§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the succession of the Raj of Chumba; and to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether a certain Sunned granted to the late Sri Singh, Raj a of Chumba, by the Governor General Lord Dal-housie in 1848 was designedly so framed as to disinherit his brother of the whole blood Suchait Singh, who, but for the terms of such Sunned as construed by the Indian Government, was by Hindu Law entitled to succeed to the Raj on the death of Sri Singh in 1870; and if such be the case, what were the reasons for excluding Suchait Singh, then a child under seven years of age; and whether the Government is aware that Suchait Singh, in consequence of the construction of the Sunned of 1848 by the Indian Government, is now reduced to destitution; and to ask how much Colonel Reid is receiving as pension out of the Chumba revenues in addition to the £3,000 a-year paid to the present Superintendent of Chumba; and whe- 734 ther, in view of the possibility of the action of the Government having been erroneous, Her Majesty's Government will direct a maintenance to be provided for Suchait Singh out of the revenues of Chumba until any questions as to the succession can be finally decided; to ask the Secretary of State whether he will cause an independent inquiry to be instituted into the conduct of the present Administrator of the Chumba States? and to move to resolve—
That this House is of opinion that the claim of Suchait Singh should be investigated, either by referring it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or to a Select Committee, or to a special Commission not composed of Indian Government officials.
§
The noble Lord said *: My Lords, I ask your Lordships for an indulgent and a patient hearing, because I am pleading for justice. I have sometimes asked myself if I was justified in taking up the time of the House with my inefficient advocacy; but I have come to the conclusion that it is not the weakness of my advocacy that is in fault so much as the apathy of those that opposed me, for it is not long since the noble and learned Lord, who is not now in the House (Lord Selborne), pleaded with the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India for justice and clemency for Sirdar Narain Singh; but, though he spoke with the eloquence which belongs to him, and with all the weight and responsibility of an ex-Lord Chancellor, he obtained no more results than I have done on other occasions. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India looks upon me in the light of the importunate widow in the Scriptures; but I have one advantage over that lady, for she addressed herself to a Judge who boasted that he neither feared God nor regarded man; and we know that the noble Viscount does not come under that description. Another strong point in my favour is that the Secretary of State cannot say that he cannot reverse the action of his Predecessor, for the noble Duke, his Predecessor (the Duke of Argyll), in whose time this case was decided, has asked for its re-consideration. This question, moreover, has never been really investigated by the Indian Government, or by independent officials, and it has not gone out of the hands of a very few local officials of the Punjab Government.
735
Suchait Singh, from the long time that his family have lived and reigned in Chumba, has a strong claim on the sympathy of the Scotch Peers, especially of those who have lately taken so strong an interest in the Earldom of Mar. The Moghul Government of Delhi cherished and honoured the Rajputs, and that is a precedent and a tradition which the British Government would do well to follow. This is no Party question, and up to the present time no Conservative Minister is responsible for it. Last year, about this time, I brought before your Lordships the case of the Bungana Pally succession, which, like this, rested upon Lord Canning's promises and charters. A weekly periodical, which gives the briefest summary of the Proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, said that that speech ought to have been delivered to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and not to your Lordships. I entirely agree with that opinion; but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is closed to those who seek redress. A short time ago, when I urged to your Lordships that access should be given to it, and that cases such as this one should be first decided by judicial authorities, and not by captains or subordinate Revenue officers, the noble Viscount answered me that Lord Canning had made no such promises; but the promise to follow Mussulman and Hindu Law in cases of succession includes and involves the promise of ascertaining judicially what that law is, and that can only be done by legal men, and not by political officials. The opinion, however, of the Civil Service in India is, in general, favourable to Suchait Singh. A short time ago, a deputation waited on the Secretary of State to represent the claims of Suchait Singh; it was introduced by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Tweeddale), who might well interest himself in this matter, for, when he was in the Civil Service of India, his life and that of the other English at Simla was saved at the time of the Mutiny by the exertions and influence of Mutsuddy Ram, the Vizier of Suchait Singh, who has followed his master here into exile; but up to the present time Mutsuddy Ram has received no reward or recognition of his services from the Indian Government. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State would give no other answer to that deputation than
736
that he could not enter into the matter, because it had not been remitted from the Indian Government for his consideration. This is on the ground of an Order published in the Government of India Gazette of March, 1878; and there is good reason to believe that this rule was framed to meet this particular case. The effect of it is to limit the authority of the Home Government, and to shut out the people of India from all hopes of redress of their grievances. After these preliminary observations, I come to the case. Chumba is a Rajput Principality, which for 3,000 years has been held by the family of Suchait Singh. It borders on Cashmere, its area is 3,216 square miles, the revenue is nowunder £30,000, and the tribute it pays to the Indian. Government 10,000 rupees, or £1,000. Sri Singh, the late Rajah of Chumba, received in 1848 a Sunned from Lord Dalhousie, on our taking the Punjaub, granting him the State of Chumba—
In perpetuity, and to his heirs male who, according to the Shastras, may be his rightful successors. In the event of the Rajah having no male heirs, his next brother who may be the eldest of his surviving brothers will succeed him.
