§ 16. Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary for India, if he will say when the statement of facts in the Sitapur (Oudh) case, sent by Sir Henry Cotton to the 1647 Secretary of State on 24th January, was forwarded by him to the Government of India; whether a request was then made for a full Report upon the case; whether the Memorandum sent by the Secretary of State to Sir Henry Cotton on 9th June contained the substance of the only Report that has yet been made by the Government of India on this case; when that Memorandum or Report reached the India Office; whether a despatch asking for further information has now been sent in accordance with the promise given; and when a further Report may be expected?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe statement was sent by the Secretary of State to the Government of India on 29th January, with the request that a Report on the facts should be furnished. The Report was received on the 5th April, and its substance was communicated to Sir Henry Cotton. No other Report has been received. The record of the trial and information as to the delay in preferring an appeal from the acquittal have been telegraphed for; and a dispatch dealing with other aspects of the case will be sent this week.
§ Mr. MORRELLWas any explanation of the facts asked for in the first instance, and when was the Memorandum forwarded to Sir Henry Cotton?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe allegations of fact sent to the Secretary of State by Sir Henry Cotton were forwarded to the Government of India for confirmation.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLWhy was the Memorandum, which was received on the 5th April by Lord Crewe, not sent to Sir Henry Cotton until two months later, and not until Sir Henry Cotton applied himself?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am afraid the delay in sending the confirmation to Sir John Cotton was owing to an oversight. As soon as Sir Henry Cotton wrote reminding Lord Crewe that he had not received an answer, it was forwarded.
§ Mr. MORRELLHas the dispatch asking for further information actually been sent to India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUA telegram has been sent asking for information, and a dispatch suggesting a modification of the rules, in accordance with my promise made last week, will be sent this week.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLAs the hon. Gentleman knows that Sir John Hewett is in this country why has he not communicated with him, and why has he not got Sir John Hewett's explanation of the circumstances?
§ Mr. MONTAGUSir John Hewett, who is in this country, has been communicated with, but as regards the judgment of the Judicial Commissioners and the records of the trial they are not in this country, and until they arrive Sir John Hewett's official explanation will not be forthcoming.