HC Deb 16 April 1891 vol 352 cc696-719
(4.55.) MR. CONYBEARE,

Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, " the Arrest of an Indian Subject in Bombay and his Imprisonment for nine months in the Gaol of Assergarh, and his subsequent deportation to London without trial and without any charge or accusation having been brought against him; " but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

MR. CONYBEARE

I am l0th to trouble the House with a Motion of this kind; but there are Members in the House who will recollect that I have again and again pressed the Government of India with questions on the subject without receiving any reply I could consider sufficient, and it is not only because the question involves a case of very great hardship and maltreatment to a particular Mahomedan subject of Her Majesty, but also because it involves a question of principle relating to the Government of India generally, that I consider it to be of sufficient importance to justify the step I am taking this evening. I am sure there are not many Members in this House who would have credited the statement had anyone told them before this case arose that it is in the power of Her Majesty's Government in India to act as they- have acted in relation to this Mahomedan gentleman, Sheikh Abdul Rasoul. I will briefly recapitulate the facts as they are stated to me, and as they have been admitted to be in the answers I have received from Members of the Government, to questions I have put in the House. All I can say is, whether the Government can justify their action under old-fashioned regulations which they admit to be the authority under which they have acted, or not, I hope, at any rate, the House will come to the conclusion that old regulations passed in time of turmoil and confusion and warfare in the early days of our Indian Empire, are quite unsuited to the requirements of modern times, and ought either to be repealed at once, or at any rate, ought not to be acted upon without far more than the bare suspicion which I believe Her Majesty's Government now allege to be the ground of their action. Sheikh Abdul Rasoul was born in Kashmir, which city he left 35 years ago. He remained one year in Mecca, and lived in Constantinople for 30 years, where he received 45 guineas per month as a Professor of Languages to the college, and where he was a member of the Academy. After the Russian war he left Constantinople, and came to London, where, having a little money, he published an Arabic and Persian newspaper, called Gairat. He remained in London 10 years, and then returned to Constantinople. During his residence in London, Sheikh Abdul Rasoul maintained himself partly by teaching languages, and received support also from his countryman, Porbuksh. He left Contantinople again after three months stay, and went to Moscow where he stopped four months. He was supported all this time by friends. From Moscow he journeyed to Berlin, where he stayed 10 days, and then went to Paris. He left that city for London after one month's stay. After remaining in London for one month, he went to Cairo where he lived for two years. He again returned to Paris for two months whence he went to Cairo and Bombay. He was travelling all this time for pleasure. He corresponded with the Government during his travels. He took a great deal of interest in the Soudan War. I place these details before the House to show that there is nothing this gentleman desires to conceal. His life has been more or less a public one, for at any rate portions of his time, and if he has been in correspondence with Members of the Government—I do not mean this Government in particular—and with the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh—that, in the absence of far more weighty evidence than has been vouchsafed by the Government, does not entitle the Government to treat him as he has been treated. What was that treatment? When he arrived at Bombay, in January last year, he "was arrested by the Commissioner of Police, his clothes and boots were cut to pieces on pretence of discovering if he had any treasonable communications concealed about his person, he was then placed on the railway and carried to the inland fortress of Assirgad, and there detained, nine months after which he was removed to Bombay under arrest, placed on board a Peninsular and Oriental steamer, and! landed friendless, penniless, and homeless, in the London docks; and but for the care taken of him by certain friends, who fortunately have the means of ascertaining these facts, taking up a case like this, and bringing it before the House and the country, this unfortunate man, for aught the Government cared, might have perished of starvation in this city. Now the answer of the-Government, so far as the question of deportation is concerned, is that they did not deport—that this gentleman asked to come back to England of his own free will. Well, that is an official explanation. I place before the House by the side of it, and in direct opposition to it, the deliberate statement of Abdul Rasoul himself, and I will ask the House to say which party is most worthy of credence, the Government who have deported this unfortunate man under a regulation which, according to the admission of the Government, does not give authority to deport any person from India—I will call attention to this particular regulation presently—whether the explanation suggested by the motive of getting out of the difficulty this deportation landed the Government in, is to be accepted, or whether the statement of this gentleman does not bear evidence of its truth, and that the statement of the Indian Government is not true. As to the way in which he was-brought down to Bombay, he declares that he was 26 hours travelling from Assirgad. He says— I was under a guard of eight police; hence the Government of India has paid all our rents of the railway and food. I would ask the House to consider the improbability of a man being sent back to England at his own wish under a guard of police. He says— The new Commissioner of Bombay has informed me that he has received telegram from the Viceroy that he should send me back to London. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that that is the case? Is this telegram in existence; and, if so, will he produce it? He goes on to say— Then I replied to him in the presence of one of my companions Khan Saheli that I am not going back to London by my own wish because 1 have not any means for my living there. The man he refers to is capable of production, and I challenge the Government to produce him. Abdul therefore said distinctly, when he was under this escort of police, he was not going to London at his own wish, but against it. He goes on to say— In reply he said that the India Office of London knows very well all this matter and it will arrange for yon any sufficient pension, whether from the said office or from 'Dhuleep'; then he immediately sent me back to London with a passage of second class, from the office of the Commissioner to the port of Bombay under a guard of six police and one English officer with three carriages. The Government has paid all our rents for the said carriages, and from that port to the Assam steamer we were carried by a steamboat of the Government. He asks— Hence how can you believe now that I came to London with my own wish? I find, further, that Rasoul declares that his arrest, when he arrived at Bombay, was— Because of communications received from the India Office by the Commissioner of Police at Bombay, so that the India Office knows all about the matter. I have asked the Representative of the India Office in this House whether that is the case, and I have been met with a denial of the fact. But then I want to question the Government in reference to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. Ho intimates now, for