Sri Singh had a brother of the same mother, Suchait Singh. He had also a half-brother, Gopal Singh, who had not been recognized as a son by his father, Charrat Singh, nor had been brought up in the palace. Gopal Singh was older than Sri Singh and Suchait Singh. This is disputed. It is certain that he was older than Suchait Singh. In 1870 Sri Singh died, and, before his funeral rites were performed, Colonel Reid, the Superintendent of the Finances of Chumba, hastened to place Gopal Singh on the guddee, or throne, of Chumba, on the ground of the words of the Sunned, and that he was the eldest of the surviving brothers. Now, the cause of all the mischief, and of the setting aside of the lawful heir, Suchait Singh, was the mistake originally made by Colonel Lake, when Lord Dalhousie's Government was misinformed that there were three brothers, when there were only two. Later on, another mistake was made, which I will refer to further on. Lord Dalhousie's Sunned refers to rights under the Hindu Shastra; he would not, therefore, knowingly have preferred a half-brother to a full brother. I have, therefore, put down upon the
737
Notice Paper the first Question, and the answer which must necessarily be given to it will show that Lord Dalhousie was misinformed, and led to believe that there were three equal brothers. Suchait Singh wishes me to state that there has never been any enmity or ill-feeling between him and. Gopal Singh, and that Gopal Singh always writes to him recognizing Suchait Singh's rank. It is with reluctance that Suchait Singh has allowed me to mention the facts concerning the birth of Gopal Singh. In fact, Gopal Singh was not a brother at all; his mother had three lovers, one is still alive, two were executed, and the mother would also have been executed, had she not been with child, and on account of the intercession of Rajah Zorawer Singh, brother of Charrat Singh. As it was, she was expelled the palace, and Gopal Singh was born prematurely, a seven months' child. It is known that these lovers were executed some time before Sri Singh's birth, which corroborates the assertion that Gopal Singh was born before Sri Singh. Gopal Singh had no provision made for him beyond £50 a-year, which was left him out of compassion by a Ranee of Charrat Singh, who became Sati at the death of her husband. These facts are new facts—that is to say, they have not yet appeared in the official papers; but the Government would have been informed of them had there been any independent inquiry. Suchait Singh was always looked upon by the people of Chumba and by the neighbouring Rajahs as the heir to Sri Singh, his brother; and, not with standing occasional differences between the brothers, on two occasions Sri Singh sent Suchait Singh to represent him and appear as Dothain, or second in rank, at the Durbar of Sir John Lawrence; and later of Lord Lawrence, the Viceroy, who gave him the usual presents. I will ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will lay upon your Lordships' Table the Correspondence of Mr. Melville, containing the testimony of the Rajahs at the Gopipoor Dehra Durbar in 1861, as to their heirs, in which Suchait Singh is mentioned as the heir of Sri Singh. When Sri Singh died, his obsequies were delayed till Suchait Singh could arrive from Cashmere, where he had been staying with his relative the Maharajah. The people of Chumba would allow no one but Suchait Singh to perform them. The
738
performance of funeral rites is generally a safe index of the rights of inheritance. And now I ask what, besides a too literal adherence to the words of the Sunned, and a disregard of its reference to the Shastras, were the motives for setting aside Suchait Singh? There were not any of those high political considerations which it is sometimes alleged should have a preference over those legal rights guaranteed by Lord Canning's charters. The State of Chumba is too small for such, and the correspondence shows that Suchait Singh was looked upon as a man of promise, whilst no such hopes were entertained as to Gopal Singh. But whatever political considerations may be alleged as existing in 1870, these were all stultified in 1873, when Colonel Reid and General Taylor found it necessary to depose their puppet, Gopal Singh, and to instal a small child, his son, Sham Singh. But there was another motive of so patent a nature that there is no reason for refraining from saying that it was of a pecuniary nature. Colonel Reid entered the service of Sri Singh with a salary of £1,200 a-year. This was gradually raised to the sum of £3,000 a-year, besides horses, elephants, forage, &c, a large sum out of a total revenue of £30,000, and one which he would probably have lost, if Suchait Singh, an active man, able to administer his own finances, had succeeded. What do your Lordships think of the justice of taking more than £3,000 a-year for a stranger, and the attempt to force Suchait Singh, the heir of so ancient a family, to sell his birthright and renounce his just claims for the sum of £500 a-year? Now, also, that a child is in possession of Chumba, what becomes of its revenues, and how much is absorbed perhaps on the pretence of making roads? I have put down the Question on the Notice Paper as to the amount of Colonel Reid's pension, in addition to the salary of his successor, in order that it may be known how much is drained away from this small State, and the amount of pecuniary interest that exists for the state of things complained of by the people of Chumba, and what was the exact official position of Colonel Reid before and after 1870. And now, after the deposition of Gopal Singh, I take a fresh departure, and the Government of India might, and ought, to have taken
739
a fresh departure, for, according to these words of Lord Dalhousie's Sunned of 1848—
Should any of the Rajahs of Chumba mismanage the affairs of the country, the British Government will remove him, and appoint in his place another of the family. It is not the object of the British Government to take the country into its hands; the only thing which it has in view is that from the good management of the territory and the impartial administration of justice the people should continue to enjoy peace and happiness.
