§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in moving for copies of correspondence with the India Office in June and July last respecting Suchait Singh, said, that the case which he had to place before their Lordships was a lamentable one, not only of injustice, but also of breach of faith on the part of the India Office towards Suchait Singh and towards himself. Their Lordships would remember that in 1879 he brought the case of Suchait Singh before the House, and had been unable to obtain any redress for him; but a lawyer employed by Suchait Singh had come to an agreement with Sir Owen Burne on behalf of the India Office. The chief points in this agreement were that Suchait Singh was to have an allowance of £2,000 a-year, instead of £500 originally offered to him on his dispossession, but none of which had he yet received, and that he was to have the rank and honours of a Rajput Prince. Suchait Singh went back to India in the spring of 1881, but could not get his affairs settled, and he returned here in the spring of this year, when, to his astonishment, he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) was told that the India Office now said that no agreement had ever been made between Sir Owen Burne and Mr. Bradford, Suchait Singh's lawyer. Upon this he went to see Mr. Bradford, to ascertain what he had to say upon the subject. He learned that his bill of costs—amounting to some £135—had been paid him by the India Office, and that this agreement, the existence of which was now denied, had been mentioned in it; moreover, that the India Office had later refused to pay him £150 which he had advanced to Suchait Singh at the written request of an India Office official, and that he was bringing an action against the India Office for this money, and that the India Office solicitor had accepted service. This action would come off in November, unless, as several persons had assured him would be the case, the India Office avoided it by paying the 949 money into Court. But the India Office had placed itself in this dilemma—that if the action proceeded the conduct of one of its permanent officials would be exposed in a not very creditable manner; and if the Office avoided the action it would be discredited by having refused to pay a debt until threatened with an action, and it would become apparent that Sir Owen Burne was not prepared to state on oath that which the Under Secretary of State had been made to say in an official letter. He must now go back to what took place last year in India, when Suchait Singh returned there full of hopes of a speedy settlement of his affairs. After waiting a long time at Bombay getting no settlement he wrote to him (Lord Stanley of Alderley). He then complained at the India Office of these delays, and was told that the Indian officials could not settle his affairs at Bombay, and that they wished Suchait Singh to go to head-quarters. He accordingly wrote to him in that sense, and he proceeded to Calcutta. When there he was not allowed to see the Viceroy, nor could he even see a junior Under Secretary of the Foreign Office. He was driven from pillar to post, and at last got a letter offering him only the pittance which had been originally offered, and in despair he returned to this country. Now, was this the way to govern India, and to carry out the Queen's Proclamation, which was reiterated in Lord Canning's two Charters? An arrangement was made which satisfied all parties, but which had been set aside by chicanery, with no other apparent advantage than that of gratifying the spite of some subordinate officials and of punishing a man for having dared to appeal to the Secretary of State, and for having brought his case to this country. The Indian bureaucracy had the pretension that all their members were infallible, and when driven to rectify an error they did it in a hidden and secret manner—for instance, after he had complained of Mr. Burney, the second Resident at Chumba, and of his enormous salary, though what he said was scoffed at, Mr. Burney was removed, or promoted if they so liked to call it, but his successor was appointed with only half his salary. The Indian officials were masters in the arts of delay; they put by a letter and left it unanswered for a long time, and then called procrastination deliberation. 950 It had often happened that they sent home to the Secretary of State their own view, and delayed for some time to send the document which was in opposition to them. Not only the Secretary of State, but the Viceroy also, was hoodwinked by these officials, and he was prevented from seeing and judging for himself. How was it that Suchait Singh had never been able to see a single Viceroy? How was it to be explained that the present Viceroy passed such a Bill as the Assam Coolie Bill, and that the Secretary of State could, not do more than promise an annual Report upon it, though it was pointed out to him that two high retired Indian officials had been allowed, in the laxity which had succeeded the stricter government of the East India Company, to become President and Vice President of the Tea Planters' Association? Now that the check of the Board of Control over the Court of Directors no longer existed abuses, injustice, and tyranny must increase if the Secretary of State did not exercise greater vigilance over the Indian officials.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for correspondence with the India Office in June and July last respecting Suchait Singh."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD ELLENBOROUGHthought that it would be of great advantage to our Indian Empire for it to be known that all grievances of Natives, whether well-founded or otherwise, were brought under the notice of Parliament, and that no real grievance would long remain unredressed. Sir Owen Burne had been referred to; but he could not do otherwise than as he was authorized. The whole question was whether anything of the kind referred to by the noble Lord took place. Of his (Lord Ellen borough's) own knowledge Sir Owen Burne had always acted as he was authorized, and no real complaint could be made of his conduct.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that the noble Lord who had commenced this discussion had rather embarrassed him by introducing into his speech a number of topics which were not included in the Notice he had placed upon the Paper; therefore, he would address himself only to the complaint which the noble Lord had made and to his Motion for Correspondence. He must state at once that he was not authorized to grant the pro- 951 duction of the Correspondence which the noble Lord wished for. The noble Lord desired to restrict himself to the Correspondence of June and July last; but it certainly would not be advisable to give the Correspondence which extended over only two months, as that would create an unfair impression of the whole case, which really extended over a period of 12 years. As to the claims of Suchait Singh, they had been repeatedly considered by successive Secretaries of State for India and adversely decided against. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKentirely concurred in the observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.