MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 04 July 1871 vol 207 cc1139-63

MR. HAVILAND-BURKE

, in rising to move— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into all Treaties and Agreements entered into between the East India Company, or any person on their behalf, with the Nawab Nazim of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, or his predecessors, and to ascertain whether such Treaties and Agreements have been faithfully observed by the said Company and by the Indian Government, and to what claims, if any, the present Nawab Nazim and his family may be entitled under and by virtue of such Treaties and Agreements, said, if this matter had resolved itself into a mere question of money, he should have been extremely unwilling to draw the attention of the House to it; but as it involved a much higher question—namely, the rights and position of the Nawab and the good faith of this Empire, he felt no hesitation in asking the House to give him the Select Committee. He was not seeking, as had been alleged, to take several millions out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, for the latter was not concerned in the matter at all, the subject relating solely to the Indian Government, who had obtained possession of the lands which formerly belonged to the Nawab Nazim under certain treaties which he was about to show had not been kept by it, and by means of which they had replenished an exhausted exchequer. The Nawab had thus had the misfortune of seeing his territories exhausted in order that a policy of annexation, with its useless and wicked wars, might be carried out. It might be alleged, in opposition to his Motion, that the Nawab Nazim was the descendant of a creature of our bounty, who had been a mere puppet of British power: but this was not the fact. The Nawab Nazim was an hereditary Prince, and his ancestors were, if not absolutely independent, at all events entirely independent of the English Government. The principle of arbitration might be applied to this case, the same as had been adopted between England and the United States. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to give a history of the connection of the Nazim with the East India Company. When in 1756 the Soubhadar or Nawab of Bengal (Surajee Dowlah) attacked Calcutta, and perpetrated all the horrors of "the Black Hole," Meer Jaffier occupied the important post of Nizam, or Superintendent of the Finances. In consequence of these dreadful events, and because the Nabob had entered into alliance with the French for the purpose of driving the English out of India, Clive, who then directed the affairs of India for the Company, entered into a confederacy with this great officer for the deposition of his chief. Meer Jaffier accordingly joined his forces with the English. The Armies of Surajee were defeated at the great Battle of Plassey, the Nabob tied, and was soon after wounded. The English immediately entered into a treaty with Meer Jaffier, by which he was acknowledged Soubhadar of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa; and as a Sovereign Prince he granted to the English Company the right to fortify Calcutta, together with certain lands lying around Calcutta, and the territory lying south of Calcutta as far as Culpee. These lands were to be under the "zemindary" of the English Company, and— The revenues received by the Company from these territories were to be paid by the Company to the soubhadar in the same manner with other zemindars. Such was the treaty concluded by the Company with Meer Jaffier in 1757. The Company acknowledged Meer Jaffier to be the Sovereign of those countries, and in return he granted to them, of his Sovereign authority, certain territories for which they were to pay revenues the same as any other persons holding territories of the Soubhadar; and by this treaty and under these conditions the English, obtained their first hold upon Bengal. By subsequent events Meer Jaffier had been driven from the throne, and in 1763 the Company entered into another treaty with him, by which they agreed to re-instate him in the Soubhadarship; and in consideration of this assistance, Meer Jaffier, still acting as a Sovereign Prince, granted further territories to the Company, the right to purchase one-half the saltpetre produced in his dominions, to maintain a considerable Army, and not to allow the French to come into the country to build forts, but only to pay tribute and to trade as in former times. When Meer Jaffier died in 1765, the Company acknowledged his son, the Nawab Nuzim-ood-Dowlah, his successor. The new Nawab concluded a third treaty, confirming the previous grants to the Company, giving them half the saltpetre of the country as before, and entering into the same stipulation in regard to the French as his father had done; and it might be remarked that in their dealings with the Nawab the Company were at that time strongly influenced by their fear of the French. In 1765 Lord Clive, with the consent of the then Nawab Nazim of Bengal, made a proposal to the Emperor of Delhi for transferring the dewanny or collectorship to the Company, and the transfer was effected under an Imperial firman. In those three treaties already mentioned there was no reference to any money stipend to be paid to the Nawab; but after the Company obtained the dewanny it became necessary that a money payment should be made to him. The Company accordingly agreed to give him £530,000 a-year—£170,000 for personal expenses, and £360,000 for the support of his state. This Nawab's successor had allowed him £410,000—£170,000 for personal expenses and £240,000 for the support of his state, the reduction having been occasioned by the discharge of some unnecessary sepoys. It had been alleged as a proof that the Nawabs never had any independent rights, that each successive treaty had made his position worse and worse; but the sole reason for the diminution of his allowance was the diminution in the number of troops, the allowance for his personal expenses always remaining about the same. The Nawabs were found to be most useful allies, and by assisting in keeping the provinces quiet repaid to the Company a hundredfold any emoluments that might be received from them. On the death of this Nawab, his son, a boy of 10, succeeded, and under a treaty dated 1770 he was to be allowed £150,000 for his personal expenditure and £160,000 for state expenses; but it was afterwards agreed between the Company and Warren Hastings that during his minority £160,000 a-year would be sufficient for all his expenditure; but although the Company designed to pay him the full amount on his arriving at his majority, Warren Hastings did not, and it was to this conclusion that the India Office was not ashamed now to refer to. Subsequently Lord Cornwallis imposed on the Nawab the condition that £21,000 should be set apart for 18 years in order to form a fund out of which his debts and liabilities might be paid. In 1802, however, those debts still remained unpaid, and a Committee was then appointed to investigate the matter. One of the grievances of the present Nawab was that he could get no account of these funds, and it required the regulating hand of a Select Committee of that House to settle all the questions in dispute between the Nawab and the Indian Government. With the decision of such a tribunal the Nawab was quite content to abide. At the present moment the Government withheld a large portion of the nominal stipend of £160,000, and no account had been rendered of