§ Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government had yet received any Report as to whether the case of the nine gentlemen who were arrested and deported in December, 1908, under Regulation III. of the Act of 1818, had been reconsidered; and, if so, could he make any statement on the matter to the House?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank)The Secretary of State has not received any Report from the Government of India. My hon. Friend, if he has the words of the 2286 Regulation in his mind, is aware that the Reports on 1st January and 1st July are confined to conduct, health, and comfort, and the Regulation does not direct that they go beyond these three matters. Of course, there is no reason whatever why the Government of India should not consider the policy of the cases at any rate when they may think fit. The Section of the Regulation states: "Every officer in whose custody any State prisoner may be placed shall on 1st January and 1st July of each year submit a Report to the Governor-General-in-Council, through the Secretary to Government in the Political Department, on the conduct, health, and comfort of such State prisoner, in order that the Governor-General-in-Council may determine whether the Orders for his detention shall continue in force or shall be modified." That, I submit, has reference only to the conduct and the health of the prisoner, and has no reference whatsoever to the reasons for which he is being detained.
§ Mr. O'GRADYIs the hon. Gentleman aware that my question did not put the point he has now mentioned? I simply said that these gentlemen were arrested under a certain Act. The point of my question is that on two occasions in this House the representative of the India Office has declared that these cases would be reviewed every six months.
The MASTER of ELIBANKI amplified my reply, as I thought, for the convenience of the hon. Member. It is quite true that he did not ask for the information I have given. I thought I made it clear that every six months a report had to be made as to the health and comfort of the prisoner. If the hon. Member pressed the point too closely it would be impossible for the Government of India to consider the condition of these prisoners in any other month than those specified in the Regulation.
§ Mr. O'GRADYBut is the hon. Gentleman aware that on two occasions in this House the representative of the India Office has declared that the whole case of the deportees should be reconsidered every six months, with a view to recommendations being made by the Government of India for their release?
The MASTER of ELIBANKThe Secretary of State constantly has the cases of the deportees in mind, and I have not the. slightest doubt, if I represent my Noble 2287 Friend aright, that he will release these prisoners the moment he and the Indian Government consider it to be consistent with the public interest to do so.
§ Mr. O'GRADYBut is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that promises have been made in this House on two occasions that the whole case of these deportees should come up at specific periods of the year with a view to considering whether they should be released?
The MASTER of ELIBANKI thought I made it clear to the hon. Member that these cases do come up every six months in accordance with the Regulation I have read. The question of the State reasons for the deportation of these prisoners is an entirely different matter.
§ Mr. MacNEILLHas the hon. Gentleman observed in the paragraph he read that the question of the detention or non-detention of the prisoners is a matter for the consideration of the Indian Government and the Home Government?
The MASTER of ELIBANKI have only explained that the whole question of the deportees is always engaging the attention of the Secretary of State and the Indian Government. They do not need to be bound by this Regulation at all.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSAre not the words perfectly clear that they are to reconsider whether the Orders for the detention of the prisoner shall or shall not remain in force; if so, by these words are not the Indian Government bound to consider whether the prisoners are to be further detained?
The MASTER of ELIBANKI have already answered the question. The question of policy has already been decided by this House, and the Prime Minister recently made a very emphatic declaration upon it. It is not competent for me to argue the question of policy which has been decided upon by the Cabinet, and confirmed by this House.