THE MAHARAJAH OF PANNA. (Hansard, 26 May 1903)

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any objection to laying before Parliament the proceedings and the evidence on which it was determined to remove the Maharajah of Panna from the chiefship and rule of the principality of that name; and, if not, whether any statement can be made giving some indication of the nature of the procedure adopted and evidence taken. I will, in two or three sentences, shortly state the facts so far as they have been brought to my knowledge, which have induced me to place this Question on the Paper. Panna is a native state in Central India in the Bundelkhand Agency. Its territory is about 2,500 square miles and its population nearly 240,000. In 1898 the then Maharajah died and was succeeded by his son Mahendra Mahara Sing, who is the subject of this Question. He was then a young man of about twenty-seven, and apparently soon after that became attached to a young native woman about whom considerable difficulty arose, especially as to the question of whether she was a person with whom the Maharajah could contract a lawful marriage. This seems to have given a 1772 great deal of trouble, as these cases generally do, and in 1901 his uncle Rao Rajah Khuman Sing came to pay him a visit, apparently to deal with this question. At the palace of Raj Mandie Panna on June 24, 1901, he was suddenly taken ill and next day he died. Consequent on his death an inquiry took place by the political agent and other officers of the Indian Government there. Then two secret reports were sent by Capt. F. G. Beville to the Viceroy, who made an order that the Maharajah should be suspended, which order was enforced on September 13, 1901. On November 6 a Commission was appointed for inquiry and report. The Maharajah was represented by counsel at that inquiry and so had every opportunity of putting his case before them. The result of that inquiry and report was that five persons were charged with murder, of whom the Maharajah was not one, but the five persons so charged were ordered to be tried by the same two gentlemen who formed the Commission of Inquiry. The result of this trial was that on January 25, 1902, three of the suspects were acquitted and one was condemned to death and subsequently executed. The fifth man escaped and nothing more took place with regard to him, but the Commissioners further reported that the Maharajah was implicated. Consequently, by the order of the Viceroy, he was definitely removed from his Raj and banished to Bellary, in the Madras Presidency, where he now is. I do not enter on this question in an aggressive manner and do not wish to suggest that justice has not been done. I do not attempt to express an opinion as to whether the Commission were right or wrong in their report with regard to the Maharajah. My contention is this, that in a case where it is found necessary to deal in so strong a manner with a native prince it is desirable, and it is due to the native prince himself, that there should be no manner of doubt as to his guilt, and that there should be no secrecy at all with regard to it. In my own view the desirable thing would probably be that the evidence which caused the Commissioners to come to the conclusion which they did come, to should be made public and should be laid before Parliament. But I quite conceive there may be 1773 reasons for not doing so. I do not therefore press that, but I do think it is right that the Government of India should distinctly state the reasons which have induced them to take this summary step, and I think it is for the advantage of the good government of India that such a statement should be made.

§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKE
My Lords, the noble Lord, I think, made one mis-statement—inadvertently, I am sure—with regard to the proceedings, which perhaps I had better correct. He suggested that the Commission appointed by the Viceroy first of all had to enquire into the conduct of the Maharajah and afterwards tried the five persons charged.

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
I said they had to enquire into the whole of the circumstances of the case, and they reported that five people ought to be tried and it was then laid upon them to try them.

