§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Cam borne)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can now specify the particular Statute Law or Regulation under which the Indian Government arrested Sheikh Abdul Rasoul and imprisoned him for nine months without trial and without bringing any charge against him; (2) whether the Regulation under which the Government acted in this matter is the same as that under which Henry Silk Buckingham was deported from India in or about the year 1818; (3) whether such Regulation has ever been embodied in the Indian Penal Code; (4) whether he can state the circumstances under which this Regulation was continued after the transfer of the powers of the old East India Company to the Imperial Government; (5) whether he will give a Return of the names of all the persons, native or otherwise, who have been arrested without charge or trial and deported under this or any other Statute or Regulation during the last 50 years, together with the particular circumstances of each case; and (6) whether there exists in India any Habeas Corpus Act or other statutory provision whereby any person so arrested without warrant may claim to be brought to trial without delay?
§ *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,) Manchester, N.E.In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India, I have been requested to answer the question. (1) Regulation III. of 1818, as stated on the 16th of February. (2) No. (3) No. (4) It was retained in the interests of public safety. (5) The Secretary of State considers that it would be detrimental to the public interest to publish such a Return. (6) No.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can now state the result of 468 his inquiries into the case of Sheikh Abdul Rasoul; what was the result of the interview, which took place on the 5th instant, between Rasoul and Sir Gerald Fitzgerald at the India Office; (2) whether the Government have offered to pay to Rasoul the expenses he has incurred in this country since he was deported from India and landed here against his will, and to give him a passage back to India; (3) will he explain on what grounds the Government have refused Rasoul any compensation for the imprisonment inflicted upon him, and will he now either state the cause of complaint, or prefer a charge against him; and (4) in the event of Rasoul returning to India, either on his own account or at the expense of the Government, will they give him a guarantee against future arrest or molestation?
§ *SIR J. FERGUSSON(1) Abdul Rasoul was offered: The refund of his expenses since arrival in November, 1890; a passage to Bombay, and permission to return to Kashmir. (2) He was sent to London at his own request. (3) 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. (4) Abdul Rasoul has been informed that he will not be arrested in the absence of fresh offence.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI do not understand from the right hon. Baronet that any offence has been alleged against this unfortunate man. If so, why are the Government proposing to send him back to India at their own expense?
§ *SIR J. FERGUSSONThe Secretary of State has not been called upon to consider the merits of the case, but only the operation of the Regulation which has already been referred to.
§ MR. CONYBEAREMay I ask the right hon. Baronet if the Government will kindly consider whether the course taken in reference to Henry Silk Buckingham may not be adopted in this case? Mr. Buckingham was deported from India, and was allowed to receive compensation for loss of office. Will the Indian Government advise that a similar 469 course shall be pursued in regard to Abdul Rasoul?
§ *SIR J. FERGUSSONThat is a question which I am not in a position to answer.