HC Deb 19 April 1910 vol 16 cc1860-1
Mr. KEIR HARDIE

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether his attention had been drawn to the prohibition of public conferences by the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam under the Seditious Meetings Act of 1907: and whether there is such an aggravation of public feeling in that province as to render it necessary to prohibit public conferences which had been allowed without objection in previous years?

Mr. MONTAGU

Three districts in Eastern Bengal were proclaimed last month under the Seditious Meetings Act of 1907. Such proclamation has the effect of enabling the magistrates of those districts to prohibit a public meeting which is likely to promote sedition or to disturb public tranquillity. The intention of the Local Government is to prevent the excitement of lawlessness by meetings organised from outside the districts for the purpose of reviving agitation. The magistrates concerned were instructed to prohibit such meetings unless satisfactory assurances were given that the proceedings would be unobjectionable.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

The hon. Gentleman has not replied to the last part of my question—whether the feeling is worse in those districts than it was when conferences were allowed to be held without let or hindrance?

Mr. MONTAGU

The latter part of the question was whether there is such an aggravation of public feeling in the provinces as to render it necessary to prohibit public conferences. I have explained that the Seditious Meetings Act has only been proclaimed in three districts, and not with a view of preventing the agitation that exists in those district's, but to prevent its being imported from outside. I think that is an answer to his question.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Is the hon. Member aware that those responsible for organising these conferences gave an undertaking that no objectionable person and no extreme language would be allowed at either conference. Why under these circumstances were the conferences prohibited?

Mr. REES

Was it not the case that at these conferences resolutions were put forward stating that no one approved of the partition of Bengali Is not that an aggravating and inaccurate statement?

Mr. MONTAGU

I have no information on that subject, neither do I think it arises here. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, the magistrates were only instructed to prevent meetings when there were no satisfactory assurances that the proceedings would be unobjectionable. If a meeting was not held, I presume it was because those assurances were not forthcoming.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Will the Secretary for India cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances which led to these conferences being prohibited, especially in view of the statement made by the Viceroy that the situation in Eastern Bengal had improved?

Mr. MONTAGU

If the hon. Member thinks he has knowledge that a particular meeting in regard to which the requisite assurance were forthcoming has been unnecessarily prohibited, if he will bring the facts to my notice I will inquire into them.

Mr. REES

Is the hon. Member right in supposing that conferences were prohibited, or is it not the case that the magistrates were only empowered to prohibit them if they thought it necessary?

Mr. MONTAGU

If the hon. Member had done me the honour to listen to my answer he would have noticed that that is precisely what I said.