§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKE
The trial and the inquiry took place together. The five men and the Maharajah were tried at the same time, but the reference to the Commissioners was different as regards the Maharajah from that as regards the other prisoners. But what I was going to point out is that there is nothing special in the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Viceroy, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to try the Maharajah of Panna for being concerned in the murder of his uncle, Rao Raja Khuman Singh, that it would be undesirable to publish, but the Secretary of State for India has objection on general grounds to laying Papers, and I am therefore unable to assent to the first part of the question. I may mention that one very strong reason is that it would not be in the interests of the native State concerned that various details should be made public.
In the second part of his Question the noble Lord asks whether any statement can be made giving some indication of the nature of the procedure adopted and evidence taken. I am able to make a statement that I trust will satisfy the noble Lord that nothing irregular has taken place in connection with the pro-1774 ceedings brought about by the regrettable tragedy in question. The Government of India have kept the Secretary of State informed of everything that has transpired since suspicion attached to the Maharajah, and no step has been taken by the Government of India without the full concurrence of the Secretary of State for India. Raja Khuman Singh died suddenly on June 25, 1901. The deceased, on being taken ill, believed himself to have been poisoned, and wrote to this effect to the political agent and others living in the State. The political agent made an immediate enquiry, with the result that a plot to kill the Rao Raja was clearly shown to have existed, and also that there were grounds for thinking that his Highness the Maharajah was cognisant of the designs on his uncle's life. Thereupon an exhaustive police inquiry — that was the second inquiry—was instituted, which afterwards rendered necessary the trial of certain individuals on the capital charge. The Government of India decided, as "an act of State," to constitute by resolution, which was subsequently published in the Gazette of India for general information, a special Commission of two Judges to deal with the case, and they sanctioned a sum of 30,000 rupees for the expenses of the defence of the Maharajah. It having been imputed to the Maharajah that the Rao Raja was poisoned at his instigation, the Commissioners were instructed, while trying the other five prisoners, to report to the Viceroy how far in their opinion the imputation against the Maharajah was true.
The Court sat at Panna, and the procedure was similar to that in an Indian Criminal Court. The following charges were presented:—Against Shambhu Panda, that he committed murder by causing the death of Rao Raja Khuman Singh; and against Haidari Yan, alias Rani Kamal Kuar, Achche Lal, Lachmi Panhad, and Rasul Muhammad, that they engaged in a conspiracy to murder the Rao Raja, in pursuance of which he was murdered on or about June 25, 1901. Shambhu Panda was a cook employed in the Maharajah's kitchen. He absconded, and has not been brought to trial. It is believed that he actually administered the poison. Haidari Yan was the lady to whom the noble Lord referred, and she was acquitted, there being no evidence 1775 against her, as was also Rasul Muhammad, the companion and friend of the Maharajah, who was acquitted on the same grounds. Lachmi Panhad was head of the Maharajah's kitchen. There was evidence against him, but it was not very conclusive, and he was given the benefit of the doubt. Achche Lal was secretary to the Maharajah, and the Commission found it impossible to explain the facts proved against him, except upon the hypothesis of his being guilty. The Commissioners found no extenuating circumstances in his case, and therefore sentenced him to be hanged. The sentence was duly carried out. With regard to the Maharajah, the evidence showed that the Rao Raja at his dinner complained of the taste of the meat, and within a very short time became giddy, and was obviously seriously ill. Symptoms of the illness were observed by various witnesses, which undoubtedly went to show that the cause of death was poisoning. I may mention that at the time of the incident the Rao Raja was by special invitation staying with the Maharajah in one of his royal palaces.
The course of the proceedings covered the actions and conduct of the Maharajah, both prior to and after the date of the murder. The Commissioners found that he had a motive—a very distinct motive—for getting rid of the Rao Raja, that his conduct at the time that the murder took place, and subsequently in the course of the police investigation, was inconsistent with any other hypothesis than that he was a member of the conspiracy.
The Report of the Commission was submitted to the Government of India who considered it and also a lengthy memorial from the counsel who represented the Maharajah, and they came to the conclusion that the Commission had arrived at a right judgment. The Viceroy therefore proposed to hold that the Maharajah had forfeited his right to the Panna State, that he must be deposed, that he should be interned under surveillance on a fixed allowance, and that steps should be taken to select his successor. The recommendations of the Viceroy with the proceedings of the Commission were then sent home to the Secretary of State, who, after careful and full consideration, approved of the decision of the Viceroy. I may add that 1776 subsequently the Government of India recommended that the eldest son of the deceased Rao Raja should be selected to succeed the deposed Maharajah, and their choice was approved by the Secretary of State and effect given to it. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that the course which has been adopted has been in every way justified.

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
I must be satisfied with the statement of the noble Earl. My point is rather this—Is it not an extraordinary thing that the Commission should not have caused the Maharajah to be tried? The Commission reported that five people were to be tried for this murder.

§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKE
There was first of all the inquiry by the political agent, which showed a prima facie case that a plot had existed. A searching inquiry was instituted, and that inquiry reported. Then the Government of India appointed two Commissioners to try five persons, and at the same time to report to them as to whether the imputation that had been made against the Maharajah was true or not. The Maharajah was therefore on his trial at the same time as the five other prisoners. He was represented by counsel, and the only difference as regards his treatment and that of the other prisoners was that his name was not included in the judgment, but the Commissioners wrote a report to the Viceroy as to the part they considered he had played in the conspiracy.

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
My point is this—You have an inquiry into the circumstances of a certain case. As a result of that inquiry five persons are charged with and tried for murder; a sixth person is supposed to be implicated, but he is not put on his trial with the five persons charged with murder.

§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKE
To all intents and purposes he was on his trial.

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
If the noble Earl says he was on his trial that alters the whole situation. But surely if the Maharajah is implicated in 1777 a grave murder case of this sort, he ought to be dealt with in a more severe manner than he has been. The course taken may have been a perfectly just one, but I think that the guilt of the sixth person should be established to the satisfaction of the general public both in this country and in India.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)
My Lords, I understand that the procedure adopted was procedure of a kind which should satisfy public opinion both in this country and in India that justice has been done to the deposed Maharajah. I listened attentively to my noble friend's account of the series of events which led to the deposition of the Maharajah. There was, in the first place, the death under very suspicious circumstances of the Maharajah's uncle. Then a police investigation took place which reported the discovery of a plot in which a number of persons were implicated, and upon that the Government of India sent down two Judges to try the case. During the trial the Maharajah was represented by counsel, and had therefore an opportunity of making himself heard. The result of that was, I understand, that the Commission made a report which satisfied the Government of India that the Maharajah was in fact implicated in the murder. There upon the Government of India determined to remove him from his Raj. The whole of the proceedings were examined, first in India by the Viceroy in Council, and then in this country by the Secretary of State in Council, and both these distinguished bodies supported the decision of the Government of India. As for publicity, I hold in my hand an extract from a Resolution of the Government of India in the Foreign Department dated 6th November, 1901, setting forth the facts my noble friend described, and I am told by my noble friend that this Resolution was actually published in the Gazette of India, and therefore the condition to which the noble Lord rightly attaches so much importance seems to have been fulfilled.