§ MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the considerations which led the Secretary of State for the Colonies on receipt of the Earl of Selborne's dispatch of the 20th November 1905, to telegraph, on the 23rd December 1905, urging the Earl of Selborne to obtain information on which to prosecute some person in connection with the proceedings brought into question by Mr. Boland's allegations, though he had received no affidavit in support of the prosecution, but to delay till 15th February 1906 any recommendation to prosecute Mr. Pless, whose cruelty was sworn to by affidavit contained under cover of the same despatch from the Earl of Selborne of the 20th November 1905.
(Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The consideration which caused the Secretary of State to telegraph on 23rd December was the same which caused Mr. Lyttelton to communicate with Lord Selborne earlier in the month in the same sense, as the hon. Member will see by reference to page 20 of Cd. 2819, viz., the desirability of prosecuting any one who might be shown to be guilty by the inquiry. The telegram did not urge Lord Selborne to obtain information, but inquired whether there was sufficient information, and was answered on 10th January by the statement that there was not sufficient evidence for prosecuting Mr. Pless or anyone else. New inquiries were made on the 15th February as to whether it would be practicable to prosecute Mr. Pless. These inquiries are not yet concluded; but as it has now been discovered that Mr. Pless is an American citizen and in China, they cannot be said so far to justify any sanguine expectation of his being brought to trial. Any delay which may have occurred is not due to a sinister motive, as the Question of the hon. Member seems to suggest.