§ 5. Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the chief presidency magistrate and the commissioner of the police have completed their inquiry into the incident on 10th May when, following a clash between the officials of the Burma Oil Company at Madras and the company's employés, the former opened fire, causing 17 casualties among the strikers; and whether he is in a position to inform the House of the result of the inquiry?
§ Earl WINTERTONThe Government of India were asked last mail to forward a copy of the report when it is available, but some little time must necessarily elapse before it is received.
§ 6. Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in connection with the clash between the officials of the company and the employés on strike at the Burma Oil Company's installation at Madras on 10th May, special permission had been given to the officials who opened fire on the strikers to carry arms and use them in this way; on whose authority the order to fire was given; whether the police who were present at the time were also provided with firearms; and, if so, whether any order was issued to them to use firearms against the crowd?
§ Earl WINTERTONThe facts so far in my possession show that the police, of whom 16 were present, unarmed, called on the manager and his assistants to aid them in dealing with a crowd of about 1,000 strikers who were attacking the drivers of three petroleum lorries. Some of the staff came with arms, and, being met by a volley of stones, fired some revolver shots in the air. The only firing at the crowd was with two cartridges of snipe shot, which with sticks also used wounded 13 persons, one seriously. Thus no special permission was given to use firearms—it was evidently regarded as a matter of necessity. A magisterial inquiry is now proceeding.
§ Mr. HUDSONCan the Noble Lord say why arms were in possession of these private persons when no attempt seems to have been made to provide the police with arms?
§ Earl WINTERTONI do not think it would be in the public interest to answer any further questions until the result of the magisterial inquiry is known, and in view of the fact that judicial proceedings may follow. In regard to the first question, I think it is a fact that these people were in possession of ordinary arms, sporting guns, as a result of their having taken out licences to hold them.