HC Deb 28 May 1908 vol 189 cc1257-9
* MR. MACKARNESS (Berkshire, Newbury)

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the 24th instant Sir J. Willcocks attacked a force of Utman Khel on the Indian frontier with cavalry and artillery, and inflicted extremely severe loss upon them, that this attack took place after an envoy from the tribesman had come to the British camp asking for terms, and that the British general refused to hold any intercourse with him; and will he say what instructions have been given to the general as to dealing with terms offered or asked for by the tribesmen. The hon. Member prefaced the asking of this question as it was printed on the Paper by appealing for the ruling of the Speaker as to the principle on which a Question ought to be altered in its phraseology by the Clerk at the Table. He said that he had handed in the Question in quite a different form from the above. What his original Question asked was whether the attention of the Under-Secretary had been called to a published statement to the effect that these things had happened and whether there was any truth in the statement. This had been struck out of the Question, and he was made to impute conduct as a fact to Sir James Willcocks which he had been specially anxious to avoid.

* MR. SPEAKER

asked the hon. Member why, if he had any objection to the form of the Question, he did not make his objection on the previous day. The Question appeared on the Paper the previous day, and if the hon. Member had any objection to it he could have come to him and raised the point at that time.

* MR. MACKARNESS

I had understood that the practice was for the Clerk at the Table to send a card to the hon. Member whose Question he wished to alter and ask him to call. I received no such invitation.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,) Perthshire, E.

The statement on which the Question appears to be founded is that an emissary who said he had come from the Nawab of Nawagai to discuss terms shortly before the engagement with the Utman Khel on the 24th was not received by General Willcocks. No mention of this episode is made in the official reports of the occurrences of that date. I would point out that the Utman Khel are a Mohmand tribe over whom the Nawab of Nawagai has no jurisdiction. It may, I think, be taken for granted that if an authorised emissary from the section concerned had come to negotiate for submission, General Willcocks would have suspended operations in accordance with his instructions, the purport of which I stated to the House on the 26th, and which he has hitherto carried out with success.

* MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)

Is there any justification for the underlying assumption in the Question to the effect that British Generals in India prefer to kill the tribesmen?

MR. BUCHANAN

The underlying assumption is what my hon. friend wishes to disclaim.

* MR. MACKARNESS

May we assume that there is no truth in the statement published as to the conduct of the General?

MR. BUCHANAN

As far as we are aware there is no foundation for the statement.

* MR. MACKARNESS

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the contradiction which I wanted.