the various sums paid into the Nawab Deposit Fund. The Nawab asserted that he was entitled to £160,000 per annum, minus the sums paid by his predecessors into the reserve fund, and the amount necessary to maintain those members of the family who were unprovided for by that fund. The terms of the proclamation issued in 1838, on the present Nawab succeeding to his father's honours and dignities, plainly showed that the Indian Government recognized his hereditary status, and the same remark applied to a proclamation issued by Lord Canning as late as 1856. That declaration contained express passages concerning the hereditary rights of the Nawab, and was very different indeed from the mere empty assertions of other Secretaries of State. At the time the Nawab came of age the fund to which he had alluded might amount to about £700,000; but with all the pains which he had taken to obtain accurate information on this point he had been unable to do so. The Nawab at that period was absolutely in the hands of Mr. Torrens, an agent of the Governor General, who acted as a kind of official trustee; and, without casting a reproach upon anybody, in the course of a few months the whole of the fund had disappeared, It was whispered that the Government of that day were not wholly ignorant of the transaction. Certain proceedings were taken by the Nawab, and the Government put in a political plea that required the Nawab to cease his litigation, as very inconvenient disclosures might result. A Mr. Elphinstone, who was a senior Judge of India, and the official protector of the Nawab, wrote that if the question to be decided was, whether the Government were bound to apply the sum of £160,000 a-year for the support of the Nawab, he should consider the case one of delicacy and difficulty, and that it required caution and deliberation in dealing with it; but the question practically slumbered until 1853, when, unfortunately for the Nawab, Lord Dalhousie became Governor General, and mercilessly carried out his polity of annexation. Advantage was taken of the occurrence of a murder in the hunting camp of the Nawab Nazim to pick a quarrel with this Prince; and though the Nawab's servants, when put upon their trial, were acquitted, the Crown Prosecutor actually wrote to Sir C. Beaton to say that he was not satisfied with the verdict. The result was that, in spite of solemn declarations by successive Governors General, Lord Dalhousie held the sum which had been deposited to be a mere book debt, not bearing interest; and thus the Nawab was punished for a crime which neither he nor his servants had ever committed. The Nawab complained in a Memorial addressed to Lord Halifax, then Secretary of State, for India; and the latter, setting up his own opinion above the plain wording of the most solemn instruments, held that the intention of the parties to these documents was merely to provide for certain living persons, and that the benefit was not to extend to their successors and descendants. Lord Halifax also talked of the "full consent" of a boy 10 years of age, a plea which would hardly be admitted in any court of law. In another paragraph relating to Mr. Torrens the noble Lord said he was not satisfied that the Nawab had not good ground of complaint against the agent, by whose proceedings a large sum of money had been lost; but that, the decease of Mr. Torrens having precluded an inquiry, he came reluctantly to the conclusion that no good could arise from re-opening the subject. In 1859 the Nawab Nazim came to this country, and was received with great honour. A distinguished officer of the Indian service went to Dover, and accompanied him to London. He believed that if he waited patiently justice would be done to him, and he did not present his Memorial to the Duke of Argyll, who was then Secretary of State, until the 28th of July, 1869. That Memorial was sent out to India; but it was not until more than one Question had been asked in this House concerning it that the Governor General was aware of the fact of its having been presented, and then Lord Mayo went into the subject with so much deliberation that his reply was not given until the 29th of July, 1870. The Nawab had obtained the opinions of several English jurists respecting his claims, including those of Mr. Vernon Harcourt and Sir Roundell Palmer, and those documents would be read with great interest by the Select Committee for which he asked. In this statement he thought he had shown a case for inquiry, and proved that the Nawab Nazim had been actuated only by a loyal feeling to this country. It had been shown that in the sepoy war he rendered cordial assistance to the English Government; he did everything that could be done by a loyal and powerful subject, and when asked what loss he had suffered he said he had only done his duty, and declined to receive any recompense. Not long ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, speaking of Indian affairs, said there ought to be a Royal Proclamation to the people of India, declaring that the Queen of England was not a Sovereign who would countenance any violation of treaties, but one who would respect the laws, customs, and usages, and, above all, the religion of her Indian subjects; and in 1858 Mr. Bright had pointed out that the House ought to be careful as to the administration of justice in India, and ought to provide for the security of life and property. He had desired to appeal to some tribunal other than this House; but to what could he appeal? The Nawab could not go into a court of law, and he had many times petitioned the Indian Government but always received the same answer—that one Government was of exactly the same opinion as its predecessors. He should probably be told that the mere consideration of this subject by the House of Commons would be injurious to British interests in India; but he entertained a higher opinion of the people of that country than to suppose that any damaging effect could be so produced upon them. The one thing that would give them confidence in England was to be impressed with the belief that there was no wrong which might not be redressed, and no act of injustice that could not be brought before this House. To grant a Committee would be to consolidate our interests in India, and he hoped the House would pause before refusing to accede to his Motion, for a wrong was alleged, as to which there had hitherto been no fair or legal inquiry. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

MR. GILPIN

, in seconding the Motion, said, he would only detain the House a few minutes. He regretted that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India would be obliged by his official position to uphold the policy followed by the Indian Government, whatever his own convictions on the subject might be. It was in the highest degree desirable that the matters referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Haviland-Burke) should be investigated by a Select Committee of that House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into all Treaties and Agreements entered into between the East India Company, or any person on their behalf, with the Nawab Nazim of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, or his predecessors, and to ascertain whether such Treaties and Agreements have been faithfully observed by the said Company and by the Indian Government, and to what claims, if any, the present Nawab Nazim and his family may be entitled under and by virtue of such Treaties and Agreements."—(Mr. Haviland-Burke.)

