§ MR. VANSITTART, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India the Question of which he had given notice, relative to the Mysore grant, said he would not detain the House by entering into the particulars of this important subject, because, in the absence of the despatches and documents connected with it, his information must necessarily be imperfect. He would therefore merely observe that, on the tidings of this extraordinary disbursement to the descendants of the Mysore family reaching Calcutta, so intense was the feeling of indignation which pervaded the Indian community that it not only immediately 209 formed the subject of a spirited debate in the Calcutta Legislative Council, but gave occasion to a most numerous meeting in that city on the 20th of December last, which was attended by all classes—civilians, planters, merchants, and Natives. At this meeting the conduct of the right hon. Baronet was unanimously condemned. The Resolutions adopted by that meeting alleged that Gholam Mahommed had no claim whatever to the grant, legal, equitable, or moral; that the subject was carefully investigated in 1855 by the late Earl of Dalhousie, who pronounced Gholam Mahommed's claim to be utterly untenable; and that even admitting that individual members of the Mysore family possessed certain rights under the Treaty of 1799, those rights were forfeited by the share they took in the Vellore mutiny in 1806; that if, in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet, a necessity existed to inquire into the claim, he was bound to refer it to the consideration of the Calcutta Legislative Council; that a Legislative Council which was called upon to impose taxes, but which was not allowed a voice as to the manner in which those taxes should be applied, was an anomaly and worse than useless; and that so long as that House withheld that Imperial guarantee to the entire Indian debt to which that empire was entitled by having been fully incorporated with the rest of the British dominions, the Indian Secretary at home was not legally justified in interfering with and disposing of her resources at his will and pleasure. It was true that, by his own countrymen, the right hon. Baronet was not charged with aught but carelessness; but it was far different with the Native population, for they, with that intuitive suspicion of character for which they are so remarkable, regarded his recent act as reprehensible and unaccountable. For his own part he confessed he was surprised that the right hon. Baronet had selected such a moment for making this grant, because he was fully aware that so recently as the 19th of November last the Governor General published a financial statement for 1860–61, in which Lord Canning said:—
Although he has made every possible effort to effect a reduction of the public expenditure, although he has deferred not only necessary and public works of all kinds, but works calculated directly to improve the revenue, to the execution of which Government is more or less pledged, and on some of which large sums have been expended, are suspended to such an extent that an outlay of 210 no less than eight millions sterling would be required to complete them; and although he has made an appeal to all his subordinates to cut down their departmental estimates to the lowest possible figure, yet the deficit for 1860–61 exceeds six millions sterling, being equal to more than 16 percent on the total expected income from all sources.It should be borne in mind that this estimate included one million sterling derivable from an income-tax which had been wrung from the people amid great discontent—so much so that had not Sir Bartle Frere taken upon himself the responsibility of modifying the severity and the incomprehensible nature of the original forms and returns, transferring at the same time the equally expensive machinery of collection to the ordinary revenue machinery of the country—namely, the covenanted Civil Service, and had Messrs. Ravenscroft and Hunter, of the Bombay Civil Service, displayed less judgment, less energy, and less determination, that discontent would inevitably have terminated in bloodshed. Under those circumstances he was anxious to afford the right hon. Baronet an early opportunity of stating, in the terms of his Question,—Whether it is true, as set forth in the fourth paragraph of a Petition numerously signed by the Inhabitants of Calcutta, at a meeting held in that City on the 20th of December last, that the Grant to the Mysore Family has been made by him against the protest of the Indian Government, against the recorded decision of the late Governor General of India, the Marquis of Dalhousie, in Council, and against the representations of the Financial Minister appointed by the Crown, the late right hon. James Wilson, and of the Viceroy and Governor General the Earl Canning; and whether he has any objections to produce Copies of all Papers connected with the aforesaid Grant, and of all Despatches from the Secretary of State for India to the Earl Canning ordering payment of £520,000 to and for the Mysore Family; and Copies of the Minutes of the Members of the Indian Council thereon.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODIt may be a question whether I ought not to have referred the matter which has been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman to the Government of India; but there were circumstances connected with what had taken place in former years which induced me, with the concurrence of the Council, to take it in hand, and to attempt to make a final settlement of it. I do not think it would be expedient on the present occasion to go into the question of the Indian finances or the powers of the Legislative Council, I shall confine myself as nearly as possible to a simple account of the facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman 211 has referred to Resolutions which, he says, represent the views of certain gentlemen at Calcutta, to the effect that the families of Hyder Ali and Tippoo Sultan have no claim, legal or moral, to an allowance from the British Government; he has also referred to what took place at Vellore. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me to state from the beginning the circumstances under which this claim arose. When Tippoo Sultan was killed, Lord Wellesley determined not to reinstate his family on the throne of Mysore, but to substitute the descendants of the old Rajah. A treaty was made with the Nizam, who had been our partner in the war, for dividing equally between them these territories which they had determined to take away from the Rajahship of Mysore. The Governor General undertook the custody and maintenance of the family of Hyder Ali and Tippoo Sultan, and in order to enable him to do that a territory producing in round numbers £70,000 a-year was assigned to the Government of India, over and above their half of the conquered territory. The engagement into which they entered was—
