HC Deb 10 September 1887 vol 321 cc157-8
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered and approved the proceeding's of Major Macdonald, British Member of the Extraordinary Commission sent to try, in a summary and extra legal manner, certain Egyptian villagers, particularly in sentencing to be flogged two Sheikhs of the village, not for having taken part in the affray, but for not preventing it, and also sentencing to be imprisoned and fined a number of other Sheikhs, because they were Chiefs of the Tribes to which the accused men belonged; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have approved the conduct of the British Authorities who sent British troops and English prison warders to carry out the sentences?

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)

Her Majesty's Government have not thought it necessary to express any disapproval of the conduct of the British officer who took part in the Court to which the Question of my hon. Friend refers. At the same time, I must point out that I cannot admit that in the terms of his Question he has accurately described the case as stated in the Papers before the House. I have no reason to think that the Court was extra legal. It sat under the authority of the Government of Egypt; nor can I admit that the Sheikhs in question were flogged for the reasons stated, although the reasons stated were probably considered aggravations of their offence.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that the Court was extra legal. He asked if it was not the fact that Egypt at the present moment was subject to certain conditions of legality; if it was the fact that there exists a Legislative Council; whether that Legislative Council was consulted; and whether the Extraordinary Commission was not issued by the Khedive upon his own sole authority; could it be shown that the punishment of the Sheikhs or headmen of the village was justifiable; and could it be shown that they could have prevented the affray?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

The hon. Gentleman has put a great number of Questions, and I cannot undertake to answer them off-hand; but I may say that a Legislative Council is not consulted in Executive acts. The Commission, I believe, was legally constituted; and the punishment of the Sheikhs was due to the fact that they were Chiefs of the villagers which were concerned in the outrages upon the officers, and were present and abetting them.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

gave Notice that he would call the attention of the House to the subject on the earliest possible opportunity.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

inquired, whether the affray to which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had called attention did not originate in a British officer having wounded four out of five men—possibly by accident, and upon a struggle arising out of the wounding in killing one of them right out—as the officer said also by accident?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

The Papers are before the House, and hon. Members are as able as I am to say what is in them. I think it is hardly necessary for me to repeat the explanations which I gave at great length about the affair when it occurred.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, that if his reading was a correct interpretation of the Papers before the House he would ask whether any steps had been taken to punish the officer who was guilty of killing one man and wounding three others accidentally?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

I never heard of anybody having been killed or wounded, except accidentally. The hon. Member asks whether a man has been punished for doing an accidental act. Certainly not.

MR. BRADLAUGH

The officer himself alleges that the killing was accidental. At any rate, the firing was on his part.