Granville had addressed
to Sir H. Elliot, instructing his excellency to
communicate to the Porte the conclusions at which Her Majesty’s government
had arrived in regard to the forms in which the assent of the Porte, of the
Khedive, and of the powers represented in the International Commission on
Judicial Reforms in Egypt, should be recorded in regard to the new system of
judicature to be established in that country.
Since that dispatch was written, hovever, Lord Granville has received a
dispatch from Sir H. Elliot, of which I have the honor
to inclose two copies, stating his reasons for considering that, in lieu of
the course suggested in the above-mentioned dispatch, it would be desirable
to follow that proposed in Lord Granville’s note to M. de Lavalette, of the
22d of July, 1870, a copy of which was transmitted to you in my note of
August 18, 1870, namely, “that it shall rest with the Viceroy of Egypt to
obtain the assent of the Sultan to the proposed reforms, and with the Sultan
to make known to the different powers that these reforms are sanctioned by
him.” Lord Granville has now instructed me to inform you that, after
consultation with the law-officers of the Crown, he has concurred in Sir
H. Elliot’s suggestion.
His lordship also instructed me to forward to you two copies, herewith
inclosed, of a dispatch which he has addressed to Sir H.
Elliot, by which you will perceive that Her Majesty’s
government lays down as a condition of its final acceptance of the new
judicial system the maintenance of the principle that no preponderance
should be accorded to one nationality over another in the appointment of the
judges for the new tribunals or in filling up vacancies whenever they may
arise.
I have, &c.,
Sir H. Elliot to
Earl Granville.
Constantinople, April 27, 1873.
(Received May —.)
No. 125.]
My Lord: I received, by the messenger Harbord,
your lordship’s dispatch No. 78, of the 15th instant, upon the question
of the Egyptian judical reforms.
With regard to the form in which the assent of the powers should be given
to the new system, Her Majesty’s government consider that the best mode
of preserving the rights of the Porte, and of the Khedive, would be for
the Sultan to issue a firman to
[Page 425]
the Viceroy recommending the adoption of the changes, and that the
firman should he communicated to and receive the assent of the powers
interested.
I would beg your lordship’s permission to be allowed to point out some
objections which my experience in the mode of proceeding here leads me
to consider this proposal to be open to.
An imperial firman has the character of a formal and absolute order
imposed upon the person to whom it is addressed, and it would be
altogether at variance with the nature of such an instrument if it were
merely to “recommend” the adoption of a particular course.
It is also to be borne in mind that although the Sultan’s government may
come to an understanding with foreign powers as to the nature of a
proposed firman, they would never, when it was once issued, submit it to
them for their consent. But if these difficulties did not exist at
Constantinople, others would be found in Egypt where the Viceroy would
unquestionably resent the issue of a firman, which he would regard as an
infringement upon the freedom of internal administration which has been
secured to him.
The sovereign’s authorization for carrying out the reforms had been
formally communicated to His Highness by vizirial letter, both the
project and the codes having received the sanction of the imperial
government; so that, as between the Sultan and the Khedive, there
appears no doubt that everything has passed regularly, and with a due
regard to their respective positions.
What Her Majesty’s government have, I apprehend, in view, and what, as a
matter of principle, it is so important not to lose sight of, is, that
an arrangement which will have the effect of, to a certain extent,
modifying treaty stipulations, should not come into force without its
ratification by the sovereign being formally signified to the other
powers.
I would submit to your lordship’s consideration whether the above object
would not be attained in an unobjectionable manner by the course
suggested in your note to M. de Lavalette of July 22, 1870, in which it
was stated that it would rest with the pasha to obtain the assent of the
Sultan, and with the Sultan to make known to the different powers that
these reforms are sanctioned by him.
It is the latter portion of this proposal that has yet to be complied
with.
The simplest mode of proceeding would probably be, to notify to the
Viceroy that Her Majesty’s government have accepted the scheme, and are
ready to allow its application to British subjects as soon as it is
intimated to them by the Porte that the Sultan has given it his
sanction; and, if Her Majesty’s government should think it desirable, I
have no doubt that the Porte, in expressing their assent, would be ready
to communicate a copy of the authorization which had been given to the
Viceroy.
The sanction of the Porte to the principle upon which this reform has
been devised was an indispensable condition, but I doubt whether it
would be advisable or prudent to do anything to imply that they are
called upon to pronounce upon the details.
In the course of working, experience will inevitably bring to light
errors and defects which will require correction; and it will be easier
to have them remedied by direct negotiations between the powers
interested and the Egyptian government, if it can be done as a matter of
internal administration, not necessitating an application to the
Porte.
I have, &c.,
Earl Granville to
Sir H. Elliot.
Foreign
Office, May 15,
1873.
No. 110.]
Sir: I stated to you in my dispatch No. 73, of
the 15th of April, that, for themselves, Her Majesty’s government were
prepared forthwith to accept the proposed arrangements respecting
judicial reforms in Egypt, and to sanction the report of the
international commission.
In your dispatch No. 111, of the 19th of April, you give an account of a
conversation with the French embassador respecting the nationality of
the judges to be named for the new tribunal.
It is of course very important that, in the selection of the judges, care
should be taken not to give any preponderance to one nationality over
another, and that the same rule should be observed in supplying any
vacancies that may, from time to time, occur among them.
Her Majesty’s government consider this point so essential, not only for
the interest of British litigants, but also to secure the new tribunals
from any suspicion of partiality, that, to prevent any question of this
kind hereafter arising, they desire your excellency to make their final
acceptance of the new system dependent on the maintenance of this
point.
I am, &c.,