To provide effectually for the suitable maintenance of the whole of the families of the late Hyder Ali Khan and of the late Tippoo Sultan, and to apply to this purpose, with the reservation hereinafter stated, an annual sum of not less than two lacs of star pagodas, that is about £70,000.The spirit in which this arrangement was regarded by those who were most cognizant of the circumstances, and had most to do with the matter at the time, will be shown by two short extracts which I will read, one from a letter from Lord Wellesley, and the other from a letter of the Duke of Wellington. Lord Wellesley wrote to the Court of Directors:—I determined at the same time to grant to the families of Hyder Ali Khan and Tippoo Sultan a more magnificent maintenance than either had enjoyed during the late reign.It has been contended by some persons that it was incumbent on the Government to allot for the maintenance of these families the whole of the revenue of the ceded territory—that is to say, £70,000, and it is quite clear that the Duke of Wellington entertained some such idea. The sum allotted to them was nothing like that, and the Duke of Wellington writes to his brother:—The family don't now spend more than half the sum allotted to them by treaty, and there surely can be no grounds for this shameful breach of faith with persons in our power.212 I do not at all concur in that view. I only quote it to show that the Duke of Wellington, who had a large part in these transactions, and was cognizant of all that took place, did entertain a view which might justify the supposition that at that time at least they were entitled to the produce of the whole of the ceded territory. They received, in fact, much less. Up to 1806 the savings amounted to £87,000. The Government of India had engaged to apply to the purposes of their maintenance the produce of those territories, subject to two reservations—one, that the Government should have the right of making a reduction in the stipend on the decease of some members of the family; the other was that if the family were guilty of disloyalty to the Government of India, or attacked the territory of the Rajah of Mysore, the stipend might be withdrawn altogether. In 1806 occurred the mutiny of Vellore, a mutiny of the Native troops, arising from circumstances totally unconnected with political motives; but the troops availed themselves of the presence of one of the sons of Tippoo Sultan, took him from the barracks, and placed him at their head. That is the foundation of the assertion referred to by the hon. Gentleman that the family had been guilty of mutiny, and had thereby forfeited all claims on the Government of India. The circumstances were inquired into at the time by the then Governor General, Lord Minto, and he recorded his deliberate opinion that they did not affect the claims of the family to a liberal maintenance from the British Government. Lord Minto said—"It still becomes us to show as much generosity towards these families as is consistent with public security under present circumstances." The public security was the only limit which he considered could be put on their claim to a generous treatment, and that security was taken by removing them to Russapuglah, near Calcutta, At this place they have lived ever since, shut up by themselves, and intermarrying among themselves, and every Gentleman who is aware of the mode in which Mahomedan families live shut up in this way, and intermarrying among themselves, will not be surprised to learn that the social and moral state there is not one which it is desirable to perpetuate. The produce of the territories allotted for the maintenance of the families was, from the time of the treaty, kept entirely apart from the general revenue in a separate fund, 213 which was called the Mysore Deposit Fund; and the sums spent upon the family were so much Less than the produce of the territory, that in 1855, when the money was merged into the general receipts of India, there had accumulated from the savings in that respect no less a sum than £600,000. In 1852, Prince Gliolam Mahommed addressed a memorial to the Court of Directors claiming that the whole sum of £70,000 a year should be spent on the families, and that the £600,000 which had accumulated up to that time should also be paid over to them. The Court of Directors very properly refused to admit that claim, saying that the family had no claim either to one or the other, but that that to which they were entitled was a fair, suitable, and liberal maintenance. Gholam Mahommed came over to this country in 1854, and was here for some time. The Home Government gave directions then, as now, on the subject. They decided at that time that an addition should be made to his allowance, and to that of certain other members of the family, and these directions were transmitted to Lord Dalhousie. It is perfectly true that Lord Dalhousie did not think there was any such claim. Sir Barnes Peacocke, also, who has borne a prominent part on the present occasion, recorded his opinion that, inasmuch as these persons were no parties to the Treaty of Mysore, they had no legal claim under that treaty. Lord Dalhousie thought it exceedingly desirable to put an end to their state of dependance on the State, and proposed that after the fourth generation their allowances should cease altogether. So far as the legal claim of the parties under the treaty goes, no doubt, they have no claim at all. But that does not seem to me in the slightest degree to impair the equitable and moral claim of these persons, who are the descendants of those whom we dispossessed of their territories, to that which was provided for them in the treaty, and to which Lord Minto and every