HL Deb 18 June 1883 vol 280 cc756-66
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,

in rising to call the attention of the House to the case of the ex-Zemindar of Palconda, imprisoned in 1832 at the age of 11 years, and released by Lord Napier, the then Governor of Madras, from close confinement in 1869, and to the confiscated Zemindary having been farmed to a commercial firm instead of being administered by an official, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into his case and the confiscation of his property at a time when he was a ward of the British Court of Wards, said: My Lords, I have been told that, on the first Sunday of this month, a preacher in the Pro-Cathedral of Kensington explained to his hearers that the reason Latin was used by the Roman Church was because, Latin being a dead language, the sense of the words was not subject to change; whereas, in the vulgar tongue, words in process of time altered their meaning; and he gave, as an instance, that the English nation, which originally prayed that justice might be administered impartially, now prayed that it might be administered indifferently by our Rulers. If this preacher had known of the case which I am going to lay before your Lordships, and of the habits of the Indian Administration, he might have added that here was a proof, if any proof were wanted, of the efficacy of prayer, since the English nation has obtained that indifferent administration of justice from their Rulers which they have so long prayed for. It is with mixed feelings that I bring this subject before your Lordships; for, on the one hand, it is a most grievous case of injustice and tyranny, and, on the other hand, none of the original wrong-doers survive, and I do not believe that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley) is fully aware of the extent of that wrong. Moreover, I am thankful to the Madras Government that, under the administration of the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Buckingham), the victim of this injustice was allowed to bring his case before the High Court of Madras, since I have, at various times, endeavoured in this House to obtain assent to the principle that cases such as this should be decided by a judicial tribunal, and not by officials, who cannot be impartial in revising their own acts, or those of their friends in the Civil Service. I will now place before your Lordships a succinct statement of the case, taken from a letter from the India Office, dated 3rd of April last. By so doing I shall save the time of the House, and narrow the points of difference between the India Office and myself. On the death of Viziaram's father, his brother succeeded to the Zemindary. This. brother rebelled in 1832, was tried for rebellion and convicted, and under Madras Regulation VII., of 1808, was sentenced to death, and the estate was ordered to be confiscated, while his family, including Viziaram, then a boy, were ordered to be detained as State prisoners. The Collector of the District proposed that, as an act of grace, the estate should be, at some future time, restored to one of the brothers. But the then Governor, Sir Frederick Adam, refused this, acting on a rule laid down by Sir Thomas Monro, in 1823, that no estate once forfeited for rebellion should ever be restored. With regard to this statement of the facts of the case, I would observe that Viziaram's brother did not succeed his father; but, being illegitimate, was wrongfully named successor to the Zemindary by the Collector, in spite of the protests of Viziaram's mother. Next, it was not proved that Viziaram's brother bad rebelled, or taken part in the disorders of 1832; on the contrary, the Foujdary Adalet, then the highest Court of Madras, disbelieved it; he was a minor only 19 years of age when condemned to death by a court martial. Next, with regard to the rule laid down by Sir Thomas Monro in 1823. He had no power to lay clown rules it was only an opinion of his contained in one of his Minutes, and it is called an opinion, both in Sir Frederick Adam's Minute of June, 1835, and in the Judgment of the High Court of Madras of 1879. Now, who was Sir Frederick Adam, that so much importance should be given to his administrative act in confirmation of a court martial, and against the recommendation of the Collector, or, more correctly, of Mr. Russell, the Special Commissioner? He was a man who ought never to have been appointed to the Government of Madras; for, before he was sent there, he had lest his character and reputation in the Ionian Islands, through the injustice and violations of law which prevailed during his administration of those Islands. Sir Charles Napier's book, published in 1833, mentions various cases of his maladministration; one man was detained in prison 13 months before his case was investigated, and ho was then released; another man, sentenced to eight months' imprisonment in irons, with hard labour, appealed in the legal manner; his appeal remained unnoticed for a year, when he got eight months' more, or a year more than his original sentence. Sir Charles Napier writes— I have often heard the Greeks remark that Sir Frederick Adam has a sanguinary disposi- tion; the idea originated in his unfortunately thinking that to be rigorous is to be vigorous. I would also observe that it was not the Collector who recommended the reinstatement of Viziaram Raz; the Collector was Mr. Gardiner, and the person who made this recommendation was Mr. Russell — a Special Commissioner and Agent of the Madras Government. Viziaram Raz was imprisoned in 1832, at the age of 11 years, when he could be guilty of no crime, and remained in