HC Deb 13 February 1890 vol 341 cc188-9
MR. BRADLAUGH

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that Memorials have been received by the Bombay Government from European officers of the Bombay Civil Service with reference to the Crawford case, and the action taken by the Government against the incriminated Mamlutdars, and whether he can state the purport of such Memorials; whether the Secretary of State has also received communications from Lord Reay on the same points, and objecting to the course decided on by the Secretary of State, and whether the Government will lay such Memorials and Communications upon the Table, together with any replies thereto; and, whether the Secretary of State will afford this House an opportunity of discussing the conduct of the Government of India in this matter, in order that reasons may be given why the Secretary of State should exercise his power of disallowing the Act of Indemnity promulgated by the Governor General in Council on October 14th last?

SIR J. GORST

The reply to the first paragraph of the question of the hon. Member is in the negative. In answer to the second paragraph, I have to say that many communications have passed between Lord Reay and the Secretary of State on the subject. Some of these are published in the Papers on the Crawford case which were laid on the Table last Session, and others can be laid on the Table if moved for. In answer to the third paragraph of the question, I may inform the hon. Member that the Secretary of State, laving already expressed his approval of the Act of Indemnity, cannot now disallow it.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Has the Secretary of State presented copies of such memorials as have already been forwarded to him?

SIR J. GORST

My answer to the first question of the hon. Member was in the negative. The Secretary of State is not aware of any such communications having been made to the Government of Bombay. I have not seen them, and consequently cannot give any information about them.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will afford an opportunity for discussing the action of the Government of India in reference to the Mamlutdars incriminated in the Crawford case, before the expiry of the ordinary period limited for the disallowance of the Indian Indemnity Act of the 14th October last?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand

The hon. Gentleman has already been informed by my right hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for India, that the Secretary of State has allowed the Indian Indemnity Act, and therefore, as it is the Law it cannot now be disturbed except by an Act repealing the Indian Indemnity Act. Under these circumstances it will be seen that it would give him no advantage to afford him an opportunity for discussing the action of the Government of India, and I am not in a position to say that an opportunity will be afforded.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under sections 21 and 23 of the India Council Act, statutes passed by the Governor General in Council or ordinances in cases of emergency have force only if not disallowed in six mouths, and there is no further provision. Would not that provision meet the case of the Indian Indemnity Act?

SIR J. GORST

I think that a question of that kind had better be put to the Attorney General or some Law Officer of the Crown. If it is desired to repeal the Act it would have to be repealed by a special statute.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I will put a further question on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman himself on Monday.