other Governor General considered them entitled. The next question was, whether it was possible to discontinue these payments at any time; and on this point the Home Government took a more just and equitable view, and they stated that they could not consent to these people being turned out loose on the streets destitute of all means of subsistence, and that such a course would be utterly unjust and incompatible with all sound notions of the 214 policy which ought to be pursued towards the descendants of deposed Princes. They asserted that in their view they were entitled to fair and liberal consideration, and they entirely declined to adopt the views of Lord Dalhousie, which, I think, were most impolitic, harsh, and unjust. So matters stood until 1858, when my noble Friend (Lord Stanley) became President of the India Board. Gholam Mahommed then addressed a letter to him, and came over to this country again. He arrived a short time before I became Secretary of State. There was another similar question pending at the same time, and a Committee was appointed to consider both cases. A good deal of communication took place with Prince Gholam Mahommed, into which it is not necessary that I should enter, and the result was the arrangement which has been made. I should perhaps have said that during the whole of the time both the Government of India and the Government at home felt the importance of putting an end to the existing state of things, which was extremely detrimental both to the Mysore family and the Government. The arrangement first contemplated was, that the Princes should qualify themselves for public employment; but they clung to the position of pensioner Princes, they were content to remain so; and with their habits of ease and idleness, it was felt even by those who originated the idea, that such an arrangement was totally out of the question. The only other mode of placing them in a state independent of the Government was to put them in possession of some permanent income, merely so that they should not exist on eleemosynary aid. Whenever any member of the family died the circumstances of the family had to be considered, and every succeeding death necessitated a new allotment. The Court of Directors in 1854 expressed their opinion that, however desirable a permanent arrangement was, the full assent of the members of the family to any such scheme was an essential condition, and that it should be framed in communication and concert with the leading members of it. Prince Gholam Mahommed is the head of the family—he is the only surviving son of Tippoo Sultan—and in his communications with me last year, he represented himself as authorized to speak for the whole family, and to concur for himself and them in an arrangement for a permanent provision. Communications took place with Prince 215 Gholam. The first proposal was that a certain sum should be capitalized. He requested some modifications, which I will not go into in detail. I will state the ultimate arrangement which was made. Last summer there were twenty-two grandsons having families, and thirteen great grandsons having families. There were also stipends to a considerable amount to other members of the family—widows, daughters, servants, and pensioners. The whole expense of Russapuglah was about £54,000 a year. The arrangement which was made was this—not that a large sum of money should be given, as has been represented, but that an amount of stock should be created, the interest of which should be disbursed to existing incumbents during their lives in lieu of a portion of their stipends, and should form a perpetual endowment for the family. The interest of it would be £17,160 a year, which will be the ultimate income. I should add that the capital sum is vested in the names of family trustees, and that it is not in the power of any member of the family to beggar himself by spending the whole provision at once. The annual sum is secured, and without the consent of the trustees no portion of the capital can be touched. In addition the Government have agreed to a temporary increase in the allowances. Gholam Mahommed represented to me that some members of the family were unable to maintain themselves in a condition of decent respectability. He asked nothing for himself, but urged their claims, and I agreed to increase the annual stipends by a little more than £12,000 a year, to be continued during the lives of certain members of the family, many of whom are of advanced age, and two of whom have, indeed, died since last summer. That increase will, therefore, all cease in the course of a very few years. Then came the question of the removal of the family from Russapuglah. They could not move without some money. I agreed to give £40,000 to pay their debts, and about £40,000 more to purchase houses and residences elsewhere. The first sum was to clear them from debt, and the second to induce them to remove. That is, in point of fact, the whole of the arrangement. The sum granted to them of £83,000 is less than the saving made before either of the events occurred on which a reduction of allowance was to be made, and even if he had purchased the stock for the endowment, the whole might 216 have been done out of the savings of which we have reaped the benefit. I cannot find a word, short of expressing the legal claim of the parties, to designate, as strongly as I feel it, the moral obligation of the British Government to provide in a fair and liberal manner for these persons; and when we remember that £17,000 is to be divided among more than thirty-five families, I cannot say I think it extravagant. I am very sorry I should have had to make this arrangement at a time when the financial state of India is not as good as we could wish; but when Prince Gholam was here competent to act, and when the consent of the families was essential, I think I should not have acted wisely if I had not availed myself of the favourable circumstances to put an end to all claims—to release them from a state of dependence, and to extricate the Government from a very disagreeable position. I believe, moreover, that these persons will now have an inducement to occupy a position in the State which they never would have as long as they were stipendiaries, and that a very large prospective liability has been commuted at a not very extravagant cost.