§ Mr. MORRELLasked, in view of the fact that in December last an Act was passed by the Government of India for the more speedy trial of criminal offences before a special court of three judges without a jury and without any preliminary examination of the accused, and that a few days afterwards nine Indian gentlemen were deported and imprisoned without charge or trial, what reason there was for not bringing them to trial before the special court for any offences they might have committed?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question asked by him on 16th March last.
§ Mr. MORRELLCan the hon. Gentleman tell me on what information these gentlemen were deported?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo, I cannot. That is precisely the information which has been asked for in several quarters of the House, and which the Secretary of State has always refused to give.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSWas the evidence on which they were deported evidence which would not be accepted as legal evidence by a court of justice?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThat I cannot say.
§ Mr. MORRELLWas there any evidence?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Secretary of State has always refused to give information on this point, and the hon. Gentleman is only now putting in another form the question which I have already answered.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSCan the hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the informants from whom the evidence came?
§ Mr. GWYNNasked whether the nine British subjects in India who were deported in December last without charge or trial are debarred from taking any civil or criminal proceedings either to obtain their liberty or vindicate their characters; and, if so, what safeguard any British subject in India possesses under the existing administration against being imprisoned for an indefinite period by the Executive?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Secretary of State is advised that the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is that no British subject in India runs any risk of the danger indicated unless his conduct be such as to satisfy the Governor-General in Council that it is necessary to place him under restraint in order to secure British Dominions from internal commotion?
§ Mr. GWYNNAre there not among these nine deported gentlemen persons against whom no charge has been ever brought except that of being constitutional agitators?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo charge has ever been brought against these gentlemen.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether any or all of the nine British subjects who were deported in December last by order of the Indian Executive without charge or trial have made protestations to the Government of their innocence of any offence, and asked to be informed of the grounds for their deportation and imprisonment; and, if so, whether any reply has been sent?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAccording to the information received by the Secretary of 998 State three of the persons arrested have made representations in the sense indicated. They were informed in reply that they were arrested in order to preserve a portion of His Majesty's Dominions from internal commotion.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEIf these men had no chance of rebutting the charges against them, how was the Viceroy to know they were guilty?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have already pointed out in answer to many questions in this House that these gentlemen, never having been brought before the Court, and the Regulation of 1818 expressly provides that they need not be brought before the Court, no charge has ever been preferred against them.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSDoes not the Regulation of 1818 in terms provide that they shall at all times freely be able to make representations on the supposed ground of their deportation? How are they to know the supposed ground if they are refused all information?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIt is open to them to make representations to the Government of India and those representations have been made and they have been considered, as I pointed out in answer to a question about a week ago.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSHave they been told the supposed grounds of their deportation?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIt is for them to suppose the grounds.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether, in the case of Krishna Kumar Dutt, Krishna Kumar Mitra, and the other Indian gentlemen who were deported and imprisoned without trial in December last, any warning was previously addressed to any of them by the Government of India indicating that they were suspected of practices dangerous to public order or of any indictable offence; and, if so, with what result?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSESo far as the Secretary of State is aware no communication of the kind described was made to any of the persons arrested.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEWould these gentleman be free to communicate direct to the Secretary of State for India?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIt is necessary that these communications should go through 999 the Government of India who are primarily responsible for their arrest and deportation.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSHow is a man who is deported to know that he is a danger to the internal safety of India if he is not warned at all by the Government beforehand?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEHe finds out that he is considered dangerous by his deportation.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEWhat safeguard is there for any British subject in India?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThat is precisely the question which I answered at an earlier part of the afternoon.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHHave these men been given any opportunity to explain the charges brought against them?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have pointed out that no charges in that sense are ever brought against them.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHHave they ever had explained to them the grounds on which it has been thought necessary for the Government of India to interfere with their freedom?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIf the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question I will give an answer.
§ Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked whether the Secretary of State is now prepared to reconsider the position of the nine Indian gentlemen who were deported, last December, by order of the Executive; and whether these gentlemen can be informed of the nature of the charges brought against them?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part the Secretary of State has nothing to add to the answers which have already been given to similar questions in the House.