the first time only, after I have been harrassing him with questions again and again, that it was in consequence of a supposed treasonable communication with Dhuleep Singh that this gentleman was arrested. I ask the Government to state whether it is not the fact that Dhuleep Singh was in Europe at that time? I have not heard that when Dhuleep Singh issued the proclamation, that is said to have been treasonable, he was in India. I always understood that he was in Paris or some other part of the Continent. I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether as a matter of fact Dhuleep Singh was not in Europe at that time, and if he was, I ask the House to consider whether there is not, at any rate, a great deal of probability in the statement of Abdul Rasoul when he says that the orders came from this side to the Viceroy to arrest and imprison him, and that therefore the statement made to me by the Government is not correct—that is to say, the statement that they knew nothing about the matter, and could not do anything until they had communicated with the Viceroy as to the circumstances of the case. It will be found by those who may have followed this matter that, in reply to the questions I have addressed to them from time to time, the Government have again and again objected to give me information on the ground that they were seeking information from India. I first mooted this question in the House on the 17th February, and as late as the 16th March I was being informed by the Government that they had no information because they had recived none from the Government of India. There is this curious discrepancy and contradiction in the answers which have been given to me by the Government: After telling me that Abdul Rasoul had been sent to London at his own request, they informed me that the Secretary of State was not in possession of information which enabled him to state the cause of complaint or to prefer any charge. In the same answer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, who represented the Under Secretary of State for India for the time being, said the Government had offered to refund the expenses of Abdul Rasoul in this country since his arrival in November, 1890, and that he had been offered a passage to Bombay, with permission to return to Kashmir. Now, I want to know whether at the time that answer was given to me the Government knew the reason this gentleman had been arrested and imprisoned? If they had no information to give me as to the character of the suspicions against Abdul Rasoul, or the evidence upon which he was arrested, I want to know why it is—how they can explain the anomaly of their conduct in offering this gentleman such compensation as would refund him his expenses in this country and enable him to reach Bombay and Kashmir? The Government are in this difficulty: First of all they tell us they have no evidence against the man, and know nothing of the reasons why the Viceroy thought it right to have him arrested, ' and they promise to give us the information, which promise they wait until to-night to carry out; and then, at the same time, they say, " We will send this gentleman back free of charge at the expense of the nation." But if the man was guilty of any offence at all, we have a right to demand what character the accusation assumes. If he is guilty, we have the right to say that the Government are not justified in sending him back to Kashmir and offering him a safe conduct. And if he is not criminal—and this is the chief ground of my complaint—there was no ground for his detention at all. I claim that the Government ought to go further, and give him some kind of compensation for the atrocious ill-treatment he has received. That is not all. It was not sufficient that this gentleman should thus be treated in India—insulted on his arrival at Bombay, taken up without a word of warning, imprisoned for nine months in India, and then sent back in the charge of a posse of police against his will. That is not sufficient. When he comes to this country, what happens? He applies to the India Office to be allowed to place his case before the authorities of the India Office. I would ask the House to observe that if the Government are correct in saying that he came to this country at his own request, it was for the purpose of being able to prefer a charge against the Government and the police as regards his grievances before the supreme authorities at the India Office. Yet when he was brought here by the Government at his own request, and surely for no other purpose than to seek redress, how do they treat one of our fellow-subjects in India, when he has so serious a grievance to prefer against the Indian Government? This gentleman first of all waited upon Lord Cross at the India Office. I think the statement he made to me—for I have personally examined him and tested his veracity in every way—was that he waited three hours on one occasion at the India Office without seeing Lord Cross, and he was treated as a beggar or a dog and refused permission to see any of the authorities at the India Office. He then wrote a letter preferring his complaint and asking permission to expose his grievance. No notice was taken of that letter. Then he wrote a second letter, which was witnessed for him by a friend in London and which he took the precaution of having registered, and sent it to the India Office. That letter was also disregarded. Not a single syllable of reply was vouchsafed to this poor Mahomedan fellow-subject of ours; and if it had not been for the fact that the matter was brought by me before this House at the instance of friends in London, no more, probably, would have been heard of the matter, and nothing would have been done by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues at the India Office. In consequence of the questions I repeatedly put to him, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was, at the least, uncivil that his office did not take the trouble to reply to those letters. I say it was not only uncivil, but positively unbusiness-like, and I want to know if this is the? usual manner in which the business of the office is conducted. It is a monstrous thing that, because a man happens to be a Mahomedan and a native of Kashmir, he should be treated like a dog, when he has a solid grievance to bring before the Government of the country. No other person would be so treated as long as he was not a native of India or some other foreign portion of Her Majesty's dominions. The Government seem to have got a little frightened at last when I pursued my inquiries in this House; and so I find that on the 24th of February, Abdul Rasoul was requested to go to the India Office and see one of the officials. He saw Sir Gerald Fitzgerald, who offered him £10 for maintenance, and said: "I suppose you are willing to go back to India." I want to point out that at this time the Government were informing me in this House that they knew nothing of the circumstances of the case, and were waiting for information from India. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) shakes his head, but the official reply in the pages of Hansard proves that it was so. The interview- to which I refer took place at the India Office before the 24th of February. On the 9th of March I got this answer from the Government— Abdul Rasoul was offered the refund of his expenses since arrival in November, 1890; a passage to Bombay and permission to return to Kashmir. He was sent to London at his own request. If Abdul Rasoul demands compensation, he should address himself in the first instance to the Government of India, and, in the event of their refusing him redress, appeal to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is not in possession of information which enables him to state the cause of complaint or prefer any charge."