close confinement, no one being allowed access to him, till 1869, or for 37 years, when the then Governor of Madras, Lord Napier, set him at liberty to go anywhere South of the River Kristnah. His imprisonment had so benumbed him that he could not immediately take advantage of his liberty; and it was not until the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Buckingham) was Governor that he proceeded to Madras. In 1879, he succeeded in bringing his case, as a civil action, before the High Court of Madras. The High Court decided against his suit, not chiefly, as the Indian Office now says, but entirely on the ground of the Statute of Limitations. Now, the India Office has not given, nor has it attempted to give, any answer to the question, whether the British Government is morally justified in pleading limitation in answer to a civil suit, when it, the defendant, has, by physical and material impediments, prevented the plaintiff from obtaining access in time to a Court of Law. There are several proofs of Viziaram Raz having been prevented by Government from bringing his suit in time. The best is the following statement:— 15. In conclusion, I am to state that Viziaram Raz appears to have been allowed to sea his relatives and friends, and to communicate through the officers of Government with those at a distance. But, in 1859, a letter from a Vakeel at Madras, urging him to employ the writer's services, with a view to his release and restoration to his inheritance being effected, was intercepted and, forwarded to Government, who directed that the same course should be followed with any similar communications. This statement is contained in a letter to the Secretary to the Government of India, dated July 18, 1878, and signed by Mr. C. G. Master, Secretary to the Government. Similar evidence by an eye-witness, in 1859, was given by one who wrote to The Madras Athenæum, on 21st Juno, 1876, signed "Mofussilite." I further ask the noble Earl the Secre- tary of State for India how the Indian Government can plead the Statute of Limitations, when that Government has removed officers from the Indian Army for that fault? Captain H. Chichele Plowden, of the Bengal Staff Corps, was sued in a Court in India. He pleaded limitation, and gained his case; but the Government of India said it was a dishonourable plea, and removed him (notwithstanding his great interest) from the Service. The India Office also, at present, alleges that this case was carefully gone into by the Indian Government on its merits; and that it decided, under the advice of their Advocate General, that the rebellious Zemindar was the rightful heir and legal possessor of the estate. This advice of the Advocate General, Mr. Paul, is directly opposed to the judgment of the High Court of Madras of 1879, and also to a judicial decree of Mr. Smollett, Agent to the Governor of Fort St. George (Pro. No. 41 of 1855), in which he decided against the claim to a Zemindary of an illegitimate elder son, and dismissed a reference to the action of the Collector in the Palconda case, as not an authoritative case, and said that— On the contrary, it was doubtful if such a proceeding would have been upheld in Courts of Law. The Supreme Government have also alleged, in a despatch to the Secretary of State, dated November 7, 1878, as an objection to restoring the Zemindary, that new rights have grown up— And would, doubtless, be seriously affected if the estate should be restored. This is a purely gratuitous supposition. The Zemindary is now vested in the Government, which has preserved all the rights of the owner, which have not been affected, arid would not affect, rights of sub-tenants. I might here mention that, between March of 1876 and May of 1879, the English Press in India incessantly urged that justice should be done to this unfortunate victim of Sir Frederick Adam. I have here no less than 25 articles taken from the most influential Indian papers; but, as far as I know, none of these were reproduced in England. In the generality of cases of resumption or confiscation of Zemindaries or small States, a plea has been put forward that such a proceeding was for the benefit of the inhabitants. How does it happen, then, in this case that the Zemindary of Palconda, originally administered by a Collector, acting for the British Court of Wards, was subsequently, in 1846, farmed to the commercial firm of Messrs. Arbuthnot, and the rent raised from 110,000 rupees to 120,000 rupees in 1861, and to 130,000 rupees in 1871? I will now ask leave to read to your Lordships a letter from Lord Napier, dated Isle of Skye, May 12, written to me for that purpose, as, on account of his duties with the Royal Commission in the Highlands, he is unavoidably absent from the House. His letter is such that I might have dispensed with the statement I have already made, but that such a course might not have been respectful to the House, and would, perhaps, not have done justice to Viziaram Raz. I need not read the first part of the letter, in which, explaining the delay in sending it, Lord Napier confesses to reluctance to renew the perusal of these old injustices and miseries. He proceeds to write— …… Passing over the features in the case to which I have referred above, and in respect to which I cannot form a definite judgment, I feel myself at liberty to make the following statement of opinion to you:—

  1. '1. Viziaramarazu was long subjected to unnecessary restraint in the Fort of Vellore. He might have been liberated, with perfect safety to Government, at a much earlier period, with permission to reside in any part of the country not contiguous to the old estate of his family.