MR. GRANT DUFF

The case of the Nawab Nazim of Bengal against the British Government has been laid before the House by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Haviland-Burke) with great clearness, and, if I may be permitted to say so, with much ability; and I trust that the House will pardon me if I am obliged to follow my hon. Friend at somewhat tedious length. With reference to the remarks that fell from my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion (Mr. Gilpin), he may rest assured of two things—first, that he will not hear from me the hateful word "prestige;" and, secondly, that I shall say nothing on this subject as an official, which I could not conscientiously say as an independent Member. Standing out from the mass of Indian society are three sets of persons whom it is important carefully to distinguish. First you have Native Princes and chiefs—the heads of famous houses possessing to this day more or less political power; secondly, you have great proprietors—noblemen of high position, but without any princely prerogatives; and, thirdly, you have a very small class of titled stipendiaries, privileged dependants of the British Government. It is to the third of these classes that the Nawab Nazim really belongs. Towards these three sets of persons, the people of these islands, as represented by the great officers of the Queen in India, have various and well defined duties to fulfil. The Native Princes and chiefs have their rights, the great proprietors have their rights, and the titled stipendiaries have their rights also. The advocates of the highly placed and highly privileged personage whose affairs we are discussing to-night are fond of representing him as an injured Indian Prince. I will not beg the question as to whether he is injured or not, the House will have to decide that at a later hour, after it has heard both sides; but I must take leave to explain at the outset that whether injured or no he is not that interesting character—an injured Indian Prince "sprung of a race noble and gentle for ages appealing to the justice of the British Parliament." He is not an Indian Prince. His father was not an Indian Prince. His grandfather was not an Indian Prince. Who or what is he then? He is the ninth successor of Moor Jaffier, in the favour of the British Government—the ninth successor of Meer Jaffier, who was himself no Prince, but an officer in the service of Surajah Dowlah, who was the Governor of Bengal under the Mogul Empire, when we won our first great success in north-eastern India.

Let me recall in two or three sentences to the House the history of that time—I will not say the true history, because that might seem to reflect on my hon. Friend's narrative; but I will say the history as it has been told by all historians without exception up to this evening. Everyone who has heard anything of India at all has heard of the Black Hole of Calcutta. Weil, Surajah Dowlah was the personage whose malignity or carelessness brought about that horrible catastrophe, and against Surajah Dowlah the British in India, who survived it, immediately vowed vengeance. This vengeance they carried into effect by two weapons—force and intrigue—both weapons being wielded by one who was a master of both—the great, but far from stainless, Clive. That remarkable man found a useful tool in one Meer Jaffier, who was a trusted servant of Surajah Dowlah, and after much playing fast and loose with both sides, this man drew off a large body of troops under his command on the field of Plassey, and materially contributed to the disgraceful panic which enabled us to win so easily that decisive day. The Battle of Plassey made us the virtual rulers of Bengal; but the motto of the Company in those days, and indeed in all days, was Festina lente; and Clive, after some deliberation, was content to exercise real without pretending to nominal power. So Meer Jaffier, who had been his tool, was made his puppet, and was installed as Nawab Nazim, which is, being interpreted, Nawab Administrator—Nawab "exercising police and criminal justice." In this position he remained for some time. My hon. Friend has denied that he was a puppet; but, alas, so thoroughly was he a puppet that when he gave umbrage to his British masters he was brushed aside, and one Meer Cossim was put in his stead. This man, however, showed himself as untrustworthy and more able than Meer Jaffier, so he, too, was brushed aside, and Meer Jaffier replaced in the enjoyment of his dignity, such as it was. In the enjoyment of his dignity, such as it was, he died, and was succeeded by one of his sons, Nuzim-ood-Dowlah. With Nuzim-ood-Dowlah, in the year 1765, the representatives of British authority made an agreement, by which a sum of about £530,000 a-year was assigned to him for his life. Almost immediately, he likewise died, and was in his turn succeeded by a brother, with whom the British concluded another arrangement, by which they assigned to him, in all, about £410,000 a-year for his life. In three years he died also, and in 1770 the representatives of British authority in Bengal made an arrangement with his successor, Mubarick-ood-Dowlah, by which they agreed to give him about £320,000 a-year for his life. Thirteen years, however, had now passed since the Battle of Plassey, and the Directors, cautious as they were, had begun to think that their subordinates in Bengal were testifying their respect for the fiction of the Nazim's power in rather too practical away. So they told Mr. Cartier, then their chief officer in Bengal, that during the minority of the Nawab they would only allow him £160,000 a-year. Now, however, there came upon the scene a ruler who saw more clearly than either Mr. Cartier, or the Court of Directors, what had to be done if we meant to stay in India, and who, in addition, was not the man to allow himself to be bribed, as his predecessors were violently suspected to have been. And in the years from 1771 to 1782 Bengal was conquered by Warren Hastings—peacefully conquered, but still more thoroughly conquered as ever Delhi was by Tamerlane. Mubarick-ood-Dowlah, like a man of sense, accepted accomplished facts without even a protest, and was very glad to keep his £160,000 a-year for his life. He lived till 1796. The original treaty with Meer Jaffier, and the three agreements to which I have alluded—the last of them dated, it will be observed, in the year 1770—are the treaties, if we can call them so, into which the House would inquire if the Committee, for which my hon. Friend asks, was granted; for those are the only treaties, or arrangements in the nature of treaties, that ever have been made with the descendants of Meer Jaffier.

