§ 41. Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has read the letter written by C. L. Tranchell, police superintendent, Kandy, Ceylon, on the 19th June, 1915, to an employer applying for a permit to transfer labourers from one district to another; and on what law, if any, that police officer based the threat in his letter that if his order was disregarded the coolies were liable to be shot at sight?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long)I have read what purports to be a copy of this letter, but I cannot vouch for its accuracy. Since martial law was at the time in force a police officer would be justified in explaining to any person the punishment to which he or others would render themselves liable by a breach of the Regulations issued by the authorities charged with the suppression of disorder.
§ Mr. GINNELLMay I ask whether this police officer really has authority to shoot any civilian at sight?
§ 44. Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to explain on whose instructions the police in Kandy, Ceylon, when on 28th May, 1915, they removed the wounded Sinhalese youth to hospital, where he died from his wound, omitted to arrest the Moorish trader who had shot him and whose identity the polce knew; and, seeing that this was the first shot fired' and one of the causes of the subsequent riot, will he explain why the Moor has never been arrested and tried?
§ Mr. LONGThe official reports which I have received do not support the account of the matter given by the hon. Member; also serious rioting had already taken place and was in progress when this man is alleged to have been shot. While I understand that the police were unable to effect any arrest, there is no foundation for the suggestion that they refrained from action under instructions from any authority.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs a general re-inquiry going on as regards the proceedings of Governor Anderson of eighteen months ago; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of reopening the question of the conduct of Governor Eyre?