  2. '2. No proper provision was made for his education and training; his natural faculties were probably not strong; but little or nothing was done to improve them; and it may, perhaps, be in some degree owing to the neglect of Government that he has fallen into that state of debility or imbecility which is spoken of in the Memorial. I am bound to say, however, that when I saw him he was not imbecile or idiotic, but simply a weak, careless gentleman, incapable of governing his own actions wisely.
  3. '3. The allowance made by Government to Viziaramarazu, before 1869, was a penurious one, and not commensurate to his rank and position.
  4. '4. The imprisonment of Viziaramarazu at Veller, and the mean condition in which he was kept, debarred him practically from marriage with a lady of his own caste and country, until he was more than 40 years of age, which, in a social and religious point of view, was a more grievous disability and hardship in India than it would be in Europe.
  5. '5. The provision now made for Viziaramarazu s still incommensurate to his wants, as the representative of an ancient and honourable family; deprived of its possessions, practically, as a measure of policy by the Government.'
I consider that the Government would do well to increase the pension of the present holder, to allot a special sum for the maintenance and education of his adopted son, and to appoint some English functionary to superintend his training, apart from his family. It would also be worthy of Government, if the boy promises well, to make some provision for him, beyond that of a mere pensioner, by the creation of a Zemindary for him in the Northern Districts, either near the old estate, or from a portion of it. There is no condition of life more melancholy and hopeless than that of a hereditary State pensioner in India, without honour, duty, power, or any other element of a useful life. On a review of these Papers, I must confess that I reproach myself with not having gone more deeply into the case when it lay in my power to do so; and you have my sympathy and best wishes in your endeavours to procure a more liberal treatment for this unfortunate family by your intervention, either in the House of Lords, or at the India Office. Believe me, Very truly yours, NAPIER AND ETTRICK. P.S.—You are at liberty to make use of my opinion in any way which you may think right. It remains to be observed that the cost of the fullest restitution would have been under £5,000 a-year; or, in other words, that the benefit derived by the Government Revenue from this act of confiscation has been less than £5,000 a-year. But Viziaramarazu has not asked for so much at the hands of the Government. In his Memorial of June 4, 1879, he wrote— If the Government are unwilling to see justice done to me on financial grounds, I would be happy to accept my estates at such Peiskesh as the Government may deem reasonable; or, if the Government consider that my long imprisonment incapacitated me from managing my estates, trustees might be appointed on their behalf, or a guarantee from me for good conduct and management be taken. The only plea that is likely to be urged against doing justice to Viziaram Raz is, that the injury done to him happened a long time ago, and that the Secretary of State is not responsible for it. But the injury done to him has been continuous; for 37 years he was shut out from the world, and could not make his voice heard; since then, he has done his best to claim redress; and there has been no solution of continuity in doing him injury; for, last year, when he sent a Memorial to the Marquess of Hartington to the actual Governor of Madras for transmission, an evasive and misleading answer was written to him, and it was not till seven months later that he was informed that his Memorial could not be transmitted; the Private Secretary's letter, dated July 12, 1882, informed him, by order of the Governor, that his Memorial "had been transferred to the Chief Secretary to the Government for disposal." This letter took me in also, for how could I suppose that "disposal" meant putting it into the waste paper basket? This Memorial ought not to have been kept back, but should have been transmitted to the Marquess of Hartington, for it contained the hearing before the High Court of Madras, which was all new matter. It was unnecessary cruelty to keep Viziaram Raz for seven months in suspense, and to waste all that time, when he, at the age at which he had arrived, had but such a short time before him. The Secretary of State, now that this injustice has been laid before him, will, if he does not redress it, be as responsible for it as those who originally did the wrong. Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the case of the ex-Zemindar of Palconda and the confiscation of his property at a time when he was a ward of the British Court of Wards."—(The Lord Stanley of Aldertey.)

