HC Deb 22 March 1881 vol 259 cc1657-8
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a force of several thousand men is about to start from Bunnoo to chastise the Mahsood Waziris, who are subjects of the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, whether, in the arrangements now being concluded with the Ameer, the necessity has been, or will be, impressed upon him of keeping his subjects on our frontiers in proper subjection in future, so as to avoid the constant recurrence of raids upon our territories, and the necessity of sending large forces to exact satisfaction, at a heavy cost of men and money?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

Sir, the Mahsood Waziris are not subjects of the Ameer. They form a portion of the independent tribes on the North-Western Frontier. They have always been considered by the Government of India as an independent tribe, and the relations of the Government of India with them have always been direct. Therefore, it has never been considered, and is not now considered, desirable that the Ameer should be held responsible for the acts of tribes over whom his authority is not recognized. As to the particular acts referred to, the facts are that two years ago a body of this tribe, numbering about 2,000 men, in combination with others, committed an unprovoked attack on the British Border, maltreating the inhabitants of a town, and destroying property to the value of £8,000. For this conduct they were required by Lord Lytton's Government to pay a suitable fine, to restore the property they had carried off, and to give up the ringleaders of the outrage. To these terms they never submitted. On the contrary, they committed further depredations on the Frontier. This is a state of things which, in the opinion of the Government of India, cannot be permitted to continue; and they have resolved, on the recommendation of the Punjaub Government, to enforce the terms demanded in 1879, if they are not submitted to voluntarily, by means of a punitive expedition. The latter part of the Question has been already answered in the statement I have recently made.