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

What I said in reply to the first question was that the Government could take no steps to deal with Abdul Rasoul until they received information from India. Two days after that the information came that the Government of India paid the passage of this man to London. Immediately after that we offered to pay his passage back again.

MR. CONYBEARE

That is all very well; but the question I have been hammering at, and could get no answer from the Government to, was as to the guilt or innocence of this man. Why should this man be treated in this infamous way, and then be sent back in this hugger-mugger fashion, in order to shut the matter up in this House? Why should he be sent back before we were informed whether he was guilty or not? The information I asked for in the first place I tried to obtain again and again, and only to-day, for the first time, have I been able to get a clear answer. What was the cause of complaint, if any, against this gentleman? At the time the right hon. Gentleman gave me the answer I have read he had not learned, or, if he had, he took very good care not to tell me, the cause of complaint against this gentleman. His words are— The Secretary of State is not in possession of information which enables him to state the cause of complaint or prefer any charge. Yet, without knowing whether this man was guilty or not, they offered to pay his debts in this country and to send him back to India free of expense. I say, if the man was innocent he had no business to be treated in that way. If he was not innocent he ought to have been brought to justice; and, in any case, we have a right to know definitely what was the charge the Government were prepared to bring against him, and whether they have now become convinced that there was no ground whatever for that charge. It is not a charge really, but merely a matter of suspicion. The right hon. Gentleman says-the Government had reason to believe or suspect that Abdul Rasoul was in communication with Dhuleep Singh, who had issued a treasonable Proclamation. A more humbugging way of dealing with one of Her Majesty's subjects I never heard of. If the Government had any solid ground for suspecting that there was any treasonable communication between this man and Dhuleep Singh, I say we have a right to know exactly whether they have come to the conclusion or not that the man was not guilty of any such treasonable practice as they thought he might be guilty of at the time of his arrest. But the importance of that is this: If this gentleman was kidnapped and imprisoned for nine months without a single charge or accusation being brought against him, and if the Government now—and they have by their action in offering him money, and offering to send him back to Kashmir —if the Government admit that there was no ground for the accusation against him, if he was not guilty of the matters. of which he was suspected, have we no right to demand that this unfortunate man should have something in the way of compensation? They say, "We won't consider the question of compensation." I have a letter from the India Office saying, " We will simply pay your debts within certain limits; we will pay your passage to Bombay, and give you a safe conduct to Kashmir," and in the event of his refusing these terms, in the event of his pressing for-something in the shape of compensation for these grievous wrongs which the action of the Government showed that they believed to exist, and were not justified by reason of there being no-guilt attaching to him at all, they say they will have nothing more to do with him. Now, I do not know that it is of any use pressing the right hon. Gentleman further on this question of compensation. But the House and the country will realise what this state of things is—that a man may be kidnapped and imprisoned in this way upon the barest suspicion, and treated with all sorts of indignity, and brought against his will, under police escort, to this country; and then the Government, by their action, admit that there was nothing against him whatever; that he was an innocent man, and when he asks for some compensation and redress of his wrongs he is thrown back on what I venture to call a very illusionary promise or statement of the Government. They said the right persons to apply to are the Government of India. I should like to know what sort of redress this man would get from the Viceroy? How is he to proceed, I should like to know? In India he would have no chance whatever of getting any compensation. Is there any Court in India before which this gentleman could bring his complaint against the Viceroy? Could he in any way attack the Viceroy. in the Courts with a view to obtaining any redress? And probably the only answer he would get if he were to bring this matter before any Court in India, would be to be told " This is not a matter that concerns us; we derive our instructions and our information from London, and you must go to Lord Cross, who is the supreme authority in this matter, to whom these demands should be in the first place made." That is a style of playing at battledore and shuttlecock with the rights of our Indian fellow-subjects which is disgraceful, and it would be a novelty to most Members to find that such a thing could be possible at all. Therefore, I must again press the Government to re-consider their position in this matter. I think I have shown, and it must be clear to everybody, first, that this man has been wronged; and, secondly, that the Government know that they were wrong and that they have dealt unjustly by him, and I want the House to realise the effect upon the minds of our Indian fellow-subjects of such treatment. It is all very well to treat this matter as a matter affecting an individual. The effect of an incident of this kind will be far-reaching. It will permeate through