§ Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the magistrate and police officers in Bengal against whom Mr. Justice Fletcher has 2091 recently given judgment in the Midnapore case are the same persons upon whom the High Court of Calcutta made serious comments in 1909; whether the issues before the two courts were in the main the same in respect of the conduct of these officers; whether more than £20,000 of public money has already been spent by the Government of Bengal in defending them; whether it is now proposed to place further public funds at their disposal for an appeal; and can he say what precedent there is for such procedure on the part of the Government of Bengal?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." The answer to the second part is "No": the conduct of the police was not an issue before the court in the first trial. As regards the last part of the question I have nothing to add to my answer of last Thursday.
§ Sir W. BYLESI understand that decorations have been granted to the police. May I ask my hon. Friend to answer the last part of the question? Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that after £20,000 of public money has already been spent by the Government of Bengal to obtain justice they are to be asked to spend still more?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThere is nothing about decorations in this. With regard to the expenditure of public money, I informed the House on Thursday last that I had not received the report of the trial. I have no information yet.
§ Sir W. BYLESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the two police officers against whom Mr. Justice Fletcher recently gave judgment in the Midnapur case, at Calcutta, were the same officers who were recommended for special honours at the hands of the Sovereign last year; whether he can state by whose advice and upon what grounds such honours were conferred; and whether it was known at the time by the Government of Bengal that these officers had been publicly censured by the High Court of Calcutta a few months before in a judgment delivered by the Chief Justice of Bengal?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe two officers are the same. The latter part of my hon. Friend's question was fully covered in the reply given to the junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil on 26th July, 1910.
§ Sir W. BYLESMy hon. Friend did not say whether the decorations have been withdrawn?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThey have not been withdrawn, and nothing will be done to prejudice the position of these officers.