HC Deb 03 November 1920 vol 134 cc339-41
4. Colonel YATE

asked the Secretary of State for India for what reason men convicted of offences in the rebellion of 1919, and subsequently released under the amnesty, have now been formally pardoned to enable them to stand for election to the new councils in India?

Mr. MONTAGU

I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the statement issued by the Government of India regarding the exercise by the Viceroy of the clemency which is within his prerogative.

The following is the statement referred to:—

In the case of persons who were convicted of offences connected with the dis- orders of last year, but were not found guilty of personal participation in serious deeds of violence and have since been released in pursuance of the amnesty, the Government of India have always contemplated action that would remove the disabilities imposed under rules regarding election to new councils. The Governor-General has now been pleased to issue orders of pardon which will have the effect of removing such disqualifications in the case of the following 27 persons who were convicted in connection with the Punjab disturbances:—

  1. 1. Moti Ram.
  2. 2. Lahna Singh.
  3. 3. Kali Nath Roy.
  4. 4. Radna Kishan.
  5. 5. Amar Nath.
  6. 6. Mangal Sen.
  7. 7. Labh Singh.
  8. 8. Matti Ullah.
  9. 9. Sarob Dial.
  10. 10. Jagan Nath.
  11. 11. Doctor Saif-Ud-Din Kitchlew.
  12. 12. Doctor Satyapal.
  13. 13. Kotu Mal.
  14. 14. Narain Das.
  15. 15. Anubhawan Nand.
  16. 16. Dina Nath.
  17. 17. Gurbaksh Rai.
  18. 18. Ghulam Muhammad.
  19. 19. Abdul Aziz.
  20. 20. Lala Har Kishan Lal.
  21. 21. Ram Bhaj Dutt Choudhuri.
  22. 22. Lalya Duni Chand.
  23. 23. Allah Din.
  24. 24. Mota Singh.
  25. 25. Govardhar Das.
  26. 26. Brij Gopa Nath.
  27. 27. Durag Das.

Colonel YATE

What advantage will it be to the new councils to have the presence of these convicted rebels on them?

Mr. MONTAGU

I do not know whether they will get in. The point at issue and what the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for is for what reason the men convicted of offences and subsequently released under the amnesty have now been formally pardoned. I will supply him with the reasons as stated by the Government responsible for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Colonel YATE

Is it with his approval that these men have been specially pardoned in order to allow them to stand for the election of the new councils?

Mr. MONTAGU

My hon. and gallant Friend knows that the Royal Prerogative of the Crown is vested in the Viceroy under the warrant of his appointment, and I do not propose to interfere with that.

Colonel YATE

This question has nothing to do with the Royal Warrant. The Viceroy went out of his way to pardon these convicted men in order to allow them to stand for the election of these councils.

Mr. MONTAGU

It seems to me that if a particular prerogative is vested in particular people by custom, tradition, or doctrine, it is not for the Houses of Parliament or myself to interfere with the use of that prerogative. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better see the reasons which the Viceroy himself gives.

Sir H. CRAIK

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that no communications whatever and no suggestions have passed from the India Office at home to the Viceroy of India on this subject?

Mr. MONTAGU

There were innumerable suggestions and communications connected with this question when the terms of the Royal Amnesty were decided upon. I will look up the records. If my right hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give him an answer.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Is that consistent with the statement that nobody interferes with the Viceroy's discretion? Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that communications and suggestions have passed from him to the Viceroy about matters which should be the Viceroy's prerogative?

Mr. MONTAGU

I would prefer to have notice of that question, as I do not remember the precise terms of the communications.

Mr. J. JONES

Will the same policy be adopted towards Ireland?