§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that, in 1837, Maharaja Amrit Rao, of Kirwi, placed two lakhs of rupees in the hands of the Government of India, that the interest might be paid in perpetuity to certain temples he had built in Benares; and that his successor, Venayak Rao, deposited with the Government the further sum of three lakhs of rupees for a like object, stating in his will—
My desire is that even the English Government should not make use of a single farthing (cowrie) of the five lakhs of rupees which I have devoted solely to the Temple and Chatra of Benares;(2) whether his attention has bean called to the fact that, in 1855, without any reason assigned, the Government, having undertaken the administration of the estate and will of Venayak Rao, the payment on the three lakhs was stopped; that, in 1857, Notes, Nos. 74 and 75, for the three lakhs of rupees were forcibly taken from the temple by an order of the Judge of Benares; and, in January and February, 1858, the sacred vessels, jewels, and furniture of the temples, to the value of Rs. 40,765, were seized, and other property, amounting to Rs. 100,000, taken, on account of the alleged treason of Madhava Rao, a child nine years of age; (3) whether the Government is aware that the property in question was never part of the Madhava Rao's estate; (4) whether Mr. F. O. Mayne, Special Commissioner, in his Report, dated 8th September, 1858, absolved Madhava Rao from all blame of participation in the mutinous proceedings of 1857; and,(5)whether the Government will make inquiries into the facts, as alleged, giving the Trustees of the Temple the opportunity of being heard in support of their claim?
* THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST, Chatham)As to (1), (2), and (3), the Secretary of State has no information upon the facts alleged, nor can he discover, after very careful search into the archives of the India Office, that any 263 representations have ever been made to any of his predecessors on the subject. (4.) Mr. Mayne did not absolve Madhava Rao (who was 13, not nine years of age) from, all blame. He found him guilty of treason, but acquitted him of any fixed criminal purpose. (5.) The Secretary of State wishes me to remind the hon. Member that there are Civil Courts in India to which the Trustees of the Temple might, at any time during the last 30 years, have appealed against any wrong done by the Executive Government. The Government do not propose to make any further inquiry into the matter.