§ 20. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what 1042 is the date of the first communication of the India Office to the Indian Government after the receipt by the Secretary of State for War of Sir Henry Cotton's letter of the 10th June relative to the Sitapur (Oudh) murder trials, convictions, and executions of men previously acquitted of the charge for which they were subsequently tried and suffered death?
§ Mr. MONTAGUJune 27th.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLWas that after my notice of question given in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19th June, and were Sir Henry Cotton's letters taken no notice of from 4th June?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe hon. Member will observe that it was after the questions in the House were asked, after the Debate which he initiated, and after Sir Henry Cotton wrote to the Secretary of State announcing that it was his intention to bring the matter before the House of Commons. The Secretary of State waited5 until he heard what was said in the House of Commons.
§ 21. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has made any communication to Sir Henry Cotton requesting him to forward to the India Office the records of the two Sitapur murder trials and the copies of the two judgments which are, to the knowledge of the India Office, in his possession; if such communication has not been made to Sir Henry Cotton, will he be immediately approached with a view to his furnishing the India Office with these documents; whether any expression of regret on the part of the India Office has been conveyed to Sir Henry Cotton for the oversight in not communicating to him till the 9th June, and then only in response to a letter from him of the 4th June, the Report with reference to the Sitapur murder cases, which was received from India on the 4th April; and whether, having regard to the suspicions that have been aroused in India and in these countries by the withholding from the public through an alleged oversight of all information with respect to these trials, the public will be placed in possession of the fullest details concerning them, and be informed on whom the responsibility for the conduct and sequel of these trials lies and on whom lies the responsibility for the withholding from the public of these countries all information concerning them?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI would refer my hon. and learned Friend to my previous answers on this subject. I have already expressed in this House my regret that Sir H. Cotton's case should not have been dealt with until he reminded us of the matter, which he did not do until last month. I have already invited him by answer in this House to help us to save delay by letting us have the papers, which he has got, and we hope to receive from India by next mail. I have nothing further to add, save that there is no sort of shadow of foundation for my hon. Friend's reckless charge of withholding information; on the conrary, we have taken steps, as the House knows, to get and publish a full explanation of the occurrence.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLMay I assume that the India Office is anxious to have these documents, and, if so, why was not Sir Henry Cotton directly communicated with?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI have already explained that Sir John Hewett is waiting to furnish the India Office, and therefore the House of Commons, with a written account of the occurrence. Until the papers are available, as I have already explained in this House, it would probably save time if Sir Henry Cotton would send the papers to us or to the India Office. That is all I can say.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the hon. Gentleman aware that I am in possession of papers?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf my hon. and learned Friend would hand them to the India Office, I have no doubt that they will be glad to have them.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLNo, let them apply.