every corner of India, and quite right that it should. And then, what effect do you suppose it will have upon the feelings of loyalty towards this country on the part of the people of India? How can you expect that the people of India will be satisfied with the paternal despotism of which we are always boasting in India, when they find that Europeans go scot-free, that the fact of a man being a European is enough to prevent his being touched under these old-fashioned Regulations, while any unfortunate native may not only be detained in the way this gentleman was, but may have all his possessions and lands attacked and taken from him as well? I will just refer for one moment to the Regulations under which this matter takes place, and I want to draw attention to them for this reason: In the question I asked this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman was forced to admit that his previous answer to me was wrong when he said this gentleman was arrested under Regulation 3 of 1818. And it shows how little the right hon. Gentleman knows about this matter himself. There are several Regulations, and Regulation 3 of 1818 applies solely to Bengal. The Government had no more power to deal with this gentleman under Regulation 3 of 1818 than they had to deal with him under the Habeas Corpus Act, which unfortunately does not affect India in the smallest degree. The Regulation which the Government did act under was the Regulation passed in 1827, No. 25. The Regulation 3 of 1818 applies solely to Bengal; this Regulation of 1827 applies solely to Bombay. This is the Act under which this incident has taken place, and the Preamble of this Regulation states that, Whereas reasons of State embracing the due maintenance of alliances formed by the British Government with foreign Powers, the preservation of tranquillity in native territory, and the security of British dominions from foreign hostility and internal commotion, occasionally render it necessary to place under restraint individuals against whom there may not be sufficient ground for instituting any judicial proceedings, when such proceedings might not be adapted to the nature of the case, or may from other reasons be inadvisable and imprudent. Then the Regulation follows, which enables the Government to arrest and detain any native gentleman whom they may suspect, and so on. That is Chapter I. of this Regulation. The second chapter contains rules for the attachment of lands for reasons of State, and for the removing of such attachments. Therefore, you have by the two classes of Regulations, which are no doubt very similar in both territories—Bengal and Bombay—first of all enabled the Government on the barest suspicion, or for no reason at all, to arrest and imprison a native gentleman; and, secondly; to deprive him of his property and his estates. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman upon that point whether it is not the case that these Regulations apply solely to natives, and whether it would be possible to attack any European subject under these Regulations? If I am not misinformed, these Regulations are strictly limited to natives of India. And I want to know why at the present time should such a Regulation as that be maintained with this odious distinction between the English Governors of the country and our native fellow-subjects, considering that it might not be inconceivable that European emissaries might also— if there is any ground for supposing that native emissaries do — create disturbances and disaffection? Now I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I have made this matter perfectly clear. As I have said before, I have brought this matter forward because I believe that it will be a perfectly new thing to most people that this Regulation exists. I repeat that these Regulations under which the Government acts are old-fashioned Regulations belonging to the year 1818 and 1827, when the circumstances were totally different to what they are at the present time. I venture to think that most people will agree with me that whatever may be done in this particular case of Abdul Rasoul, it is quite time that these Regulations should, in the interests of good government in India, be abrogated, or, at all events, no longer acted upon. I cannot conceive anything more calculated to destroy confidence in the justice of our rule in India than the maintenance and exercise of Regulations such as that which I have brought under the notice of this House. There is another point I want to address the Government upon before I resume my seat. It has reference to a question which I have asked several times as to the number of persons who have been imprisoned under this Regulation. I asked, in the first place, for the names and numbers of the persons so imprisoned, but the right hon. Gentleman said it would be prejudicial to the interests of the country to give such particulars. But there can be nothing prejudicial to the interests of the country in giving the numbers of the persons over a series of years who have been thus treated. We want to know how these extraordinary Regulations have been put in force. I again ask the right hon. Gentleman why he objects to give a Return showing the number of persons who since 1815 have been deprived either of their lands or their liberty? I thank the House for having allowed me to bring the matter forward, and I hope I shall not be considered as having unduly trespassed upon the time of the House, having regard to the magnitude of the subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some satisfactory assurance on the point. If not, I am afraid we will have to avail ourselves of the alteration of the Rule by putting down an Amendment to the Motion to go into Committee on the Indian Budget for the purpose of further discussing this matter.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Conybeare.)

