§ 9 and 10. Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for India (1) why, in deciding upon the nature of the present inquiry into allegations of maladministration in the state of Patiala, the Government of India did not conform to the procedure recommended in paragraph 309 of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report which deals with the question of inquiries into the administration of native states;
(2) why the inquiry into the allegations of maladministration in the State of Patiala is being held in camera?
§ 17. Mr. BROCKWAYasked the Secretary of State for India whether it has been decided to hold an inquiry regarding the charges made against the Maharajah of Patiala?
§ Mr. BENNThe Government of India have not assumed that the allegations in question bring this case within 1582 the definition of the class of cases for which the recommendation of paragraph 309 of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report was intended to provide. The inquiry decided upon was with the object of testing the allegations, and it was considered to be generally desirable that such an inquiry should be held in camera. As I have previously stated, I am in entire agreement with the course of action which the Government of India have adopted.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYBy whom is this inquiry to be made?
§ Mr. BROCKWAYDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that the agent actually in the State concerned is the most suitable person for making an impartial investigation?
§ Mr. MARLEYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement that has been made that under Article 7 of the Treaty with Patiala, it is not possible for the paramount Power to appoint the tribunal, but only to suggest?
§ Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that these matters have been investigated by a competent judicial authority years ago and dismissed; and is he also aware of the doubtful character of some of the persons making these allegations?