§ LORD WYNFORD rose to ask the Secretary of State for India with regard to the trial in the High Court at Calcutta on 1st April last of the 17 prisoners in the Khulna dacoity case—
- 1. Whether any restitution of the property extorted or stolen by these men has been made, or compensation in lieu thereof paid, to the various owners; and
- 2. Whether previous to or during the trial any communications were made to the prisoners or their legal advisers to lead them to understand that if the prisoners pleaded guilty they would be released on their own recognisances; and, if so, by whom and on whose authority such a procedure was adopted.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, a fortnight ago the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in the absence of the Secretary of State for India, very kindly answered a Question which I had put on the Paper with regard to the trial, in what was known as the Khulna dacoity case, of seventeen men before a special tribunal of the High Court of Calcutta on April 1. May I remind your Lordships that the prisoners pleaded "Guilty," and were somewhat unexpectedly released on their own recognisances to come up 786 for sentence if called upon. The noble Viscount explained how very desirable it was in this and similar cases to avoid delay and prevent the trial being dragged out, and in that respect I am sure your Lordships will be in agreement with the noble Viscount. He further stated that the procedure had the approval of the Viceroy, with whom he was in perfect agreement. But there are two matters in connection with the trial which I think require further explanation.
§ I may state for your Lordships' information—I hope the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—that these prisoners did not all come from the lowest classes. Several of them were superior, well-educated, and of considerable social influence and position in their neighbourhood. They had for some time formed themselves into a gang and been making depredations on private property accompanied with the use of firearms, and, in some instances, considerable violence to the unfortunate individuals, their own countrymen, who were deprived of their property. The noble Viscount told your Lordships the other day that on hearing of the clemency extended to them these prisoners left the Court with many expressions of gratitude and joy and returned to their villages; but we did not hear that those whose property had been stolen by these men expressed the same symptoms of gratification, and so far as I have been able to learn not one single word has been said about the restitution to the rightful owners of such property as could be traced or found.
§ The other matter which I think requires further explanation forms the subject of the second portion of the Question which I have put on the Paper to-night. The noble Viscount, in reply to my Question the week before last, told the House that a very eminent and entirely unsuspected lawyer did make a communication to these men previous to the trial, but it is difficult to understand—in fact, to me it seems extraordinary—why these prisoners should have consented to renounce their defence on a suggestion which I rather gathered the noble Viscount implied was of an entirely unofficial character. That the course to be adopted at the trial was known before the prisoners were brought into Court is evident, because I 787 am given to understand that the bail bonds were all ready and had been made out beforehand. In these circumstances I hope the noble Viscount will see some reason in my asking a further Question on this matter.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY)My Lords, I do not at all complain that the noble Lord should ask for further information. The answer to the first part of the Question by the Government of India is that the only property restored by the guilty persons was a small quantity of melted-down silver, which was, I understand, all that was recovered. I am not aware, and I say this on the authority of the Government of India, that compensation has been paid to the victims of these robberies. As to the second part of the Question, action was taken by the Government of India with a view to bringing about a conclusion of the proceedings. The intention of the Government was conveyed, as the noble Lord has reminded the House, by a very eminent and unsuspected counsel. There is no secret about it; he was Mr. Sinha, who was thought so well of that it was ray duty to recommend him to His Majesty to be made a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council. He was the first Indian Member of that Council, and was a great success I may observe in passing. It was Mr. Sinha who made the communication to these persons, and I think the noble Lord will agree that the view of the Government of India was a very sensible one. There have been two or three trials of dacoity cases spreading over enormous lengths of time, hundreds of witnesses have been examined, and in a quite recent case, the name of which escapes me at the moment, there was a complete breakdown in the end. You cannot wonder, therefore, that the Government of India—and this is the whole Government, not the Viceroy alone but the Viceroy in Council—sought some means, without injuring justice, to avoid proceedings so prolonged and so inadvisable from many points of view. It was in accordance with their authorisation that Mr. Sinha made this communication to one or more of these men, with results which I believe are held by the Government of India to be entirely satisfactory and to have justified the course they took.