§ Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to sanction any further deportations of British subjects without charge or trial in India; and, if so, whether he will recommend to the Indian Government that before a man is deported some warning should be given to him by the authorities that he is considered to be a danger to the public peace within the meaning of the Bengal Regulation of 1818?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Secretary of State is unable to make any statement as to the course that he may adopt in circumstances which have not arisen and may not arise; but he is not in any case prepared to take the action suggested in the second part of the question.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSMay I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has not seen a statement that at the time the Government of India had not considered the question of the deportations at all?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question does not arise out of the answer.
§ Mr. LUTTRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the Government of India regard proceedings under the Bengal Regulation of 1818 as preventive and not punitive, he can state whether the evidence upon which the nine British subjects in Bengal were, in December last, deported without charge or trial was evidence which showed that no crimes had been actually committed by any of those persons, but only that they were suspected of being likely to commit crime.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs I stated in reply to a question last Tuesday, the Secretary of State is not prepared to make any statement as to the nature of the information on which the Government of India acted in applying the Regulation of 1818.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the reliance which is now being placed by the Government of India upon the Bengal Regulation of 1818 for the deportation and imprisonment of British subjects without charge or trial, the Secretary of State will recommend the Amendment of that Regulation, by providing that, in accordance with the provisions of the Irish Protection of Person and Property Act of 1881, no person shall be arrested by a warrant of the Executive unless that warrant states the character of the crime of which the prisoner is suspected and a copy of the warrant be furnished to the prisoner, and a statement of the ground of the arrest laid before Parliament, and each case reconsidered every three months by the Executive Government?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Secretary of State is not prepared to take the action suggested. The Regulation already provides for the reconsideration of each case every six months by the Governor-General in Council.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not just that a man should be told the nature of the charge against him when he is deported?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo charge has necessarily to be formulated under the Regulation of 1818.
§ Mr. BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has received any official information that the nine gentlemen who were deported from Bengal without trial last December were so deported for their connection with a political agitation dangerous to public order; and, if so, can he say whether the agitation was that known as Swadeshi, for the encouragement of native industries, or was it some other and separate movement of a criminal nature?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe persons referred to were arrested because the Government of India were satisfied that their detention was necessary to secure a portion of His Majesty's dominions from internal commotion; the Secretary of State is not prepared to make any further statement as to the nature of the grounds upon which the Government of India took action.
§ Mr. BYLESIt is quite a different point that has been raised. May I ask whether 1003 political agitation is the acknowledged reason for the commotion or whether it is on account of the Swadeshi movement or some other movement?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI understand that the hon. Gentleman asks whether the commotion to which I referred in my answer was caused by the Swadeshi movement. I believe that is partly the cause.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the exercise of the power of arbitrary imprisonment led to a. successful revolution and a change of dynasty in this country, and whether subjects who have been guaranteed full rights as British subjects ought to be arbitrarily imprisoned in India?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThey exercise those rights subject to the civil security of the country being in every way complete. If they endanger the civil security of the country they are liable under the Regulation of 1818.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIECan the hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the case that Viceroys, including Lord Curzon, have supported the agitation for the encouragement of native industries?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEYes; that may be so, within limits.