And now, I ask, what possible bearing can even the last three of the so-called treaties have upon the circumstances of the present day. The Treaty of 1765, which was only for the life of the then Nawab, as was proved not only by the tenour of the document itself, but still more clearly by the fact that a totally different and much less favourable arrangement was accepted by the next Nawab—the Treaty of 1767, which was only for the life of the then Nawab, and which was again succeeded by the arrangement of 1770, which, though less favourable, was accepted by the Moorshedabad family, but which was never ratified by the proper authority, and never acted on during the whole of the life of the person to whose life it exclusively applied.

But to resume my narrative. After the death of Mubarick-ood-Dowlah, in 1796, five heads of the Moorshedabad family successively attained to the shadowy honours of the Nizamut, and became, one after another, the recipients of the bounty of the British Government. But it never occurred to any of them to prosecute a hostile suit against that Government, as if the stipend they received was paid under the provisions of a treaty, and not out of free grace and favour. From 1770 downwards nothing in the nature of a treaty is even alleged to have been concluded between the British Government and the Moorshedabad family; but certain phrases used by successive Governors General have been appealed to as constituting—when taken together with the course of dealing pursued by the Government down to the days of Lord Dalhousie—a legal claim on their part, to be kept in precisely the same position in which they were during that time. We deny this utterly. We say that not one word can be shown to have been uttered, or written, which can constitue any legal claim whatever against the Indian Government; but we most fully admit that the phrases of successive Governors General, and the whole course of action of the Government during these and previous years, did constitute a moral claim which it would be grossly inequitable to disregard; but the moral claim is not a claim to be kept in precisely the same position that was occupied by the family at any particular moment of time. It is a claim to be kept as long as they conduct themselves as loyal subjects in a great and honourable position in Bengal. That moral claim the Indian Government most fully and distinctly recognizes. Former Nawabs were, as I have said, satisfied to live on as pensioners on the bounty of Government, accepting the situation which events had made for them. The present Nawab put forward, I believe, no grievances for the first few years after his accession to his dignities; but now he puts forward certain grievances about which I would say a word.

First, I come to the alleged hereditary nature of the treaties. Of that I have spoken; and I will do nothing more now than quote a few sentences from the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), and another counsel who was consulted along with him by the Nawab's own friends, which, I think, effectually dispose of any argument from the treaties— We look in vain for any words of inheritance or succession in any of those several treaties, or, in fact, for any expression to show an intention on the part of either of the contracting parties to include the heirs or successors of any such several individuals. Our attention has been specially directed to the concluding lines in the last of those treaties—viz., that of 1770—in which the words 'for ever' occur; but upon reference to their context, it clearly appears that the intention in using them was that the 'agreement' (whatever it was) contained in that Treaty should be inviolably observed for ever; and we have above stated what, in our opinion, is the nature and extent of that agreement. We are further of opinion, therefore, that the above words 'for ever' cannot alter or extend the meaning and force of the express agreement in the body of the Treaty. I ought, perhaps, to say a word about the arrangements with the King of Delhi, of which my hon. Friend has made a good deal; bat, in the first place, circumstances have so utterly changed that I really can hardly understand his referring to those agreements with a grave face; and, further, anyone who reads the document will see that its true intent and meaning was, that as the King had nominally handed over to the English Company the dewanny, or financial administration of Bengal, to be exercised by them directly, and had also nominally handed over—nominally, I say, for, of course, we took both by our good swords—the Nizamut—that is the administration of police and criminal justice—to be exercised indirectly through a puppet ruler, the King, not unnaturally, took order that, as we were to collect the revenue of the Provinces, so we should also pay for the government of the Provinces, and should keep our puppet, as long as we used him, in a position creditable to the King of Delhi—his nominal liege-lord and master. The moment the Nizamut ceased to be exercised through a puppet ruler, the reason of the, in itself, quite reasonable arrangement with the King of Delhi disappeared; and now Nizamut agreement, King of Delhi, and all else connected with the transaction have vanished away—gone on the wind's wings, like the title of Her Majesty's ancestors to the throne of France, or equally unsubstantial claims, of which we have heard, to the thrones of Cyprus and Jerusalem.

I come, then, to the second point put forward by the Nawab—to the alleged unjustifiable attitude assumed towards him by Lord Dalhousie, on account of a misconception as to the Nawab's participation in a very atrocious murder which was committed by some of his servants. But the Nawab altogether overstates the amount of guilt that was imputed to him in connection with the shocking transaction which occurred in his hunting camp, in the year 1853. The Court of Directors never accused the Nawab Nazim of having been actually an accomplice in the murder. What they accused him of was only of having falsely stated to the Governor General's agent that he had dismissed from his service the persons who had committed the murder, and having afterwards extended marked and especial favour to one, at least, of those persons—acts which might, of course, raise some suspicion as to his actual complicity, but acts on which the Government put the most lenient construction possible, giving him, in the despatch from the India House of 1854, in so many words, the benefit of the doubt. It would have been wiser, I think, for the Nawab not to have raised the ghost of this story; more especially seeing that the Government remitted all the penalties which it imposed upon him, which it could remit, without injury to his fellow subjects.

