DR. RUTHERFORD (Middlesex, Brentford)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the Indian Act allowing the Viceroy of India to seize a subject of the King, to transport him from one province to another, to put him in prison, and to detain him in prison for life without trial, he will say whether any person or persons have been so treated; and, if so, how many; whether any are now in prison, and for what periods; and whether he will have this Act repealed without delay.
§ MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.)At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Lajpatrai, pleader of the Punjab Chief Court, arrested in Lahore and deported to another province, has been so arrested under an old Act which empowers the Viceroy to keep prisoners confined for an unlimited period without trial; whether there are at present in any prison in British India any natives confined and not yet brought to justice who were arrested many years ago under this same Act; and, if so, what are their numbers; and will steps be taken at once to annul the Act in question.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA-(Mr. MORLEY,) Montrose BurghsThe Regulation of 1818 deals with the confinement of State prisoners. The preamble recites that "reasons of State, embracing the due maintenance of the alliances formed by the British with foreign Powers, the preservation of tranquility in the territories of native Princes entitled to its protection, and the security of the British dominions from foreign hostility and from internal commotion, occas onally render it necessary to place under personal restraint individuals against whom there may not be sufficient ground to institute any judicial proceeding, or when such proceeding may not be adapted to the nature of the case, or may for other reasons be inadvisable or improper." Each half-year the Government of India review the cases of persons so detained, and consider whether the 613 detention may be terminated. There are at present thirty-two persons under detention or restraint, most of whom are political détenus, such as the ex-Khan of Khelat, the ex-Maharaja, of Bharatpur, the persons concerned in the Manipur troubles of 1891, and the ex-Mehtar of Chitral. The number of British subjects detained is small; they are chiefly Moplahs from Malabar. Ten persons are in prison. The regulation is rarely resorted to for the last of the purposes mentioned in the preamble—"the security of the British dominions from internal commotion." The most recent important case of the kind was the detention, after the murders of Mr. Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst, at Poona in 1897, of the Natu brothers in Bombay. I may add that Lajpatrai is to be detained in a fort in the place to which he is being taken, and treated with consideration as a State prisoner pending further instructions. Suitable precautions will be taken to prevent him from communicating with others when such communication might lead to popular disturbance. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I very confidently remind hon. Members that there are no persons so interested in the prompt suppression of disorder, and in taking prompt measures to prevent the spread of disorder, as the Indian Party and the Indian causes with which my hon. friends are in such sympathy. There can be no secret that if disorder spreads there will be an end to all those prospects, whether we like it or not, of reform which the Viceroy and I—and I do not believe that any two servants of the Crown have understood one another better than the Viceroy and I—have hoped, and still hope, to produce. Executive measures of this kind—and I think my Parliamentary record will show anyone that no one dislikes them more than I do—must be judged and tested by the emergency and the risk. Now, suppose it to be possible that the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, nearly the whole of whose active service in India has been spent in the Punjab, believes that he is right in thinking that these agitations lend themselves to promote mischiefs which he regards as being of the gravest and most formidable kind, what should we do? I hope my hon. friends will realise what these mischiefs may mean. They are not mischiefs such as we are familiar with here, or in 614 any other parts of the Empire. They are enormous, and therefore my colleagues and I, representing His Majesty's Government, are determined, when asked whether we are going to repeal or to annul the regulations of 1818, not to strip the Government of India of any weapon which the law places in our hands for the suppression of these dangerous disturbances and disorders.
§ MR. O'GRADYasked whether, seeing that the agitation was purely a political one, the right hon. Gentleman would see that the gentlemen who had been arrested in the recent disturbance had the opportunity of a fair public trial.
§ MR. MORLEYRegarded from my hon. friend's point of view, such a promise would be to unsay all that I have just said. This is a case of emergency and grave risk, and it would be impossible for us, or for any Government, to give up any weapon we may possess.
§ MR. O'GRADYMay I ask why these same measures were not applied to other sections of the community in certain former cases of disorder? Why not to the Nawab of Deccan, whose action led to rioting, looting, and common robbery?
§ MR. MORLEYI must ask for notice of that Question, but I hope my hon. friend will reconsider it.
§ MR. O'GRADYI have already put that Question, and the Answers up to the present have been unsatisfactory.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)May I ask the right hon. Gentleman very respectfully whether he will have prepared for the information of the House a full list of the gentlemen arrested in this way without trial, stating where they are detained, the nature of the treatment they are subjected to, and whether they are allowed to communicate with their friends outside? And can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the length of time these gentlemen are likely to be imprisoned, and whether there is any intention now or in the future of bringing them to a trial such as they would get in any other portion of the Empire?
§ MR. MORLEYI cannot undertake to say that there is any intention of bringing them to trial, because the difficulties of trial are so great, and we should be practically stultifying ourselves if I made that promise. As for the other Question, my hon. friend knows very well from long experience that if a man is arrested as a political prisoner, I, at all events, will advise the Government of India to be as lenient as the public safety permits.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDI beg to give notice that, at the first possible opportunity, I will draw attention to the singular action of the Government in India, and move a Resolution that coercion is just as little likely to succeed in avoiding mischief and in bringing real and permanent peace to India as it has been in Ireland.
DR. RUTHERFORDI wish to ask whether any of these political prisoners have had their sentences revised, and whether they are now enjoying the freedom which we expect in the British dominions?