(5.35.) SIR J. GORST

I hope in a very words to be able to assure the House that my noble Friend the Secretary for India is desirous not only of treating this unfortunate man with justice, but with kindness and generosity. There are four matters which the hon. Member for Camborne has dealt with in his Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and I may be permitted to say that he has rather mixed them together, but I will endeavour to keep them distinct. The first question is whether this Abdul Rasoul was properly arrested and put in prison by the Government of India. The second is the question whether he was deported or not to this country. The third is the question, what is to be done with Abdul Rasoul now he is in this country. And the fourth is the claim of Abdul Rasoul for compensation for imprisonment, which the hon. Member has rather mixed up with the other points. I shall take each of these four points separately, and deal with them frankly to the House. The first question is, was the Government of India justified in arresting and imprisoning Abdul Rasoul in India? That is a question which this House, even if it wishes to do so, is not yet in a position to discuss, because, as I have repeatedly stated to the hon. and learned Member, in answer to his questions, we are not in possession of the information which will enable the Secretary of State himself to judge whether the Government of India, in arresting Abdul Rasoul, has exercised wisely or not the discretion entrusted to it by law. Now, the hon. Member has found great fault with the existence of the arbitrary and despotic power given by these Regulations to the Government in India. That is a large question which this House might discuss if it is disposed to do so. But India, it must be remembered, is a despotic country; it is not a free country; it is a country which is governed by a very arbitrary and a very strong despotism, and the power given by these Regulations to which the hon. Member refers, is one of those powers which are put into the hands of arbitrary Governments, and which must be exercised by an arbitrary and despotic Government from time to time. The hon. Member asks me whether these Regulations are applied only to natives and not to Europeans. They apply to everybody who goes to India. If the hon. Member for Camborne were to go into the Province of Bombay, and were suspected of acting in a manner which was likely to interfere with the security of the British dominions from foreign hostility, it would be the duty of the Viceroy of India to arrest the hon. Member, and to detain him for such time as would prevent him from carrying out his nefarious intentions. The hon. Member says he has experienced great difficulty in drawing from me the reason of the arrest of Abdul Rasoul. That is quite true. I have had the information dragged from me with great reluctance, and it is the hon. Member for Camborne, and not the noble Lord the Secretary of State or myself, who is responsible for the publication of the facts. During the last two months I have been most anxious not to state the reason. The Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, having made his submission to Her Majesty, I was most reluctant to rake up those matters which for the Maharajah's sake ought to be forgotten. But the hon. Member, by his reiterated question, has compelled my noble Friend to tell the House the reason why this man was arrested. He was arrested because the Government of India had reason to believe that this Sheikh was an emissary of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, and arrived in India for the purpose of stirring up discussion and commotion in our Indian Empire.

MR. CONYBEARE

On what evidence?