And that brings me to the third point—the immunities which are no longer accorded to him. The Government took advantage of the misconduct of which I have been speaking, to suppress the privilege which had been accorded to his predecessors of not being liable to the ordinary process of courts of law. The Nawab complains that we did not restore this along with the guns which were restored to his salute, and other similar things. But he forgets that since 1853, India, like most other places, has been advancing in civilization, and that civilization abhors extra legal and privileged sanctuaries. A Government which should give back such an immunity to the Nawab Nazim, or any similar person, living in the midst of a society which was daily growing in civilization, would not, I venture to say, be supported in this year, 1871, by the people of England.

And now I come to the fourth and fifth grievance put forward by him—the grievance relating to the Nizamut Deposit Fund; or to use his own words in his Memorial— The Nizamut Deposit Fund, arbitrarily converted into a book debt bearing no interest, and general misapplication of the fund to purposes altogether foreign to its true intent and object. I can best explain to the House the real state of the case by reading an extract from a despatch of the Government of India. I must apologize to hon. Members for the horrible dulness of the subject, but it was not I who invited this discussion— The Nawab Nazim states that Lord Dalhousie wrongfully converted the deposit fund into a book debt bearing no interest; that the several funds were created by his ancestors for special purposes, and ought to bear, and have borne, interest; that the orders of the Government were that interest should be re-invested as received; that, in reality, the funds have been created (1) from lapsed stipends arbitrarily diverted for that purpose; (2) from family property to which the Nawab Nazim would have fallen heir; and (3) from a sum of two lacs a-year paid by the Nazim. Now, the facts are, that the fund consists of two parts: (1) invested, and (2) uninvested. The invested funds, to which the Nawab Nazim never contributed anything, but which, with exception of a portion of Munnee Begum's treasure, invested with the consent of the Nazim of the day, consists entirely of lapsed Stipends, over which the Nawab Nazim had no control whatever, have always borne interest, and bear interest to this day. Part of the interest is devoted to the purpose for which the corresponding portion of the investment was originally made—viz., the agency establishments, although it is insufficient to meet the expenditure, and has had to be supplemented with grants from the other portions of the fund; and the remainder goes for Nizamut purposes over and above the payments made front the Government Treasury. If the interest of the Begum's fund has not been re-invested, as directed in 1823, it is because that fund never really came into existence, and the Nawab Nazim himself failed to carry out the arrangement by which be was to credit Rs. 50,000 a-year to the fund. He himself wrongfully appropriated the lapses, and so far from his having any claim. Government had actually to forgive him a debt of Rs. 2,70,137 on account of misappropriated lapses, and for this the Government of India incurred the censure of the Court of Directors. In regard to the uninvested portion, not only was it never intended that it should bear interest, but it would be contrary to all the Government rules regarding deposits, if interest were granted upon it. Deposits in the Government Treasuries do not bear interest except under specific arrangements made with the depositors. Since the first day of its formation the deposit has borne no interest. It was not Lord Dalhousie who made it a book debt; the uninvested portion of the deposit fund has never been anything else than a book debt ever since its formation in 1836. What Lord Dalhousie wanted to do was to abolish the fund altogether, and to re-credit the uninvested balance to Government; but to this the Court of Directors objected. If the fund had been invested it would at one time have been bankrupt. The demands upon it are heavy and fluctuating. A reference to the Report on the fund, which is enclosed in our separate despatch, No. 149 of this date, will show show that it has not always been able to meet its liabilities. Between 1842 and 1851, for instance, there was a cumulative deficit varying from a quarter of a lac to nearly two lacs. Much confusion has, indeed, arisen from styling the balance of the 16 lacs a fund. The uninvested portion of the so-called fund is a mere account of certain liabilities which the Government of India may, at some indefinite time in the future, be called upon to meet. There is no obligation expressed or implied to give interest on this account; and on two occasions on which the present Nawab Nazim has brought forward his grievances, although apparently assisted by persons fully acquainted with all the facts of the case, he has not been able to adduce anything which implies a promise on the part of Government that interest should be allowed. This appears to have been the view of Her Majesty's Government in 1864. At that time interest had never been paid on the uninvested part of the fund. The Nawab Nazim complains that the fund was converted into a book debt by Lord Dalhousie in 1854. The despatch of June, 1864, however, says not a word about interest, but merely decides that the 'unappropriated portions from year to year of the 16 lacs stipend unquestionably belong to the Nazim and his family, and can properly be expended only for their benefit.' This is precisely the principle upon which the fund has been administered. The Nazim's interest in it consists in his right to have certain expenses defrayed out of it (subject to the approval of Government) which would otherwise have to be paid by himself out of his personal allowance. His family's interest in it consists in their right to have a provision out of it at his death, as Government may then consider proper. It is true that the balance is now large; but there can be no doubt that at the death of the present Nazim, which may, of course, occur at any time, very heavy claims will come upon it. With regard to the case of Mr. Torrens, the transactions between that gentleman and the Nawab were transactions which could only be properly investigated by Courts of Law. They were investigated by Courts of Law, and the Nawab wholly failed to make out any claim against the parties against, whom alone he could possibly have had a claim, and against whom he proceeded. If he now thinks that he can make out a claim against the Government, which had nothing whatever to do with the transactions referred to, I suppose it is within the resources of his legal advisers to devise means for urging his supposed claim in some way or other, if, that is, it has any foundation in the law to which Governments and subjects must alike bow. But after the House has heard the document which I am going to read, it will not think much, I imagine, of the Nawab's claims against Government, or anybody else, in relation to the Torrens affair— Mr. Peterson, chief counsel for His Highness the Nawab Nazim, in the suit against Messrs. Mackenzie, Lyall, & Co., having been requested to give an opinion whether His Highness should accept the compromise offered by the defendants, thus replied— 'The defendants in this suit have offered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Company's rupees, 70,000, by certain instalments, within twelve months, in satisfaction of all claims against them in this suit.' Mr. Peterson is fully acquainted with the origin and particulars of the defendants liability, the merits of the plaintiff's claim, and the rank and position of the several parties, and with reference thereto his opinion is requested as to the propriety, or otherwise, of accepting the offer that has been made. It is an offer I should recommend the acceptance of, although I think that probably the plaintiff would have recovered more had he proceeded with his suit; but as the law is, at the best, uncertain, and as the plaintiff would have been compelled to submit to a great deal of annoyance and expense had the commission contemplated gone up to Moorshedabad, I think it better to accept the terms. So much for the Nawab's counsel. Now for himself. The Nawab Nazim thus ends a letter to the address of the Agent Governor General Moorshedabad, dated 24th March, 1857— I have accepted the offer, and have thus at last brought the matter to a satisfactory close and successful termination. No talk about the "political plea" can, I think, get over this. The short and the long of the business is this—that Mr. Torrens thought, and probably wisely thought, that it would be better for the Nawab if his money was invested in estates and other property, rather than invested in the pockets of the swindlers who surround Asiatic Courts. But the speculations turned out unsuccessful; and the swindlers in question were a great deal too much both for Mr. Torrens and the Nawab. Mr. Torrens was anything but a satisfactory servant to Government, or a wise friend to the Nawab; but I have seen no evidence that he was corrupt, and he died soon after those transactions a very poor man. I have now gone through the principal points in this case, as stated by the Nawab and his advocates; but there is a good deal of collateral matter into which my hon. Friend and others have gone, about which I must say something.