THE DUKE or BUCKINGHAM

said, that he had been referred to by the noble Lord as having been Governor of Madras during a portion of the time when the circumstances of the case arose. The statements with regard to the fact of the imprisonment were, unfortunately, too true. There was no doubt that the Zemindar was imprisoned as a boy until ho was partially released in 1869 by Lord Napier. It was not necessary that he should refer to the facts that led to the imprisonment of the Zemindar, or the manner in which he was detained; but he had appealed to the Government of the Presidency of Madras, and subsequently to the Courts of Law, and now his case was brought before that House. It was his misfortune that he had been unsuccessful in every step ho had taken—whether rightly or wrongly was a question which he did not suggest that their Lordships should discuss. As far as he could ascertain, what was done originally was done as an act of State—so he and his Predecessor understood and believed. He said that in the hearing of the case the matter had been argued in a differ- ent form, the assertion that the imprisonment was an act of State having been abandoned by the counsel for the Government. One, perhaps unavoidable, misfortune to which the Zemindar had been exposed was that the counsel who advised him to take proceedings was soon afterwards appointed Advocate General to the Government; and this learned gentleman argued the case before the Judges in opposition to the advice he himself had given. It was to be regretted that it was not found possible to obtain some other counsel to represent the Crown, rather than that it should be suggested, in a caso in which a Native was so largely interested, that his cause had been prejudiced by the Government depriving him of his counsel. Those who had investigated the case felt that a more liberal allowance might be accorded to this poor man, so as to put him in a position of some comfort for the few remaining years of his life. The case, which was filed in 1870, was not disposed of by the High Court before he left Madras. He understood that a decision had since been given by the three Judges of the High Court; and their decision was final, as the time for an appeal in the ordinary course had passed by. The possibility of further litigation being thus at an end, he thought it would be a graceful act on the part of the Indian Government, at the suggestion of the Secretary of State, to make a much more liberal allowance to this poor man. As no other person existed in India who had been imprisoned for a long period under similar circumstances, there could be no fear of establishing a dangerous precedent, even if a much larger sum were awarded to him.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that this matter had been the subject of a decision in a Court of Law, and the judgment had been recorded at great length in the proceedings of the High Court of Madras, and the facts were all given there in the most authentic form. The case arose out of the confiscation of the Zomindary of Palconda in 1832. The circumstances wore rather peculiar, because the previous Zemindar of Palconda, before the confiscation took place, was stated in the judgment to have left behind him, when he died, eight ladies who were styled his widows, although with some of them ho bad not gone through the ceremony of marriage. These eight ladies had a quarrel as to who was the proper heir to the Zemindary. The eldest son was illegitimate, and the second son, to whom the noble Lord referred, was legitimate. There were, however, some Zemindaries in India to which illegitimate sons had a right to succeed. The Government appeared to have satisfied themselves that the widows had made up their quarrel, and had agreed that the illegitimate eldest son should succeed to the Zemindary. He succeeded accordingly but disturbances arose, and eventually the Government confiscated the whole Zemindary; and the family, who were stated to have taken part in the disturbances against the Government, were imprisoned. This occurred as long ago as the year 1832. The present Memorialist, who was the second son, alleged that he ought not to have been ousted from what he conceived to be his rights. He was imprisoned, when a boy 11 years old, with the rest of his family. Finally, ho brought an action in the High Court of Madras. That Court expressed a doubt as to whether the Zemindary was one to which an illegitimate son might succeed; but that point was not before the Judges, and they did not give a judgment upon it. They did decide, however, that the Government was not a trustee in the sense alleged by the Petitioner, and that the lapse of time had entirely ousted the Petitioner from any right to obtain a restitution of the Zemindary which he claimed. Moreover, the Court distinctly expressed an opinion that the plaintiff had not been debarred by his detention in prison from bringing his case before them. It was a very difficult thing for the Government to deal with a question of that kind, which was upwards of 50 years old, and the evidence with regard to which was now, from the lapse of time, of an extremely uncertain character. The Government of Madras, in 1832, on account of the very serious disturb. ances, was obliged to employ troops to a large extent. Sir Thomas Monro had been referred to. What he had laid down was this—that when there were rebellions in these Zemindaries the Government could not, when confiscating the Zemindary in the person of the Zemindar, restore it to another member of the family. There were ob- vious reasons why, if one of a family rebelled, it would be a very serious matter to restore the Zemindary to another member of the same family. The only other question was that which the noble Duke had brought forward —namely, the amount of the allowance made to the ex-Zemindar. The amount had been increased by the late Viceroy, Lord Lytton, to 250 rupees a-month. He (the Earl of Kimberley) could not then say whether the amount ought to be increased, as the question had not been brought before him, and it was a matter which would require consideration. He could not accede to tho noble Lord's Motion.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

said, that the ex-Zemindar had been a prisoner for 37 years, from 1832 to 1869, and had since 1869 been a State prisoner, although he had not himself committed any offence against the Government, but merely for belonging to his own family. He trusted, therefore, that the Government of India would deal with this unfortunate man in a more liberal spirit than they had hitherto shown to him.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India had said nothing in his reply as to the unmerited injustice and cruelty of the life-long imprisonment of Viziaram Raz. This injustice and its continuance could not be explained, except that as India was the country of metempsychosis, it must be supposed that the souls of those who induced Clive to tarnish the laurels of Plassy by his deception of Omichund the banker, by a false copy of a Treaty, and who induced Admiral Watson to allow his name to be forged, though he would not sign it himself, had transmigrated into some of the present Rulers of India.

On Question? Resolved in the negative.