SIR J. GORST

I refer the hon. Member to the Regulation, which places the discretion in the hands of the Government of India. It says that— " When the considerations stated in the Preamble of this Regulation require it, the Governor in Council has power," &c. Considerations of public safety required it. What evidence has the hon. Member that the Governor in Council has exercised his power unwisely or corruptly in this matter? Is the House of Commons going to act without Papers, without any information whatever, and merely upon the ipse dixit of the hon. Member for Camborne? Is it, in the absence of the necessary material, going to discuss whether the Government of India have exercised the very great power conferred upon it by Statute, with proper discretion or not? If the House of Commons wishes to discuss it; if any hon. Member raises a Motion on the subject, and discusses it when the Papers have been received from India, of course it will be my duty to defend the Government of India in this House. But I strongly appeal to this House not to discuss any matter of the kind, unless it has some primâ facie evidence brought forward to show that the Government of India was animated by some personal or corrupt motive. I ask the House to leave the discretion where the law has put it, with the Government of India, and not to discuss whether their discretion has been properly exercised or not, in the absence of information. Abdul Rasoul was arrested according to law; the arrest was made on the responsibility of the Government of India; and we have no means at present of knowing whether the discretion of the Government of India was rightly or wrongly exercised. With regard to the second question: Was he deported? The hon. Member has used the word deported in order to show that the man was sent to London against his will, whereas he was sent at his own request, and was not deported. Fortunately, by a piece of very good fortune, there has been transmitted from India a copy of the Petition which was presented from the Sheikh Abdul Rasoul to Mr. Mackenzie, Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, for his release. This is a remarkable document, and it disposes so entirely of the ingenious conjectures of the hon. Member for Camborne, that the House will permit me to read it— " I take the liberty of craving your gracious attention to my following poor Petition. In short, His Highness Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, who is my old friend and master, has received pardon of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Empress of India. I also lay before your honour my humble Petition, that you will be pleased to solicit my release. If 1 should be released I give my most solemn undertaking that I will in no way in future do or join in anything against the Government of Her Most Gracious Majesty. If I should be graciously released I will request the Committee to return to my native place, Srinigar, in Kashmir. On the other hand, if the Government shall not accept my return to Kashmir, then 1 request to be sent back to England. I am without funds or means of paying my passage, or any means of support. His Highness the Maharajah Dhuldeep Singh would supply the necessary funds for my passage to England, and fur my future a sufficient year's salary. The hon. Member for Camborne spoke of the cruelty of the Government of India in landing a man at London Docks without a penny for his support. But the Government of India, when they sent him, had reason to suppose that if he got back to London His Highness the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh would support him. On arrival, however, Abdul Rasoul did not go to his old friend and master Dhuleep Singh, but he went to the hon. Member for Camborne, who has treated him ever since as having a grievance. That leads me to a third point, namely; What is to be done with this man? Well, as the hon. Member for Camborne himself admits there was this unfortunate man over here in London without a penny to call his own, longing to get back to his native home at Srinigar in Kashmir, from which he had been absent for a period of 35 years. Taking him at his word, my noble Friend the Secretary of State said to the man, " If you desire it I will pay your passage back to India. I will pay the debts you have contracted in London, and I will also guarantee that the Government of India shall not arrest you when you get there, and that you shall be permitted to go to your native home at Srinigar." But the moment this was said the man turned completely round. I do not know whether it was at the instigation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne, but at any rate he said " I will not go without compensation." Matters were thus brought to a deadlock.

MR. CONTBEARE

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not make any such suggestion.

SIR J. GORST

The hon. Gentleman may take it that that remark was merely in the nature of a flower of rhetoric. At all events, we have the fact that this man, Abdul Rasoul, was here in London expressing the desire to get back to his native place, and that when made acquainted with that fact the Secretary of State was ready and willing to pay his fare home, and that the moment this offer was made to him the man refused to go because he wanted to get compensation, and thought he might be able to get it through the medium of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne and the House of Commons. Now, Sir, it has been said that the offer made by the Secretary of State to send the man back to Kashmir was a proof that my noble Friend knew that he had not been justly treated. I reply that it was nothing of the kind. The Secretary of State has the most perfect confidence in the discretion of the Government of India; and when, in consideration of the altered circumstances, the Government of India expressed no objection to the man's return, the Secretary of State was glad to help him to return; just as when he found that the Government of India were of opinion that the man was a danger to the peace of India, he had no doubt the discretion of the Government of India had been very properly exercised in arresting him.

MR. CONYBEARE

What was the evidence?

