MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. (Hansard, 11 August 1887)

LORD STANLEY OF ALDEELEY
, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give any information as to the result of the inquiry into the Arnighad expropriation and events connected therewith; and to move for a Copy of the Resolution of the Lieutenant Governor of the North West Provinces on the judgment of Sir W. Comer Petheram in the Laidman-Hearsey trial, said, there were two propositions which he wished to submit to the House, and which he hoped the Secretary of State for India would admit the truth of. The first was, that the wrongful acquisition of a small property by Members of an Administration was more criminal than the wrongful acquisition by a neighbour, because the latter acted under the temptation of personal interest, which was absent in similar wrongful acts by Members of an Administration, whose only motive, unless they were entirely misinformed on the subject, must be a preference for highhanded injustice. That criminality varied with the amount of temptation was shown by the general opinion, and the law of some countries, in the case of a starving man who takes bread from a baker's shop. The second proposition was that a much greater amount of ill-will and disaffection to the Government was caused by a wrongful act of the Administration than by the unrestrained wrongful act of private persons. The first duty of Members of an Administration was to protect their subjects, and if, 43 instead of doing that, they themselves dispossessed a man of his property, the whole body of subjects became apprehensive that their turn might come next. The conduct of such officials was like that of sheep-dogs, which worry the sheep they were intended to protect from the wolves. On the last occasion the Secretary of State bad said the Arnighad Zemindars had no case, nor defect of procedure to complain of, because the High Court had given them no redress. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had as much confidence as the Secretary of State in the High Courts, and be urged that after the manner in which Sir W. Comer Petberam had from the Bench described the case of the Arnighad Zemindars, it was clear that their case had not been before, and had not been heard by, any High Court. He had sent to the Under Secretary at the India Office copies of letters from the Hindoo lawyer employed by the Arnighad Zemindars, which showed how he had thrown up their case because they had no more money to give him beyond the 50 rupees which they gave to him at first. Since these Zemindars had been kept out of the High Court, the Secretary of State would only be doing justice if he ordered a new and independent inquiry, or if he sent the case before a High Court. With regard to the matter of the costs given against Mr. Laidman, which had been refunded to him by order of the Lieutenant Governor, since he had spoken of this in the House he had been informed by a retired Madras civilian that this had been done in accordance with a rule of the Service, and on further inquiry it appeared that this rule was not absolute, but the repayment of costs depended on the circumstances of the case and the discretion of the Government; and as it had been judicially established that bad language had been used in the Small Causes Court, Captain Hearsey, who had been the means of checking the use of such bad language, and who bad won the verdict, was equally, if not more, entitled to have his costs refunded to him. For unless the Laidmau-Hearsey trial was considered as a means adopted for arriving at the truth, and analogous to the offer recently made by Her Majesty's Government to the Parnellites to prosecute The Times, it must be looked 44 upon as a malicious prosecution; and he would then ask the Secretary of State to consider whether a rule should be maintained that encouraged litigation among members of the Civil Service at the public expense in lieu of independent inquiry by the Government? A Hindoo newspaper, The Reis and Bayyet of June 25, quoted The Pioneer as having stated that the Secretary of State had given orders for Captain Hearsey's costs to be returned to him; and he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) hoped the Secretary of State would be able either to confirm this, or to state whether such orders had been given by the Government of India. He would conclude by moving for the Resolution of Sir A. Lyall on the judgment of Sir W. Comer Petheram, whenever it was no longer sub judice. If the Secretary of State should refuse to lay this document on the Table of the House and negatived the Motion, it would be looked upon as an admission that the document would not bear the light, and was such as should not have been written by the Lieutenant Governor upon the judicial action of the Chief Justice of the nigh Court of the Province.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)
I have received no further communication from India on this subject since I last made a statement in answer to the noble Lord, nor am I able to inform him what steps, if any, the Viceroy has taken in the matter. As the noble Lord is aware, I have reason to know that Captain Hearsey has sent a Petition to the Government of India for transmission to me; but no such Petition has reached me. The measure, therefore, still rests with the Government of India. With regard to the Resolution of the Government of the North-West Provinces referred to by the noble Lord, such document as is described would necessarily; be of a confidential nature, and could not be produced without the consent of the Government of India.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
asked whether the noble Viscount would be able to give an answer next Session?

§ VISCOUNT CROSS
said, that that depended upon the Government of India.