§ 1. Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lieutenant W. Dickinson, C.M.R., has ever been called upon to answer in any way the deposition of Mirissage Kathohamy Silva, of Beruwala, Ceylon, that on the night of the 8th-9th June, 1915, four days after the riots had ceased, Dickinson and another Englishman, at the head of a party of Moors, forcibly entered her house, called her husband, Andris iSilva, out of bed, shot him dead without inquiry, charge, or trial, then examined the corpse, looted the house, threatened the woman they had made a widow, and left this order, signed by Dickinson, that he authorised the Vidane Aratchy of Beruwala to bury Andris Silva, of Beruwala; what was Dickinson's authority for this conduct; and where and in what position he now is?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland)The reports which I have received do not substantiate the version given in this deposition. Andris Silva was shot by a patrol while endeavouring to escape.
§ Mr. GINNELLThe hon. Gentleman has not answered the question as to what was Dickinson's authority for this conduct, and where and in what position he now is?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDThis action was carried out under martial law, and I think I am right in saying that Mr. Dickinson was in the Ceylon Civil Service.
§ Mr. GINNELLDoes martial law in Ceylon entitle a man to act in this manner?
§ 2. Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary for the Colonies the constitution of the Court, with the date and place at which it was held, by which he says that Simon Perera and Jeeris Appu had been tried for murder and convicted before they were shot dead in their own home by order of Mr. Attygalle, superintendent of police, at Kal Eliya, Ceylon, on 5th June, 1915; whether the two men were tried for murder in their absence; if present, why they were not detained in custody for execution; and whether martial law entitled this superintendent of police to have the two men executed in their own home without any intimation of a sentence against them?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDThese men, who were leaders of a gang of armed rioters, were shot by the orders of the superintendent of police, under the powers possessed by him for the suppression of disorder, martial law being at the time in force. The superintendent held an inquiry on the spot, the two men being present. Further disorder was expected, and it was not thought possible to hold the men for more formal trial. The superintendent's action was taken for the maintenance of good order and government, and is covered by the Ceylon Indemnity Order in Council.
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the hon. Gentleman answer the part of the question whether these two men were present when they were being tried for murder, and whether the witnesses against them in their absence were the same whose perjury was subsequently officially admitted?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Member has asked whether these two men were present, and whether the witnesses in their absence did something or other. I have already told the hon. Member that the superintendent held an inquiry on the spot, the two men being present.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEAre we to understand that these men were shot without legal trial?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by legal trial. Perhaps he will put down a question on the point.
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the hon. Member say whether martial law in Ceylon empowers police inspectors to hold Military Courts?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDThat is quite a general question, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice.
§ Mr. KINGIs it not the case that these cases all occurred when Sir Robert Chalmers was Governor, and that a new Governor has come in who has far more popular support and is generally pursuing a different policy?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI do not admit the implication in the hon. Member's supplementary question for one moment. These cases occurred during a time of riot and disturbance, when general disorder was apprehended, which time is now past.