The Indian Government should have appointed Suchait Singh, a grown man, to govern Chumba; it should have taken this opportunity to give peace and contentment to the inhabitants of Chumba, many of whom left their country to petition for the return of Suchait Singh and have not been allowed to return to their homes. I know that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State is under the impression that Chumba is well governed and its people perfectly happy, and so long as he makes no inquiry by independent persons he will be informed that it is so; but I must not only tell him that these are vain illusions, I must also ask him to order an official and impartial investigation as to the statements which I am now going to make. At the beginning of this year the complaints of the people of Chumba with regard to the prevalence of bribery became so great that Mr. Burney, the successor of Colonel Reid, thought it necessary to notice and check them. He therefore, last February, summoned the complainants to come to his Court and substantiate their accusations. He dismissed some complaints; but others were substantiated against Abtar Singh and another of the Chumba Vizirs. These he removed, and gave them pensions to the amount of half their pay; but did not oblige them to make restitution of the sums they had received. After this, a Mussulman of Noorpoor said that he had given certain sums for certain people to Mrs. Kelly, the wife of a barrack-master. He was asked why he did that, and he replied—"Because she has influence with your honour." Mr. Burney upon this was troubled, and hastily closed the Court, and sent this man to the House of Detention. Next day he sent for him again, when he said that he had time in prison to refresh his memory, and he had made out a list of sums given by various people
740
to make the false appear true, and to obtain various offices, and that what was certain was, that they got what they paid for. After this the Mussulman was released, and Mr. Burney went away for a time from Chumba. Amongst other irregularities and illegalities that took place when Colonel Reid and Colonel Taylor set aside Suchait Singh from the throne of Chumba, Colonel Taylor put Suchait Singh under restraint at Umritsir. He could not legally have done this to a Native of British India against whom there was no criminal accusation, still less could he do so in the case of an independent Prince. Colonel Taylor, indeed, alleges that Suchait Singh was intriguing, and had written seditious letters; but none of these letters are in evidence, and I deny that he ever wrote anything seditious, unless that term is also applicable to a statement made in this House, that this House has no jurisdiction over Scotch Peerages on the Roll before the Act of Union. I said before that another mistake had been made with regard to Gopal Singh, and this was that he had been represented to the Duke of Argyll as the full brother, and Suchait Singh as the half-brother, and the despatch of the Duke of Argyll confirming the decision of the Punjaub Government, dated July 20, 1871, mentioned Suchait Singh as the half-brother. This mistake was pointed out at the time from India and the despatch cancelled, and an amended despatch substituted. In May last, two gentlemen waited on the Duke of Argyll to point out this mistake and others that had led to the decision then arrived at. The Duke of Argyll wrote a letter to one of them, which I will read to your Lordships, as it entirely does away with the objection sometimes raised against reversing the action of a Predecessor—
§ "Argyll Lodge, May 19, 1869,
§ "Sir,—I really cannot do more than I have done. You may, however, show this note expressive of my hope that the case will be seriously re-considered at the India Office, with the view to see whether a mistake has not been committed in the decision come to when I was Secretary of State.
§ "Your obedient servant.
§ (Signed) "ARGYLL.
§ "J. E. Liardet, Esq."