First, they tell us that the Nawab Nazim is an extremely popular person, and that Bengal looks on his cause as on its own. It would be very odd if a Hindoo population loved so well a Mahometan family, which was put over them by Christian conquerors from the other end of the earth, and who no one pretends to have ever done any particular good to Bengal. But where is the evidence. All the evidence I have ever seen leads to an opposite conclusion. Here, for example, is a passage from a recent work by a Hindoo written in English, and describing a tour in India. In his account of Moorshedabad occurs this passage. If the English is a little strange, the House will remember that the book is not a translation, but written in English by the author, Mr. Bholanauth Chunder— There can be no doubt that the same end awaits the close of the title of the Nawab Nazim of Bengal, which, without any exceptional reason in its favour, has so long been permitted to survive its congener, the Nawabate of the Carnatic. The endeavour to maintain a stilted position on the strength of ancestral offices is a pretension which under a Mahometan rule would long since have collapsed; attendance at the Royal levees in refulgent kinkhaub, and a discreet use of shawl presents, will not long stave off the inevitable oblivion; and it has been due to the ignorance, as much as to the pscudo-tenderness of British sentiment, that the vitality of such empty phantoms of departed greatness has been somewhat unreasonably protracted. The error was a venial one, though if anything similar had been attempted in behalf of those whose names had been prominent in England's history, ridicule and mockery would have trampled such pretensions to the dust. The time has, however, arrived when the descendants of the families of the Nawab of the Carnatic, of the Nawab Nazim, of Tippoo, and of the King of Oude, cannot too early realize the necessity of accepting a position in Native society analagous to that occupied by the noblemen of England with respect to its commoners. They cannot hope for a higher or more honourable one; the framework of society and of our administration does not allow of their holding any other; and it will, when fairly accepted, enable them to train and educate their sons in a manner which would fit them for employment, and render them useful instead of useless and isolated members of society. There is small hope of so desirable a change as long as baseless pretensions are nourished. Next it is said that the Nawab Nazim behaved well in the Mutiny. He did behave well in the Mutiny, and was well rewarded for it. First, his salute, which had been reduced on account of his misconduct in 1853, was replaced on its old footing. A small matter, it will be said—only a little more powder burnt. True enough; but after all, from the high philosophic point of view, the Garter and the Golden Fleece are only baubles, and the adding to, or taking from, the salute is quite as mighty a matter in India as the giving or withholding of these honours in Europe. Then the Government undertook to give him £40,000 to clear off certain debts, if that sum was found necessary. It turned out not to be necessary; a clever subordinate having got him out of his troubles without requiring it. Nevertheless, however, the Government has given him, or is going to give him, the money—£25,000 it has given him, and £15,000 it is going to give him. I wonder where the money has gone? I observe there are suspicions abroad. It was, for example, observed by The Pall Mall Gazette— If there be anyone among our contemporaries whose circulation may be supposed to be not on a par with its undoubted merits, if there be one which addresses itself to a small professional or social class, if there be one which is published in a part of the British dominions, not unjustly described as remote or obscure, this particular journal seems strongly impressed with the gravity of the wrong which has been done to the Nawab. Nothing, of course, except the force of argument can have produced these effects; but it is a remarkable illustration of the varying and capricious susceptibility of the human mind to the influence of reasoning that the effects should have shown themselves in such unexpected quarters. I need not go through all the rewards the Nawab received for the Mutiny. He was re-instated, in one word, in every privilege which he had enjoyed before his misconduct which he could possibly enjoy without harm to his fellow subjects; he was formally thanked by the Governor General, and the whole story of his misconduct would have been utterly forgotten if he had not gone out of his way to revive it. These, one would think, were tolerably sufficient rewards, but the incessant talk about the good deeds of this personage during the Mutiny which his advocates keep up, make one think of the lines— To John I owed some obligation, But John unhappily thought fit To publish it to all the nation. Sure John and I are more than quit. He did behave well in the Mutiny, but if he had not behaved well what would have happened? Either his bad behaviour would have given our enemies a temporary success, or it would not. If it had done so, does any mortal who has studied India, believe that it would have turned, even for a brief hour, to the advantage of the Nawab Nazim? Is he the kind of man who floats on the crest of the wave in revolutions? I think not. Take the other alternative; and what would have been the result? Well, we will not pursue that subject. The English in Bengal were not exactly in a humour to be trifled with in the year 1857; but, at least, he would not have been enjoying, in the year 1870, a splendid income out of the taxes of India, and living at the Alexandra Hotel. My hon. Friend ought to remember that while he would urge the Government in one direction, there are others who would urge it in a diametrically opposite direction, and between him and them the Government find it hard enough to listen to the still small voice of moderation. We have heard the views of my hon. Friend, but what do these others say. They address the Government in language of this kind—"Your only moral right to rule in India at all is derived from your presumed intention to bring to India the ideas of the civilized West, and to consult the greatest happiness of the greatest possible number. Now, what do you do in the case of this Nawab. In the first place by mere laches and incuria—laches and incuria for which you are answerable to the people of India—you have continued to him and his predecessors the misleading title of Nazim, or Administrator, for a whole century after he and they have ceased to be in any sense Administrators. You have done their work, and they have borne your title. That, perhaps, is of little importance, but you have also taken from the population of India—a very poor population—at least £160,000 a-year, and have devoted it to keeping up the State of this Nawab; to keeping up, in other words, a thoroughly bad and corrupting influence in the midst of your own subjects. We call upon you, in the name of the people of India, to put an end, and that immediately, to so great a scandal." We decline to give any countenance to the views of my hon. Friend; but we, at the same time, decline to go anything like so far as these persons, whose views I have just sketched to the House, insist upon our going. We do not propose to continue the Moorshedabad family to all time coming as an old man of the sea round the neck of the people of India; but we do propose to continue to it a very considerable position, and to form for it out of this Nizamut fund—for mismanaging which we are taken so much to task—and otherwise if needs be, a splendid inheritance. Read the history of Meer Jaffier in any history that ever was written. Then imagine the character of that personage to have been exactly the opposite of what it was; imagine him not weak, but strong; not faithless, but honest; not worthless, but eminently worthy; and would his ghost have anything to complain of if he know that his remote successor was going to be put in a position about as good as the English nobleman who represents that Colonel Clive whom he looked upon as a sort of demigod; for, when all is said and done, the position of an English noble is that to which the cruel, the rapacious, the faithless Government of India proposes to condemn the ninth descendant of Meer Jaffier—no Prince, but the officer of an officer of the Emperor of Delhi. And, now I trust I have said enough to show that there is not even a primâ facie case for a Select Committee to inquire into this matter; but even if there were a prmiâ facie case, I think it is more than doubtful whether the House, having regard to its old traditions, would think of sanctioning anything of the kind. The House, even if a primâ facie case had been made out, would, I am sure, pause before it struck a great blow, not only at the authority of Lord Mayo, but of all future Viceroys; for such a blow the grant of this Committee would be, and as such it would be regarded in India.

