HC Deb 14 July 1879 vol 248 cc298-9
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to an alleged use of torture in a case tried before an assistant magistrate in India, Whether he can now state the result of the further inquiries into the subject which he undertook to make?

MR. E. STANHOPE

Sir, I received this morning a communication on the subject from his Grace the Governor of Madras in reply to my letter. His Grace informs me that no question of torture was ever raised in connection with the proceedings of Mr. Cox in April, 1878, and there was, in fact, no torture. What happened was this. By the Indian Oaths Act, oaths may be administered in any form common among, or held binding by persons of, the race or persuasion to which the witness belongs. Among the Tamil race the form of oath held most binding is one taken by the swearer in the act of worship with light in hand.

Burning camphor is frequently used for lights in Temple ceremonies. Mr. Cox, in the course of his inquiry into the malpractices of certain village authorities, found great difficulty in obtaining evidence from inferiors against superiors. In his anxiety to elicit the whole truth he allowed himself to commit certain irregularities. First, he directed the Tahsildar to call up certain persons to Arconum and to detain them there three days in order to remove them from the pressure of objection able influence, which he had no legal authority to do. Secondly, he directed the witnesses to be sworn in their most binding manner, intending it to be done under the provisions of the Indian Oaths Act. He omitted, however, to obtain the offer of the persons to submit to the binding form of oath, but required them to take it. This, although there is no report of any objection, was beyond the law. And he also allowed the oath to be taken in an informal manner. The Sessions Judge made severe comments on these irregularities, and sent up the case to the High Court. The High Court made no order, apparently thinking the notice of the Sessions Judge sufficient. The matter was some months afterwards reported to the Government of Madras; and they, notwithstanding the Judge's remarks, recorded an opinion that Mr. Cox's procedure was:— Most irregular and improper, directly calculated to encourage subordinate officials in a resort to illegal expedients in similar cases, and directed their opinion to be communicated to Mr. Cox. His Grace particularly wishes me to add that throughout seven years' service Mr. Cox has proved himself a good officer and magistrate, no previous overstepping of his authority having occurred, nor any complaint of irregularity of procedure. During a long and harassing course of famine duty he proved himself a good and considerate officer.