§ Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India for what reasons the Government of India have recently suggested to the Local Governments that persons sentenced to rigorous imprisonment under Act XIV of 1908, or under the Seditious Meetings Act, should receive differential treatment in gaol in the matter of diet, clothing, labour, etc.; and will 976W he take steps to see that those who incite to revolution receive the same treatment in gaol as those convicted of actual revolution?
§ Earl WINTERTONThe whole question has been under discussion with the Government of India. The general principle underlying the distinctions made is that while a person who deliberately incites to violent crime deserves no lees severe treatment than the person who actually commits such crime, there is a large class of cases in which a man who, presumably from honest motives, expresses political views the public expression of which is an offence under the law, should not be subjected to humiliating treatment or classed with criminals whose offences show moral obliquity.