MR. BOURKE

said, that the historical part of that question had been so accurately described by the Under Secretary of State that it was unnecessary further to enter upon it; but he maintained that Meer Jaffier had for himself no sovereign rights, and therefore no person claiming as his successor could pretend to have them. Lord Macaulay, in his Essay on Lord Clive, held that the heir of Meer Jaffier had not the smallest share of political power, but was in fact only a noble and wealthy subject of the British Government, and nobody could doubt that that, and nothing else, was the true position of his present representative, with regard to the character of the treaties which had been referred to, they had always been treated as personal and not as hereditary treaties, not only by the East India Company, but also by the descendants of Meer Jaffier themselves, who had from time to time consented to their modification. It was a most calumnious and utterly untrue charge against a lamented and honoured statesman to allege that the late Lord Dalhouise had looked out for an excuse to depose a titular Prince. It had been said that Lord Dalhousie wrote his despatch without consideration or investigation; but the truth was that the despatch itself showed that it was written only after mature inquiry. If Lord Dalhousie had not shown his abhorrence of the horrible crime which had been committed, he would have betrayed the interests of the people of India, which he was bound to protect. No good could come from re-opening the discussion, and the best friends of the Nazim would be those who recommended him to return to his country and discharge those important duties devolving upon one holding so high a social position.

