§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement of the Calcutta correspondent of the Times, that the Mamlutdars, who testified on oath that they bad purchased their offices or promotion by bribery, "are still retained in office on full pay, and allowed to exercise jurisdiction in civil suits," (1) whether Balkrishna Govind Sindekar, regarding whom the Crawford Commissioners (page 24) report "that he was, on his own showing, no victim of extortion, but a willing party to a corrupt bargain," still retains office on full pay, and exercises jurisdiction in civil suits;. (2) whether Balvant Narayan Dabir, regarding whom the Crawford Commissioners (page 30) report "that he shows himself in no sense the victim of extortion or oppression, but a man who conceived the idea of offering a bribe for that to which he had no special claims," still retains office on full pay, and exercises jurisdiction in civil suits; (3) whether Daji Ballai Paranjpe, concerning whom the Crawford Commissioners (page 56) report "that, according to his own showing, he was not in any sense a victim of extortion, but a willing party to a corrupt bargain," still retains office on full pay, and exercises jurisdiction in civil suits; (4) whether Ramchandra Krishna Vinze, concerning whom the Crawford Commissioners (page 70) report "that he is a man who confesses to having come to volunteer a 'bribe,'" still retains office on full pay, and exercises jurisdiction in civil suits; and (5) if he would name the "three officers," stated to have been dismissed from Government employment."
§ * THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,) Chatham
Sindekar has been retained in office by the Government of Bombay because they are of the opinion that, taking all the facts into consideration, he ought not to be called corrupt, but was a victim to oppression and extortion. (2) Dabir retains his office of Karkan. He has not, and has never had, jurisdiction in civil suits. (3) Paranjpe retains his office, but has no jurisdiction in civil suits. (4) Vinze has reverted from his 1673 position of Acting Mamlutdar to his original office of Chitris. He has no jurisdiction in civil suits. (5) The officers are Rao Saheb Binder Gopal; Narayan Shrinivras; Vinayakrao Rangrath Purhandharé.
§ DR. CAMERON
Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House if it is true, as stated in the Calcutta correspondence of the Times of the 24th ultimo, and repeated in the Calcutta telegram in the Times of the 1st instant, that the High Court of Judicature of Bombay has pronounced a Judgment affirming that the corrupt Mamlutdars and Magistrates are, by the operation of 49 Geo. 3, c. 126, "disabled persons in law to all intents and purposes to have, occupy, or enjoy the office or offices" for which they have paid bribes?
§ * SIR J. GORST
There has not yet been sufficient time for the arrival in this country of the Judgment referred to in the question; and the Secretary of State cannot express any opinion upon it until he has seen it.