§ MR. MORLEYIf the hon. Member will put that Question on the Paper I will endeavour to give him an Answer.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)Is the reason why these men are not to be brought to trial that they have not committed any offence against the law?
§ Subsequently,
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)I do not know whether it would be in the public interest that the Secretary of State for India should make a statement with regard to recent events in India.
§ MR. MORLEYI do not think that anything I have to say would be against the public interest. The latest information from the Punjab shows that the measures taken by the Government of India with the full support of His Majesty's Government at home have sufficed for the maintenance of tranquillity. The city and cantonment of Lahore were on Saturday being patrolled by British and native troops and by the police, and no signs of unusual excite- 616 ment were observed. The Government of India have ordered the prosecution of a newspaper for publishing a pamphlet (a copy of which, found on a Sikh in London, I hold in my hand) inciting the native troops against the Government. That is not a thing which we should wish to condone. As to Eastern Bengal, the situation is strained owing to the great bitterness that prevails between the Hindus and Mahomedans, the cause of which is to be found in the attempts made by Hindu agitators to compel the Mahomedans by open violence to abstain from purchasing foreign goods in the markets and fairs, which are extremely numerous in the middle of April. The consequent disorders have assumed a very serious aspect, and have created a feeling of great unrest both in the province of Eastern Bengal and in Calcutta. Agitation by seditious speeches at public meetings—a form of disseminating sedition much more effective and more immediately dangerous among moderately literate people than agitation through the Press—is prevalent, and it is impossible to suppress it owing to the difficulty of obtaining evidence of speeches delivered in the vernacular. In these circumstances, the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, has promulgated an Ordinance under the Act of 1861 to the following effect:—(1) Public meetings for the discussion of public or political matters shall not be held unless seven days' notice has been given to the superintendent of police. (2) Police officers and others may be deputed to attend meetings for the purpose of reporting speeches—a proviso with which my hon. friends opposite are familiar. (3) The district magistrate may by order in writing, prohibit a meeting if, in his opinion, it is likely to promote sedition or disturbance of public tranquillity. (4) The persons concerned in the promotion of a meeting held without notice shall be punishable with six months' imprisonment. (5) A prohibited meeting to be deemed an unlawful assembly under the penal code. Under the fourth provision of the Ordinance the police would be bound to bring the accused before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of the arrest. He would be tried in due course of law by a magistrate of the first class or the second class, presumably in such a case 617 by a magistrate of the first class. If convicted, he would have an appeal to The Sessions Judge. If his appeal were dismissed, he could, if his case were in the Punjab, present an application in revision to the Chief Court at Lahore. If his case were in Eastern Bengal his application in revision would be to the High Court at Calcutta. Under the fifth provision of the Ordinance any person who is a member of an unlawful assembly may, on conviction by a magistrate of the first or second class, be punished by imprisonment, which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both. He would have an appeal to the Sessions Judge, and from the Sessions Judge he could apply in revision to the Chief Court at Lahore or to the High Court at Calcutta as the case might be. This Ordinance will be applied to districts that may be proclaimed in the Punjab and in Eastern Bengal and Assam—this measure is considered to be absolutely necessary by the responsible Government in India in the interest of the public safety.
§ SIR H. COTTON (Nottingham, E.)I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether he can make any further statement regarding the causes of the disaffection in the Punjab, and will he also state the steps which it is proposed to take to remove it?
§ MR. MORLEYI think the House will agree that these are two Questions the width and breadth of which are so enormous that it is impossible for me to deal with them satisfactorily in Answer to a Question. When the occasion comes I shall certainly be perfectly prepared—
§ MR. MORLEYIt may come earlier, but au opportunity will certainly come, when it will be my duty to introduce the Indian Budget, to discuss the whole situation.
DR. RUTHERFORDWill the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the hon. Member for Montgomery Burghs, to induce him to withdraw his blocking Motion, so as to enable the House to dis- 618 cuss this question on the Motion for the adjournment on Wednesday?
§ MR. MORLEYIt is impossible for me to prevent this Question from being discussed on Wednesday.
§ MR. MORLEYI am afraid I have never taken the measure of that influence.
§ SIR H. COTTONI understood the right hon. Gentleman to say last Monday that the causes of dissatisfaction were the assessment of land, the water rates, and forced labour. May I ask if he will cause an inquiry to be made into these matters?
§ MR. MORLEYWhen the time comes for this discussion I shall endeavour to be as well furnished with information as I can on all the grounds.
§ MR. W. REDMONDIn view of the drastic change which will be brought about in consequence of the ordinance just read to the House, may I ask whether the Government will give an early day to enable the House to discuss the situation, or whether extraordinary alterations of this kind, practically suspending the rights of British citizens in India, are to be carried out without this House having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them?
§ MR MORLEYI doubt very much—I speak quite frankly, and hon. Members will not suspect me of disrespect for Parliamentary discussion—whether at this moment it is particularly desirable that those in India, whom I am not criticising, but who are apparently pursuing courses of agitation which are very undesirable, should have it in their power to say that this House is divided.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTWe are not.
§ MR. W. REDMONDWe are.
§ MR. MORLEYThere will be at least two occasions when, if the House thinks fit, this discussion can take place.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)Is it the fact that the trouble arises out of excessive taxation, and the starvation resulting from it?
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.