§
The writing this letter by the Duke of Argyll was an act of great generosity. A short time ago, at Sheffield, the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India
741
twitted the Duke of Argyll with holding himself to be infallible; but after the letter I have just read that accusation falls to the ground; and if the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) should refuse to allow of an investigation of this matter, and the "serious reconsideration" of it asked for by the Duke of Argyll, he must take a degree higher than the Duke of Argyll, and hold himself to be what the Italians would call "infallibilissimo." I now move for an investigation into the claim of Suchait Singh, leaving to the Secretary of State the option between three methods of independent inquiry. It is melancholy to think that men with all the talents possessed by Ministers of State, animated as they must be by care for the preservation of the Empire, and the knowledge that it can only be preserved by strict justice and loyal adherence to the Royal Proclamations and Viceregal Charters, should devote too much of their time and energies to Party purposes, and, delegating too much of their authority to subordinate officials, consider themselves as bound by their errors and appear to make it a point of honour to refuse to acknowledge a mistake or to redress a wrong for which they then make themselves responsible, and for which the Empire must inevitably suffer. In conclusion, may I remind the noble Viscount of the words of Oamoens—
Who worketh injury reasonless and vain,
With force engendered by his power of place,
Nought conquereth; the sole true conqueror he
Who knows to render justice fair and free?
Moved to resolve, That this House is of opinion that the claim of Suchait Singh should be investigated either by referring it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or to a Select Committee, or to a special commission not composed of Indian Government officials.—(The lord Stanley of Alderley.)
§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that the speech made by the noble Lord must have convinced their Lordships that the House of Lords was not an Assembly suited to the discussion of a question such as that raised by the noble Lord, and he must decline to go into the case. The case had been decided by the Government of the Punjaub and the Indian Government in the time of Lord Mayo; it was considered in the time of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of North- 742 brook), and the decision of those Viceroys had been confirmed by the Duke of Argyll as Secretary of State; it had also been considered by his Predecessor in Office (the Marquess of Salisbury), who, in a despatch sent out to India, said the decision come to must be considered as being final. That being so, the Petitioner had sent in a Memorial to the Indian Government for a re-consideration of the case; but it was no part of his duty as Secretary of State to go into the merits of the question. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had gone into the matter very fully, and had asked whether the Sunnud granted to the late Sri Singh was designedly so framed as to disinherit his brother of the whole blood, Suchait Singh? His answer was that the Sunnud of Lord Dalhousie did not in terms disinherit anyone; but directed that a brother of Suchait Singh should succeed to the Raj on the death of Sri Singh. That brother was the eldest, and he did succeed. There never was any question as to the successor being of the half-blood. The noble Lord asked him whether he was aware that Suchait Singh was reduced to a state of destitution? He (Viscount Cranbrook) regretted that the Claimant should have been reduced to destitution in consequence of the ease having been decided against him; but he must point out that the Indian Government had told Suchait Singh that if he was willing to accept the decision and go back to India, they would provide means for his maintenance, and the Government at Home would make arrangements for his return. If he would not take the money which was offered to him, it would be his own fault. There was no ground laid for any further inquiries, and he must decline to order any. As to the salary and pension of Colonel Reid, he must say that he was receiving no more than was regularly allowed under the circumstances, and the pension came out of the Revenues of India, and not out of those of Chumba. The pension, which was earned by long services, amounted to £984, and no deduction was made from the Revenues of Chumba on account of it. There was nothing new in the case as set forth by the noble Lord. It was fully gone into by General Taylor, and his Report was adopted by the Government of the Punjaub, and again by the Indian Government, and by the Go- 743 vernment at Home, after carefully and fully considering the facts of the case. The noble Lord had complained of the administration of the Chumba estate, and also of other persons, and called upon him (Viscount Cranbrook) to direct an inquiry into the administration of it; but he could not do so upon such statements, and he was astonished that the noble Lord should have made, upon such authority, charges against these persons. In conclusion, he would repeat that Lord Dalhousie had laid down the principles upon which this succession should go. On those principles his Predecessors in the Government in India and at Home had decided, and by that decision he must abide.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that in 1874, when Viceroy of India, he and his Advisers had occasion to examine into this case, which had been previously settled by his Predecessor, Lord Mayo. The case appeared to them perfectly clear, and the decision of Lord Mayo upon it was adjudged by them to be right. He had, since the present Motion was put upon the Notice Paper, looked again carefully into the documents which were in 1874 placed before him, and he could find no reason whatever for altering the opinion he had then formed. He had listened to the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) with interest; but had discovered in it no new facts essentially affecting the case. The whole of the facts appeared to be contained in the Papers which were before the Government of India in 1874, and published in The Gazette of India at the time. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from the Secretary of State; and, if he might offer his advice to the Claimant in this case, he would suggest that he should not let himself be deceived by anything which any interested persons might say to lead him to suppose that there was any chance of the case being re-opened and decided in his favour; but that he should at once accept the offer made to him by the Government of India, and should not remain any longer in this country, but return to his Native State and live there quietly on the provision he would receive.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhaving briefly replied,
§ On Question? Resolved in the Negative.