§ 84. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Chose, a member of the Madras Legislative Council, when visiting a friend at. Pondicherry on 12th March, was placed under arrest, and, after a private examination by certain French officials, was compelled to allow his finger-prints to be taken and suffered other indignities, after which he was released; and will he make representations to the French authorities as to the reason for this treatment of Mr. Chose, in order that a repetition of such action may not take place?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton)I have been asked to reply. According to the pub- 1851 lished statement of the member in question, whose name is Iyengar, not Ghose, the incident took place in February. The friend referred to is a notorious fugitive revolutionary from Bengal, and, in the circumstances, my Noble Friend sees no ground for suggesting that the French Colonial authorities should refrain from any precautionary measures they may think it necessary to take regarding his visitors.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask whether a man is to be punished because his friend is a noted revolutionary?
§ Earl WINTERTONThe hon. Member should know very well that I cannot answer questions about administration in a foreign country. The only grounds upon which His Majesty's Government can interfere, or ever do interfere, in matters of this kind is where there is room for representations on the ground that a British subject has been treated illegally under the law. There is no reason to suppose that any such circumstances have arisen here and I must respectfully decline to comment upon the action of the French authorities.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs not this British subject entitled to protection at the hands of His Majesty's Government; and is there any charge at all against this man which would give the right to any foreign Government. to arrest him and take his finger prints as if he were a criminal?
§ Earl WINTERTONIt is the duty of His Majesty's subjects, whether British or Indian, to obey the law in foreign countries to which they go. If they choose to visit well-known revolutionaries they must put up with the consequences.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHas the Noble Lord the slightest evidence that the man who was subject to these indignities is a revolutionary, or that he was in the country for any other than a purely legal purpose?
§ Earl WINTERTONThat, if I may say so, is not the point at issue. As I said in my original reply, the gentleman whom Mr. Iyengar visited is a well-known fugitive revolutionary from Bengal, and if the French police, in their Colony, and in the exercise of their 1852 duty and discretion, choose to take certain action against those who visit him, I say that is within their discretion, and there is no ground for His Majesty's Government to make representations to the French Government.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask whether the man who was visited was living as an ordinary citizen, and if there is any notice that it is illegal to visit him—either for his friends or anyone else to visit him?
§ Earl WINTERTONI have no knowledge of the laws of the French Colony. All I say is that the French police, in the exercise of their discretion, took certain action against a visitor to this well-known revolutionary, and I say it would be intolerable if His Majesty's Government, were asked to interfere on every occasion that any person visited another person of subversive tendencies.