SIR J. GORST

That I have declined, and must decline, to state. I have not got the evidence here, and if I had I should certainly decline to state it unless I were called upon by an overwhelming majority of the Members of this House to do so. I believe, however, that the majority of Members in this House are sufficiently inspired with good sense that they would not ask for that evidence unless they believed that it was of a character which it was absolutely necessary to produce. With regard to the question of compensation which has been raised in this case, 1 may say at once that that claim is not one which I have shown the slightest desire or inclination to shirk. All I can say on that subject is, that if it is brought forward in a proper manner it shall be fully considered. But the proper course to take would be, in the first instance, to bring the claim before the Government of India, who are acquainted with all the facts of the case. Abdul Rasoul must petition the Government of India for compensation, and put forward in support of this claim the grounds of injustice and ill-treatment upon which he founds it, and if, on fall consideration of all the circumstances, the Government of India should refuse his request, he will then have a right to appeal to the Secretary of State, by whom, I may say, in answer to the rhetoric of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne, his application will be fully and fairly considered. This is what the man has to do if he wants compensation. There is no such thing in the present state of the case as getting compensation from the India Office. We could only give the man compensation on an appeal from a refusal of the Government of India. The hon. Member for Camborne is derisive of this point, but I would remind him that you do not tell a man to go direct to the House of Lords for justice, you only go there by way of appeal. In the same way, you cannot allow a man to apply for compensation directly to the Secretary of State. He must, in the first instance, submit his case to those who are acquainted with the circumstances. I have now dealt with the case as it has been brought before the House as shortly as I could consistently with the facts, and I hope I have said sufficient to convince this House, that the Secretary of State is desirous of doing everything he possibly can that is not only fair but even generous in this matter; that there is no wish on his part, or on the part of the Government of India, to oppress or persecute Abdul Rasoul, and that if that person had only placed himself in the hands of good advisers— instead of his case being now made the occasion for a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and used for Parliamentary purposes of Party—if this native had been advised by those whom he consulted to accept the offer made by the Secretary of State and had gone back to India, he would have been very much happier and better off than he is likely to be while he remains in the hands of his present advisers.

(5.55.) MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India back again in his place in better health and vigour. Having said so much in reference to the right hon. Gentleman himself, I now have in my place in Parliament to make a serious complaint against the Indian Government. Their conduct is, in point of fact, so bad that Irish officials are becoming respectable by comparison. Now, Sir, about 130 years ago — [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen do not seem to be very fond of ancient history, but I wish to remind them that about 130 years ago the elder Pitt got up in the House of Commons and said— "The iniquities of Indian Administration are so rife that they smell from earth to heaven and from heaven to earth again. Well, Sir, what have we here? We have before us the case of a poor poverty-stricken and a defenceless man. We have that man, by the confession of the Indian Government themselves, arrested on no charge whatever, and not only on no charge, but also on no warrant. He is then kept in gaol for a period of nine months without the shadow of a pretence or any excuse except the mere suspicion which has been communicated to the Indian Government. Let us compare the position of this man to that of the noble Lord the Secretary for India. Lord Cross receives a handsome salary from this country, whereas the average income of an ordinary native of India is something like l½d. a day. Against this 1½d. Lord Cross is in receipt of £5,000 a year. When this poor, wretched, poverty-stricken man goes to Lord Cross and states his case, and the reasons which induced him to bring it forward, Lord Cross turns him with contumely from his door. Let us again consider by way of contrast and comparison the amount of personal liberty which is revealed by this transaction as possessed by the natives of India. Why, Sir, if this kind of thing is to go on a man might as well be in Ireland as India. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India is compelled to admit that that great bulwark of liberty of the subject, the Habeas Corpus, has no operation in India. No doubt it is a pleasant confession to hon. Members opposite that there is no Habeas Corpus Act in India. But let me recall the facts of this case. For nine months this man was kept in gaol without warrant and without charge. Had he been in England he could have demanded to be brought up under the Habeas Corpus Act. According to his own account that man has been deported from his own country to a country where he was perfectly friendless, and where he had no means of support. Why, I ask, will not the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India lay the evidence in this case before the House? If India is to be retained under the British flag and the British Constitution, why should not the House of Commons, having regard to the interests of the 250,000,000 of people over whom this country exercises the rule, have the Return they ask for laid upon the Table, so that hon. Members might be able to go into the question and form their own judgment upon it? Why, I ask, should not the people of India have afforded to them the same comfort and consolation that are afforded to every oppressed man who has the knowledge that his grievance will be justly and properly investigated, and that injustice will be exposed before the British public. The right hon. Gentleman has referred at great length to the Regulations of 1827 having been endorsed by Parliament. No doubt that is so, but I would point out to the House that those Regulations were made 30 years before the East India Company were disestablished, and that they were made by a Board of Control, which was practically outside the control of the House of Commons. There was undoubtedly a revision of these Regulations every 30 years, but that, after all, was merely a formal matter; and even though they were endorsed by the House of Commons, they were endorsed by the House of Commons of 1828, which was very differently composed to the present House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs should think it necessary to speak on this question, he may tell me that those Regulations were Bombay Regulations, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India, whose administration I admit is marked with great ability, is not in Bombay. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Under Secretary whether he will get up and say he ever knew of a single case in which a European was arrested under such circumstances, and by the exercise of such powers as these. It may seem a strange term to use if I speak of " bullying the natives," but, Sir, I do use that phrase, and I find it has been used by no less a person than Lord Lytton, when holding the high office of Governor General of India. Lord Lytton is reported to have said in a private letter, and the statement has never been denied, that he, as Governor General, had only two courses to pursue—" to cheat them or to bully them, and he preferred to cheat them." Will Lord Lytton deny that he said this? The question may be put to him in Paris by telegraph to-morrow, and an answer can easily be obtained if the Government wish to obtain it. Now, here is a case in which a man has been absolutely bullied, and only on suspicion of having taken part with Dhuleep Singh; but when Dhuleep Singh has been forgiven for his part in what took place, his accomplice is kept in prison many months after the principal has been released. The right hon. Gentleman commented upon the document the man wrote. It must be remembered Abdul Rasoul had been in prison many months when he wrote the document, and that people who are imprisoned and who suffer keenly will do almost anything to secure release. I certainly hope my hon. Friend will press his Motion to a Division. It ought to be pressed to a Division if this were only a case involving the liberty of this poor man. I agree with what was once said by a great countryman of my own—Edmund Burke—with reference to India; he said he hoped the time would come when the personal liberty of the subject would be as respected and as secure in the heart of our Indian Possessions as it was in the Strand in the City of London. We govern the people of India and impose on them burdens that we have not ourselves. Mr. Bright once said that the Government of India was a pure despotism. Do we work that despotism for the good of the natives or for our own gain? Her Majesty's Government have tried for four months to suppress this case, and therefore it is, I trust, my hon. Friend will go to a Division. I know very well he will be abused to-morrow morning in the Tory papers; but he will have this satisfaction, that what he has said and what I have said will be read by those by whom we most wish it to be read, namely, by the native populations of India.

