§ 9. Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Home Secretary the extra number of police detailed on duty at and around Victoria Station on Friday last on the arrival of the Simon Commission from India; is he aware that on that occasion about 200 Indians and their sympathisers, who had marched down in a peaceful and orderly procession, and then taking their stand outside quietly either singly or in groups of two or three friends in a large crowd of several hundred sightseers, were individually picked out mostly first by plain-clothes men, and were then roughly hustled out of the crowd by the uniformed police several hundred yards away; that small banners and printed handbills explaining an Indian political view were snatched away by force from their rightful owners and destroyed by the police, as also a national flag held in High esteem by the Indian Nationalists; were the above measures taken with his sanction; and on what grounds did he authorise removal from a public crowd of persons of a certain nationality or political view regardless of their individual behaviour?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThree hundred police officers were detailed for duty. Persons who were trying to create a demonstration, which must have led to disorder, by showing black flags and distributing handbills, were moved on, and the flags and bills were taken away. Nothing is known of any national flag. The police measures, which were quiet and effective, have my sanction and complete approval, and it is not the case that they were taken regardless of the behaviour of the individuals concerned.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALADoes the right hon. Gentleman deny that each and every Indian, the large majority of whom had neither a black flag nor a leaflet, without exception was moved out of the crowd 1693 without any personal behaviour justifying it; and is it not true that, if the right hon. Gentleman had not agreed to assist the reception of so-called Indians inside the station, he would not have been compelled to make this debasing political use of the police force?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThere is no foundation whatever for the hon. Member's statement. I have explained that the police force acted with my entire approval and carried out their duties to prevent a breach of the peace admirably.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALADoes the right hon. Gentleman deny the fact that each and every Indian standing in the crowd outside was removed; does he deny the statement that the large majority of them had neither a black flag nor a leaflet, nor were they moving their lips, but were standing perfectly still? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny these facts?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe information in my possession is that there was a large body of Indians assembled there with black flags and distributing handbills, and it was the duty of the police to prevent a disturbance, which must have happened if the black flags had been flown and the handbills distributed. It was the duty of the police to move on these people who were a cause of possible disturbance, and I can tell the hon. Member that a considerable number of Indians impeded the traffic by lying down in the middle of the road and refusing to move.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAMay I still have an answer to my question? I am not asking about the removal of Indians who had black flags in their hands. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there were a large number of Indians who had neither black flags nor leaflets in their possession, but who were standing perfectly still, not lying down in the road, and who were removed simply for being Indians under the right hon. Gentleman's instructions?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have nothing to add to the full statement I have made.