§ MR. CONYBEAREI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that a Mohammedan, Sheikh Abdul Rasoul, was apprehended on his arrival in Bombay, on 27th January, 1890, by the Police Commissioner of Bombay; whether Sheikh Abdul Rasoul was imprisoned without trial, and without any statement being made to him as to the reason of his imprisonment, in the Fort of Assirgad, in the Central Provinces, for nine months, and, at the expiration of that period, taken to Bombay, put on board a steamer bound for London against his strong protest, his passage paid, and he landed in England without any means of support; whether, when he was put on board the steamer bound for England, he was told, on the authority of the Government of India, that the India Office was in possession of the facts of his case, and would arrange for him a sufficient allowance; 669 whether the Secretary of State will state why this man was imprisoned for nine months, and kept in custody all the time without a trial; whether, under the Penal Code, the Government have power to imprison parties without trial and to keep them in prison; and why Sheikh Abdul Rasoul was shipped to England; what charges the Government of India or the India Office have against him; and why communications which he has addressed to the Secretary of State for India are not acknowledged or answered?
SIR J. GORSTThe Secretary of State has no information officially on the matters stated in the question. The Governor General of India is empowered by Regulation 3 of 1818 to detain persons without trial for reasons of State. 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.
§ MR. CONYBEAREUpon that answer I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is customary when communications containing complaints of personal hardship are received by the India Office to return no answer to them? I am informed that this unfortunate Mohammedan has several times communicated with the right hon. Gentleman and the India Office, but has not been vouchsafed an answer. Is it not desirable to inform such persons making a complaint that inquiry will be made into the case? Is it the custom of the Viceroy or any other of the authorities in India to kidnap men, and allow them to remain for months—in this case it was nine months—in detention without bringing any charge against them?
SIR J. GORSTThat is not at all the custom in India. With regard to the hon. Member's question as to the letters, I think it would have been better if they had been answered.
§ MR. CONYBEAREWill the right hon. Gentleman undertake that an answer shall be returned to this Mohammedan gentleman, and will he undertake to give a Return of all the persons who have been dealt with in a similar manner in India during the last 12 months?