(6.3.) MR. W. McARTHUR (Cornwall, Mid, St. Austell)

Had time permitted, I should have found it necessary to differ very widely indeed from the hon. Gentle-who has just sat down, but I want to make a few remarks with reference to what fell from the Under Secretary of State for India. We are not used to hearing from him flowers of rhetoric, but are accustomed to the more solid fodder he is in the habit of giving us in reply to questions and Motions. I am bound to say, I think that on the whole the Under Secretary made out a fairly reasonable case, except in one particular to which I wish to address my observations. I have always been one of those people who, having seen something of native races, appreciate the great difficulty English people have in dealing with them; and I think if there is anything about which this House ought to be most careful, it is in passing votes of indiscriminate censure against the action of Englishmen who very often do their duty under circumstances of very great difficulty. As I say, I do not altogether sympathise with the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Mac Neill) after the speech of the Under Secretary; but I think a great deal of harm is done abroad, and very wrong impression often conveyed of Englishmen in authority abroad, by the kind of defence their action receives in this House from responsible Ministers. I do not say whether this man was right, or wrong. I do not intend to argue whether the Regulations are right, or wrong. I am inclined to think they are right. I think it is necessary to make this kind of Regulations in India. But it is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have chaffed my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) because he called attention to the case of a native in India who he thought had been unfairly treated. If there is anything which can excuse a Motion for the Adjournment of the House it is surely the case of some supposed injustice to a native subject of the Queen, because what does our great Empire abroad rest upon? No one will say we can maintain our Empire simply by the number of soldiers we have got. We maintain it in India, as we maintain it elsewhere, because this country has always been able to convince coloured races that in the main our rule is a fair and just rule, and that as far as the English people can provide, and as far as the House of Commons can provide, every native, wherever he lives, will get as fair treatment from English officials as he would if he were an Englishman. But if you are going to scoff at everybody who calls attention to a case of injustice, if you are going to protest against giving the House of Commons any information on these subjects, it seems to me you are going the best way to convince every native in India and throughout the world that you have got something to conceal and that you are afraid to explain. I put it to the Under Secretary whether he would not have saved a great deal of time by giving us a frank and straightforward answer when he was first asked for the information? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no desire on the part of hon. Members who put questions on Indian and colonial matters to be regarded as opposed to him. We ask questions because we are anxious for information, and I do not think it ought to be thought we ask them for the purpose of damaging the Government, or of making Party capital. Indian and Colonial questions are not Party questions, and when we on this side interrogate the Under Secretary, we do not want flowers of rhetoric from him, but frank and plain answers. If he gives us such answers he may rest assured we shall not make Party capital out of them, but these questions should be fully and fairly answered, so that we may feel satisfied that justice has been done.

Question put, and negatived.