HC Deb 31 July 1890 vol 347 cc1340-1
MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has seen in the Times of India, of 9th April, 1890, a Resolution of the Government of Bombay, relating to trees on occupied lands in Kolaba, in paragraph 30, where it is stated— The same terms as are being offered in Thana under paragraphs 9, 10, and 13 of Government Resolution, No. 2447, dated 8th April, 1890, may for this purpose be offered in Kolaba; whether what purports to be Government Resolution No. 2447, dealing with trees in occupied lands, Thana, has been published in the Times of India of 12th April; whether he will state what were the terms mentioned in paragraphs 9, 10, and 13, of the Resolution No. 2447, of 8th of April, and whether they contained important concessions to cultivators; whether he will state why this Resolution has not been published in the Government Gazette; and whether the Government of Bombay having refused, in their letters Nos. 3024 and 4163, to supply copies of the Resolution to the Forest Association of Thana, he will give instructions for the publication of the Resolution, as framed by Lord Reay's Government, so that the cultivators in the Kolaba and Thana districts may obtain the benefits which it was intended they should derive?

* THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,) Chatham

The answer to the first paragraph of the question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. The Secretary of State has seen the Resolution from paragraph 3, and not 30, of which the quotation is taken. The answer to the second para- graph is in the negative. The other Resolution, No. 2447, has not been published. In answer to the third paragraph, I have to say that the Secretary of State cannot state the terms of the Resolution, because the document in question is marked confidential. The Secretary of State is not aware whether the Government of Bombay has refused to publish the document, nor, if so, on what grounds. The Secretary of State is not aware of the refusal of the Government of Bombay to publish the Resolution, and the matter seems to be one of local administration, with which, as at present advised, he should not interfere. The hon. Member's question will be sent to India in ordinary course.