§ 12. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what were the names of the Judicial Commissioners before whom the appeal was heard in the Sitapur murder case; what was the date of their appointment; and by whom were they appointed?
§ Mr. MONTAGUMr. Louis Stuart, appointed to officiate as Additional Judicial 2232 Commissioner with effect from the 18th April, 1912, and Pandit Kanhaiya Lal, appointed to officiate on the 1st July, 1912, and permanently on the 30th July, 1912. Both appointments received the previous approval of the Government of India, and the latter was, for technical reasons, submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State in Council.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the hon. Gentleman aware that both those gentlemen owe their 'appointments in the first instance to Sir John Hewett; that Pandit Kanhaiya Lal had been a subordinate judicial officer and that the other, Mr. Stuart, had come straight from Sir John Hewett's Office?
§ Mr. MONTAGUBoth these gentlemen were appointed to very responsible positions as High Court judges in India, and I see no reason for supposing that they were unfitted in any way for the office they were called upon to hold.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the hon. Gentleman aware that these appointments were made after the first trial and after the first acquittal of those prisoners, and that this was the first judicial office they were called upon to discharge their first job?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe insinuation behind the hon. Member's question is a reflection upon the impartiality of those gentlemen, and would not be allowed upon judges in this country.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI meant it to be a reflection.
§ 13. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information showing that Sir John Hewett, in refusing to postpone the date of execution of the condemned men in the Sitapur murder case so as to admit of their petition being forwarded to the Governor-General, was acting upon instructions received from the Government of India, or whether he had full discretion in the matter?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe papers presented show clearly that Sir John Hewett conformed to the instructions of the Government of India; that those instructions may be differently interpreted; and that the interpretation in this case was within Sir John Hewett's discretion.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs it not the fact that Sir John Hewett had it absolutely within his own discretion to postpone the execution; and, if that is so, will my hon. Friend convey that fact to the Leader of the Opposition, who based his whole argument upon the assumption, which I believe to be a false one, that Sir John Hewett had no such discretion?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is not the occasion to ask the hon. Gentleman to reply to a previous Debate?
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir John Hewett's position was that he was strictly bound by instructions he had received from the Government of India not to forward this petition, and, if so, will the Government of India participate in the censure most properly given to Sir John Hewett?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe Government of India asked Sir John Hewett to deal with the matter strictly according with rule. Most Members of this House interested in the matter have expressed their opinion, and the Secretary of State has expressed his opinion, and I do not think that it is any use pursuing the matter further.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDIs it in accordance with custom not to postpone executions, but to execute and to keep the petition in hand?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf my hon. Friend will be good enough to read the papers on this subject, he will find full information.
§ Mr. J. WARDI have read the papers.
§ Mr. MORTONMay I ask whether this is not executing first and trying afterwards?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThere is not the slightest foundation for that suggestion.