§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he would explain why the Return, No. 213, of Session 1876, which does not account for all the movable assets of the ex-chiefs of Kirwee, has been presented to the House as a complete Return of all their movable assets; and, why the amount retained, as a right of war or otherwise, by the local Government, has not been entertained therein as the Parliamentary Orders of Session 1873 and Session 1874 expressly require?
§ MR. E. STANHOPESir, I am afraid that I can add very little to a former answer of mine on the same subject. The third and final distribution was ordered to be made on the number of shares admitted to the 31st March, 1876, since which date some few claims have been admitted in addition to that number. Exclusive of these later admissions, the balance against the Treasury on that date was Rupees 15,235 2 6. The Return of 1876 is complete, and:—
Shows the amount of all movable property of enemies or insurgents in the territories of Oude or Kirwee, or of the proceeds thereof, which have passed into the possession of the authorities of India since the outbreak of the war in 1857, distinguishing the funds which have been distributed among the troops and the funds which have been retained or otherwise disposed of by the local Government.It thus complies in every detail with the Parliamentary Orders of 1873–4. I am informed that the promissory notes 310 to which the noble Lord alludes never passed into the possession of the authorities in India. According to the Report of the Advocate General in 1862, there was no seizure or capture of these notes, and they consequently have never become prize.