§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Judge Advocate General, Whether it is a fact that, under the "Capitulations," it is impossible for our Military Authorities in Egypt to prevent the sale of drink to our soldiers by Greeks and Italians, &c., and that the result is seen in such outrages as the attack on the Arab who was lately killed by drunken soldiers; and, whether he will consider the advisability of placing our Troops, while in Egypt, under the Mahomedan Law, so far as it prevents their being supplied with intoxicating drink?
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)I am not quite sure that I understand what is meant by the "Capitulations" referred to in this Question; but I may state generally that it is impossible for our military authorities in Egypt to prevent the sale of drink by Greeks and Italians, though, no doubt, they may, by placing certain localities out of bounds, or by similar regulations, prevent within certain limits the purchase of drink by soldiers. As to the second Question, I am afraid my hon. Friend must be labouring under some confusion of ideas. I do not know whether he thinks that because the Mahomedan law is a military law therefore all military law must be Mahomedan law; but I certainly have no power to place our troops while serving in Egypt under the Mahomedan Liquor Law—whatever that may be—or under any other Mahomedan laws or usages. I hope I may be permitted to add that I trust the outrage referred to 386 —of which I know nothing except what I have seen in the papers—will not be taken as a fair specimen of the conduct of our troops in Egypt, which, to judge by the courts martial which have come before me, has been exceptionally good.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked if it was true that the Egyptian authorities at Ramleh had informed a British Colonel that they would not convey soldiers returning from Ramleh if they were in a state of drink?
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he knew nothing whatever about it.