§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received the information from the Authorities in India respecting the case of Sheikh Abdul Rasoul, promised on 16th February; (2) if so, on what date was such information received, and what is its purport; if not, will he explain the delay which has taken place in the obtaining of this information; (3) whether he can now state what number of Her Majesty's Indian subjects have been imprisoned under the provisions of Regulation III. of 1818, or deprived of their property since that date to the present time; (4) whether he is aware that Regulation III. of 1818, to which he recently referred, applies only to. Bengal, and not to Bombay; (5) would he state to the House what were the reasons of State, and upon what facts or evidence they were based, which necessitated the detention of Abdul Rasoul for nine months in gaol without trial; and (6) whether the Government still refuse to make any compensation to Abdul Rasoul for the treatment he has received? As the Under Secretary for India is in his place, perhaps he will answer the question.
SIR J. GORSTNo information was promised on the 16th of February. It was then stated that—
The communications addressed by the Sheikh to the Secretary of State have been forwarded to India, and the Secretary of State will await a reply from the Government of India before taking any action thereon.(2) The Government of India on the 18th of February stated that Abdul Rasoul, on release from confinement, had applied to be sent to Cashmere, and, failing that, to England. On receiving this information the Secretary of State offered Abdul Rasoul the terms which have been already explained to the House. (3) As already stated, the Secretary of State must decline in the public interest to give this information. (4) The provisions of Regulation III. of 1818, which applied to the Bengal Presidency, were re-enacted in almost identical terms in Regulation XXV. of 1827, which applied to the 674 Bombay Presidency, and is still in force.(5) The Secretary of State has reason to believe that the Government of India were satisfied that Abdul Rasoul was employed as an emissary of Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, who, the House will remember, was at that time issuing treasonable Proclamations against the Queen. On the Maharajah receiving Her Majesty's pardon, Abdul Rasoul applied for his own release, which was granted.
(6) The Government has not refused to make compensation to Abdul Rasoul; but, as already stated more than once, Abdul Rasoul, if he demands compensation, must address himself to the Government of India in the first instance.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI have had cause-to trouble the right hon. Gentleman so-frequently without obtaining a satisfactory assurance from him that I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to raise the question.