§ Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces had recently expressed his satisfaction with the excellent work done by the police of that province in detecting and bringing to justice gang robbers; whether the villagers of the Bara Banki district had expressed their gratitude to the Lieutenant-Governor at being delivered by the police from the terrorism exercised by such gang robbers; whether the local Government expressed its grateful acknowledgment to the retiring inspector-general of police for raising the standard of police work in accordance with the demands of public opinion; whether the rank and file of the police of the United Provinces and all but a few supervising officers are Natives of India; and, if so, whether, in view of the attacks made upon the Indian police, he would consider the propriety of giving wide publicity to the review of police work in the United Provinces in 1908 by the Lieutenant-Governor?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank)A Resolution dealing with the points raised in the first three questions has been published in the "United Provinces Gazette," and the hon. Member has no doubt seen it. Wide publicity has been given to it by notices in the press, both in this country and in India, and the Secretary of State does not consider that any further action on his part is called for.
Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he had any official knowledge that the Executive Government of the Punjab had pub- 824 lished an opinion totally disagreeing with the judgments of Mr. Justice Robertson and Mr. Justice Rattigan with regard to the conduct of the police in the Gulam Bano case; if so, whether he would state what inquiry, if any, was held by the Government, who conducted it, and who was examined; whether the opinion of the Government was submitted at any time before publication to the judges for their comments; and whether the judges had made any observations on it?
The MASTER of ELIBANKThe Government of the Punjab have published a Resolution stating at length their reasons for holding the police free from blame in respect of the points on which the Chief Court suggested that an inquiry was desirable. The local Government arrived at this conclusion as the result of a consideration of the woman's own statements, and of all the other evidence available. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, the observations of the judges on the Resolution have neither been asked for nor offered.
Dr. RUTHERFORDMay I ask if the judges will not be communicated with, and their feelings taken into consideration?
The MASTER of ELIBANKWe have no reason to suppose that the judges are dissatisfied with the course which has been taken by the Indian Government.
§ Sir HENRY COTTONMay I ask if the Government had exactly the same evidence before it as the Court, or had it any additional evidence?
§ Mr. MACKARNESSWho conducted the inquiry, and were the witnesses cross-examined?
§ Mr. MACKARNESSWere the police witnesses cross-examined?
§ Mr. REESDid not the Executive Government agree with the judge who had the witnesses before him, and so was able to observe their conduct under examination?
§ Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of the Punjab, in disagreeing with the judgment of the Chief Court of that pro- 825 vince regarding the conduct of the police in the Ghulam Bano case, did not agree with the Sessions Judge and the two native assessors, who had the advantage, which was denied to the Chief Court, of seeing the witnesses and observing their demeanour under examination; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, whether there was any reason why the opinion of the Punjab Government should be referred to the judges of the Chief Court for comment or observation?
The MASTER of ELIBANKAs I have stated before, the Chief Court in their judgment did not find that the allegations of torture against the police were proved, but that, on the evidence before them, there was a case for inquiry. The local Government accepted this view, and, after holding an inquiry, arrived at the same conclusion as to the facts as did the Sessions Judge and the Assessors. As I stated just now, there is no question, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, of asking for the comments of the judges on the opinion of the local Government.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSHave the judges of the Appeal Court expressed any opinion on the action of the Executive Government since the publication of this report?
§ Mr. W. P. BYLESDid the Government overrule the decision of the judges?
§ Mr. REESMay I ask the Under-Secretary whether there is any reason to suppose that the native Indian assessors had any prejudice against the native Indian police?
Dr. RUTHERFORDIs not this action of the Executive a dangerous innovation, and destructive to the independence of the law courts?
The MASTER of ELIBANKNo, Sir; it is quite the custom in India for the Executive Government to hold an inquiry of the sort if they consider it desirable.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSHas the right hon. Gentleman any answer to the question I have put to him twice—whether the police witnessess were cross-examined at this secret inquiry?
The MASTER of ELIBANKI am not able to answer that. The Punjab Government has held an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances, and my hon. Friend can be perfectly assured that they acted with justice and fairness.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, at the inquiry held by Mr. Commissioner Macpherson into the conduct of the police in consequence of the strictures passed upon their conduct by the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur conspiracy case, the public have been admitted and the witnesses have all been offered for cross-examination; and whether he was yet in a position to inform the House as to the conclusions come to by Mr. Macpherson?
The MASTER of ELIBANKThe Secretary of State has not yet received either Mr. Macpherson's report of the results of his inquiry, or the detailed information as to the conduct of the inquiry which he would require in order to answer the first question.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSIs it a fact that the superintendent, deputy-superintendent and chief constable have been most seriously implicated by this inquiry, and have been given long leave of absence?