§ Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether, in view of the intention of the Government of India to deport agitators from their homes without charge or trial, he will say if advocates of the policy of Tariff Reform in India, known as Swadeshi, are considered by the Government to be agitators; and whether he will recommend the Government to issue some authoritative definition of the offence of agitation so that British subjects in India might protect themselves against the risk of deportation and imprisonment for an unlimited period?
The MASTER of ELIBANKI am not aware what the hon. Member means by intention, nor what knowledge he has of the frame of mind of the Government of India. As was stated in reply to a question on the 25th March, no British subject in India runs any risk of the nature indicated unless his conduct is such to satisfy the Governor-General in Council that it is necessary to detain him in order to secure the British Dominions from internal commotion. The Secretary of State is not prepared either himself to make, or to order the Government of India to make, any further statement by way of definition.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he adheres to the declaration made by himself on the 5th of August in this House that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to remove from their sphere of operations all agitators?
The MASTER of ELIBANKI did not say that I said it was the intention of this country to maintain order and if it was necessary that agitators would have to be dealt with according to law.
§ Mr. REESMay I ask whether the pundits of the India Office or of any other place endorse the translation of Swadeshi as Tariff Reform?
§ Mr. A. LUPTONIs it not a fact that the chief charge against these men deported was that they were in favour of what is called Tariff Reform?
Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary whether he was aware that in the libel case of Rai v. the Daily Express, Ltd., tried in the Law Courts on 21st October, the fact that the Secretary of State for India had deported Mr. Lajpat Rai was used by the judge in summing up to the jury as a ground for mitigating the damages for the charges of sedition made against the plaintiff and not justified by the defendants; and whether, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State and the Government of India had declined to inform Mr. Lajpat Rai of the reasons for his deportation, so that it was impossible for him to meet the implication of guilt brought against him, the Secretary of State would make some amends to Mr. Lajpat Rai for the injustice done him by deportation without charge or trial?
The MASTER of ELIBANKThe Secretary of State has seen in the newspapers a report of the proceedings in the libel case referred to. He finds no reason for taking any such action as is suggested in the question.
Dr. RUTHERFORDMay I ask if there is to be any reparation on the part of the Government to those who have been so evily treated by the Government?
§ Mr. MACKARNESSIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the judge in summing up the case to the jury said that this gentleman was deported by the orders of Lord Morley, and that Lord Morley could be trusted, and does not that fact show that Lajpat Rai should have an opportunity of knowing why he was deported?
The MASTER of ELIBANKI have repeatedly called attention to the policy of the Government in this matter, namely, that, rightly or wrongly, it has been decided not to inform him of the grounds of the deportation.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSIs it the intention of the Government of India, when the fact of a man's deportation comes to be used against him in the Law Courts, not to make the cause of the deportation known to him?