§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has sanctioned those provisions of the Indian Police Bill now before the Viceroy's Council, whereby the landlords of any district in which religious or other riots have occurred are liable, at the discretion of the resident magistrate, for the cost of extra police and for the damages caused by the riots, even in cases where the landlords are absentees, or in which the district judge has held that the landlords have been in no way to blame for the riots; whether his attention has been directed to the speech 50 on this subject of the Maharaja of Darbhanga, the first elective member of council, in which he declared that in Native opinion this was a slur on judicial authority; whether the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and the Commissioner of the Patna Division of Behar have both opposed the section on the ground that it may be worked so as to appear to give the victory to the Hindus or to the Muhammadans in cases of religious riots; whether the modification of the section consented to by Sir Antony Patrick MacDonnell has satisfied these dissentients; and, whether the Correspondence on the subject can be laid upon the Table of the House?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThe provisions of the Indian Police Bill, as originally introduced, were communicated to me, according to the established practice, by the Government of India, but I have given no opinion upon them. I have seen the report of the discussions to which the hon. Member refers, but I am not as yet aware of the modifications (if any) which have been adopted. As soon as an authentic copy of the measure is sent home, as required by law, I shall give it my careful consideration