LORD WYNFORDMy Lords, I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will, in the absence of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, be able to answer the Question which stands in my name on the Paper—namely, whether it is a fact that on April 1 last, in the High Court at Calcutta, before the Chief Justice, 18 men who pleaded guilty to the charges of being members of a gang of dacoits, and of having committed a series of dacolties in the district of Khulna, were released on the suggestion of the Advocate-General, acting under instructions from the Government, and suffered no further penalty than being bound over to keep the peace; and, if so, what were the reasons for this decision, which has caused profound uneasiness in Bengal.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN)My Lords, the subject which the noble Lord has raised is one of some importance and interest. The facts are that on December 10, 1910, sixteen men were I committed by a magistrate in the Khulna I district in Bengal to take their trial before a special tribunal of the Calcutta High Court, under Section 400 of the Penal Code, on a charge of belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually o committing dacoity. The case was one of great complexity; the evidence was extremely voluminous, the proceedings in the lower Court, in which the parties were not represented by counsel, lasting nearly a month. Two hundred and forty-eight witnesses were examined, and a large number of documents were also examined. They were put in to prove the connection of the accused with six dacoities committed I in the district of Khulna and Jessore and I their association for the purpose of carrying out these dacoities at four places in the district, and at more than eleven places in the City of Calcutta.
When these transactions took place I was acting Secretary of State, and therefore I am not dependent merely upon informa- 546 tion supplied for the purpose of answering the noble Lord's Question. After the committal of these 16 men, two others who had absconded were arrested and also committed. The High Court thus had before them 18 persons against whom 268 witnesses were to be brought up by the prosecution, while there was every probability of an equal number being called for the defence. Recent experience has shown that trials of this kind before a special tribunal, set up, as the noble Lord may know, by a special law, are apt to last several months, and there was a prospect of this trial continuing during the whole of the summer—a state of things that would have created a very bad impression throughout, the country, where, as anybody may imagine, these trials produce constant and prolonged irritation. The result, moreover, would in any case have been uncertain, as the evidence of many of the witnesses had been given in the lower Court with extreme reluctance, and the issue depended to a large extent on the testimony of approvers, which is always of very doubtful value. When the case came before the High Court a nolle prosequi was entered by the Advocate-General in regard to one of the accused, who was thus acquitted, and the remaining seventeen pleaded "Guilty" Thereupon the Advocate-General, acting on the instructions of the Government, submitted to the Court that as the accused had been in custody for eight months, and had practically admitted their guilt, their release might be ordered as an act of clemency on the part of the Crown, on the condition that the accused would enter into recognizances to appear to receive sentence when called upon—not merely, as I think the noble Lord's Question rather suggests, to keep the peace, but to come up for sentence when called upon. The youths who were thus provisionally released left the Court shouting "Long live the King Emperor," and on their return to their villages they were sent for with their friends and relations by an eminent Hindu gentleman, who gave them a severe lecture on loyalty and the necessity of turning over a new leaf, and it is believed that the people of their district will keep an eye on them and that the end of this transaction will be all that could be desired.
I can only say, further, that in a case of a similar kind, that of the Howrah gang, 547 which was heard a little time before—I mention this because the noble Lord may not be aware of it—I was in constant correspondence with the Viceroy during the whole of that transaction, and I am in. strong agreement with him; and the complete failure of the Howrah gang ease is ample justification for the action taken in regard to the Khulna gang case. That is to say, there was a large number of prisoners, and all except a few—two or three, I think—were eventually acquitted by the High Court. The trial was long, there was great publicity and a good deal of irritation, but really there was no substantial advantage gained, and no case for punishment was believed to have been made out in the case of the majority of the accused. I hope that the noble Lord will believe that the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, examined all these particulars himself, in concert with the Government of Bengal, and so far as I can understand it, at the time following the matter very carefully, the proceedings were thoroughly justified.
LORD WYNFORDI trust that I shall not be out of order in referring to the answer of the noble Viscount, and in asking for information on one further point. I had hoped that it would have been brought out in the reply. From what I have gathered and also from the answer just given by the noble Viscount, I am inclined to think that there was some sort of pre-arranged agreement—I might almost call it collusion—between the Executive and the Chief Justice previous to the prisoners pleading "Guilty." What I should like to ask the noble Viscount is whether he can assure me that in this case there was no such pre-arranged agreement; that there was no agreement that these prisoners should be released on condition that they pleaded guilty, because if there was such an agreement it surely forms a very dangerous precedent in the administration of the law.
§ VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI understand that a very eminent and entirely unsuspected lawyer did make a communication to these men. The whole of the transaction, including that, was entirely approved when it transpired, not only by the Viceroy himself but by the whole of his Council. That ought, I think, to convince the noble Lord that there 548 was nothing very sinister or perilous by way of precedent in what took place.
LORD WYNFORDSurely it is very irregular for this sort of arrangement to be made before the trial actually took place. As I understand—and the noble Viscount has not contradicted me—there was some arrangement whereby these prisoners were actually promised release provided they pleaded guilty. May I ask the noble Viscount whether that was the case?
§ VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNIf the noble Lord is not satisfied with what I have said I think he had better put another Question on the Paper. This seems to me to be out of order.