HC Deb 10 August 1905 vol 151 cc946-7
MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will now state what was the constitution of the tribunal which tried His Highness Maharaja Madho Sing, former Chief of the Ballaraj and surrounding districts in Central India; what was their decision; who is now ruling this territory; and whether any compensation, and, if so, how much, has been paid to this chief.

*MR. BRODRICK

The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the truth of the imputation against the ex-Chief of Panna of having instigated persons to poison his uncle were Mr. Chamier, 2nd additional Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, and Mr. Tucker, of the Indian Civil Service, a Resident of the 2nd class in the Political Department of the Government of India. The Resolution appointing these gentlemen was published in the Gazette of India of November 16th, 1901. The finding of the Commission and the decision of the Government of India, thereon to depose the chief, as I informed the hon. Member on July 13th,† were stated in a Resolution of April 21st, 1902, published in the Gazette of India. The ex-cbief had no son and was succeeded by Jadvendra Singh, the' nearest heir to the Gadi in the ordinary course of succession. He is a minor, now in his twelth year. The administration of the State during the minority has been vested in a Dewan assisted by a Consultative Council under the general supervision of the Political Agent. No compensation has been paid to the exchief, who has been interned and receives a sufficient allowance.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

Is not this an illustration of the evil of having too many members of one family in a Government?

MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

Was this man deposed and his estates confiscated without his having an opportunity … See (4) Debates, cxlix., 550. of replying to the charges brought against him?

*MR. BRODRICK

The investigation was a very full one, and I do not think this House can sit in judgment on the action of the Government of India, which has made the most careful inquiry.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Had this gentleman a right to appeal to the Privy Council in the same way as he would have had had it been a question of succession to property?

*MR. BRODRICK

I am not aware. But this was practically a criminal case, and it is obvious that the proper authority to deal with it is the Government of India.

MR. T. M. HEALY

My Question refers to the confiscation of his property.

*MR. BRODRICK

I should like notice of that.

MR. MACVEAGH

Had the man an opportunity of being heard in his own defence?

*MR. BRODRICK

He had the usual opportunities.

MR. MACVEAGH

That is not an Answer to my Question. I will put it again six months hence.