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

stated that when the Government assumed the office of Nazim it should have made it distinctly understood that the title was not to be held by any successor of the then existing Nazim, and should have made new arrangements for the altered position of the family. Presuming that an injustice had been done to the Nawab's ancestors 100 years ago, he could not see how that could be constituted a grievance of the Nawab. No doubt the correspondence which had passed between Mr. Torrens and other parties betrayed dark suspicions of criminality on the part of Mr. Torrens, yet as the Nawab was of age, and made no complaint till after the death of Mr. Torrens, it was difficult to show how the Indian Government could be held responsible. Those who urged that what they called a fair and generous policy should be pursued might have some justice on their side if the money they suggested should be given could be handed over without calling upon anyone to pay it; but to burden the people of India with the payment of money, in strict justice not due, was simply to be generous at the expense of the taxpayers. There were many people who appeared to suppose that all the Indian Government had to do was to dip their hands into some strong box and take what money they wanted, forgetting, too, that the Nawabs of Bengal had always borne an evil reputation, and had been regarded by the people of India with but little respect and attachment. He admitted that the Nawab showed loyalty to the British authorities in India; but it was quite absurd to suppose that the claim now set up for him was well founded. The conduct of the Government had been fair throughout. They did not intend to interfere with that allowance during the Nazim's lifetime; but they did intend to do so after his death, so as to make a provision more suitable to the family by giving the son £36,000 a-year, which would be a very ample allowance, and the rest of the family would be supported out of the accumulations of the funds, which amounted to £700,000 a-year.

MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK

, in supporting the Motion, said, the objection put forward was that this was not the Nawab Nazim, but the officer of an officer—an official who had been raised to his position by the representatives of the East India Company. On the death of each succeeding Nawab the allowance had been reduced; until it had finally been reduced to one-half. The construction of the agreements or treaties did not depend upon their words only, but upon the relative position of the parties. If the original treaty was entered into for the purpose of securing the revenues of the country to the British Government it was idle to contend that the province was handed over in perpetuity for the payment of a specific sum, when it was clear that the agreement was only for the life of the first Nawab. As the only object was inquiry into what was the justice of the case, he should support the Motion for a Select Committee.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, the discussion would be much shortened, and a decision upon the Motion facilitated, if hon. Members would bear in mind the particular proposition submitted to them—namely, whether certain treaties and agreements have been faithfully observed by the Indian Government, and to what claims, if any, the present Nawab Nazim may be entitled under them. If treaties had been entered into with this family and not fulfilled, that was a question which touched the honour of a great country like England; but if the allowances given were merely given as customary donations and as a matter of grace and favour, then the controversy assumed a very different aspect. The whole question was, what were the relations of those high personages who hold the title of Nazim 100 years ago to the Indian Government. Were they powerful Princes or not, and did we enter into treaties with them as Sovereign Powers or not? What was conceded to us was the collection of the revenues, and the Emperor of Delhi cared little about anything but that we should pay his tribute, and provide for the expenses of the Nizamut. That bargain having been made 100 years ago between competent authorities, it was useless to go into the motives which led to the arrangement. What was given to us was the collection of the revenues, and we had nothing to do with the administration but to see that it was provided for. Fresh bargains were afterwards made with the different succeeding Nazims. The Commissioners afterwards took the administration into their own hands and performed the duties themselves. If the House would endeavour to avoid mixing up questions as to the treaties with other questions, they would perceive, he thought, that the matter was hardly one to be referred to a Select Committee. He considered that the East India Company first and the Government afterwards had, on the whole, behaved with great liberality. This was not a question upon which a Committee could throw any light, for the matter rested not upon treaty, but upon the liberal arrangements of the Indian Government, and if this House were to undertake to revise the daily administration of the affairs of India it would be found unable to do so. In his opinion, therefore, the House ought not to interfere.

MR. EASTWICK

said, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he hoped the House would listen to him while he made a few remarks on this subject as he had paid great attention to it. The case divided itself under four heads—the treaties, the funds, the sums accumulated during the Nawab's minority, and the censures passed on the Nawab on account of the deaths of Madhu and Hingan. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Haviland-Burke) had rested his appeal entirely on the treaties, it would be unnecessary for him (Mr. Eastwick) to take any notice of the other points. As to the treaties, then, he would say that he could imagine no more flattering compliment to the nation than an appeal to them. In these times, when European nations repudiated as obsolete treaties, since the signature of which little more than a decade had passed, to ask Englishmen to be bound by what in comparison were antediluvian engagements, entered into more than a century ago, was a signal proof of the national reputation for good faith. But, however flattering the appeal might be it was impossible to accede to it, so completely had circumstances changed. There were three parties to the treaties, or he should rather call them agreements—the Emperor, the Nawab Nazim, and the English stranger—and it would really seem as if all three had been subjected to the metempsychosis in which the Indians believe. The Emperor, after sinking into the position of a Nawab, had attained the supreme beatitude of Hindoos—that was, Nirvánah or extinction. The Englishman had taken the place of the Emperor, and, strangest of all, the Nawab Nazim had become an English gentleman, who lived at the Alexandra Hotel, and went to balls! So much for the treaties; now a word as to the Nizamut allowances. He could assure the House that Nizamut meant simply "government," and that those allowances were for the expense of carrying on the administration. They bound themselves, therefore, to nothing but to pay the expenses of government. Of course, when they took the government out of the hands of the Nawab, which was in 1765, the time was come to withdraw from him the allowances for the expense of governing. He (Mr. Eastwick) could show, in many ways, that there was nothing permanent in their engagements with the Nawab's ancestors. But at that late hour he would only add—"Let the Nawab be contented with his magnificent stipend of £160,000 a-year, and with his hereditary title of Nawab, which would, in all probability, descend to his children."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 122: Majority 58.