§ 2. Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reasons for the recent release of one of the Indian political prisoners, Mr. A. N. Roy?
§ 3. Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. A. Roy, professor of philosophy and member of the Bengal Legislative Council, has been released after 17 months' detention without charge or trial; and whether, in view of the published statement of a member of the Government of India that a mistake had been made in this case, and with a view 818 to the relief of public apprehension, he will order a full and detailed impartial re-examination of the cases of all the other men detained under the Bengal Ordinance?
§ Earl WINTERTONMr. Roy was released on 26th March, 1926, by the Local Government on his giving an assurance to take no part in terrorism, but to do all in his power to discourage it. He was made acquainted on the 25th November, 1924, with the four charges against him, and wrote a reply to those charges, which was considered by the two Judges who examined his case. The information against, him was convincing, and the suggestion that any member of the Government of India admitted that a mistake was made in his case surprises me. There is no reason to suggest any re-examination of the cases since a periodical examination of the nature desired is required by the law. I would invite attention also to the reply I gave on this point to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on the 15th March.
§ Mr. THURTLECan the Noble Lord say whether this Mr. Roy was a member of a terrorist organisation?
§ Earl WINTERTONAs I have said in answer to the question, all these cases have to be considered by two Judges, who make a report to the Government. As it happens, I have read the account of the proceedings before the Judges and the report made to the Government, and the impression left on my mind is that there is no doubt whatever that Mr. Roy was guilty of having broken the law.
§ Mr. THURTLENow that it has been found possible, consistently with public safety, to release Mr. Roy, will not the Government of India consider the release of all otherdetinues who have been charged on precisely the same grounds as Mr. Roy?
§ Earl WINTERTONNo, because these cases are naturally different one from the other, and have to be considered on their merits. In this particular case, Mr. Roy, as I have said, gave an undertaking that he would not take any further part in proceedings in which he had taken part, and as a result of which he had been condemned. For these reasons he was released.
§ Mr. THURTLEMay I press the Noble Lord further? Provided the otherdetinues are prepared to give a similar undertaking, will their release be considered?
§ Earl W1NTERTONThat is a rather theoretical question, and, as I have said, these eases must be considered on their merits.
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEAre we right in assuming from the Noble Lord's original reply that the reference in the question to a public statement said to have been made by a member of the Government that a mistake had been made is not correct; and, if so, will the Noble Lord have attention drawn to the fact publicly?
§ Earl WINTERTONI have searched all the available information, and have read all the Debates on the subject in India, and can find no confirmation whatever of the statement made by the hon. Member. Perhaps he will communicate with me privately his grounds for making the allegation in the question.
§ Mr. THURTLEMay I point out that it is my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) who makes that statement in his question?
§ Earl WINTERTONIt was to the hon. Member for Dundee I should have referred.