HOT. RT - ATjpy A LETTER ADDRESSED BY PERMISSION , to the :■ \ HON. LORI) STANLEY Mi P. DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY A LETTER VV ADDRESSED, BY PERMISSION, TO THE RIGHT-HON, LORD STANLEY, M.P. WITH APPENDIX. t BY INDOPOLITR. LONDON : J. Davy & Sons, Printers, 137, Long Acre. r Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/letteraddressedb01daws XV/t. Note. —The documents connected witli this case are so vety voluminous, that it is possible only to give selections. All the arguments used against the Nawaub are given in the minutes of Lord Harris and Lord Dalhousie. A vast amount of docu¬ mentary evidence in his favour, which will be found at length in the Parliamentary returns, has necessarily been excluded. APPENDIX. 'freaty of 1801 . . . . . i>3 — 01 Legal Opinions on the Treaty of Dr. Twiss, Mr. Lush, Q.C., and the Hon. J. B. Norton (now Advocate- General of the Madras Government) . . 01— 70 Opinions of the Duke of Wellington, Mr. Layard, Mr. John Dickenson, Mr. Bright, Mr. Norton, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and Letter of King George III. 70— 74 Extract from the Diary of the Marquis of Hastings relative to the Nawaub and the Treaty . . 74— 70 Conversation in the House of Commons after Mr. Smollett’s motion, June 13, 1804, caused by the singular reticence of the Government . . 70— 80 Division list on motions of Mr. Smollett and Mr. H. Baillie . . . . .80 Proclamation of Her Majesty to the Princes, Chiefs and People of India .... 81— 83 Despatch of Eight Hon. Sir C. Wood, April 8, 1862 . 83— 84 Minute of Lord Dalhousie on the Succession to the Nawaubship ..... 85— 88 Minute of Lord Harris, the Governor i?f Madras, on the Succession to the Nawaubship . . 88— 07 IV BAGE Important Declaration of Lord Clive, 18th December, 1801, regarding the Status of the Nawaub . 08—100 Proclamation of the Madras Government in 1801, on assuming the Government of the Carnatic under the Treaty ..... 101—104 Minute by Sir Thomas Munro regarding the Status of the second Nawaub under the Treaty (Prince Azeem Jah’s brother) . . . . 105— Otticial Declaration, recognising the first Nawaub under the Treaty (Prince Azeem Jah’s father) as an independent Prince and ally of the Govern¬ ment ..... 106— Treaty of 1768 . . . . . 106 -107 Minutes by Court of Directors and by Members of the Madras Government, referring to the conduct and rights of Prince Azeem Jah . . . 107—110 Letters from Court of Directors and King George on accession of late Nawaub and appointment of Prince Azeem Jah as Eegent . . . 110—111 A LETTEE We hereby announce to the Native Princes of India that all treaties and engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honourable East India Company are by us accepted, and wiU be scrupulously maintained .—Tlui Queen's Pro¬ clamation, November, 1858. The Government is bound, in duty as well as in policy, to act on every occasion with the purest integrity, and in the most scrupulous observance of good faith. Wherever a shadow of doubt can be shown, the claim should at once be abandoned .—Lord Lallunisie, Sattara Minute. It is certain, so many overthrown estates, so many votes for troubles.— Bacon. The safety of our rule is increased, not diminished, by the maintenance of Native Chiefs, weU affected to us .—Lord Canning's Minute on Adoption. I answered that a treaty plighted the public faith of the nation, so that it must be my duty to maintain its terms according to their true spirit, which ought always to be construed most favourably for the party whose sole dependence was on the honour of the other .—Marquis of Hastings, Governor- General of India, Account of Ms Interview with the Nawaub of the Carnatic in 1813. (See Appendix.) My Lord, In availing myself of your generous per¬ mission to address you publicly on a matter of vital interest to certain individuals, and, as I stall be able to show, of no slight importance to the country, I was strongly tempted to make use of some literary artifice in order to arouse the sympathies of my readers before makiug known to them the subject of my address; I thought of devising a fable in which a powerful monarch should receive with kind¬ ness and favour a poor and struggling merchant, B 2 who had sought his protection; I intended to depict the rapid rise of the merchant to honour and power through his patron’s assistance^ and the mutual advantages which subsequent years of friendship and loyalty had produced. I should have repre¬ sented the aged king on his death-bed, leaving in full faith and confidence the interests of his family and kingdom to the charge of his friend the mer¬ chant, now his equal in dignity and power. The latter I should have described as faithful to this solemn trust for many years, but in the arrogance of long continued prosperity, as grown forgetful of the laws of honour and the principles of justice, and as ousting from their inheritance, and turning out to beggary and ruin, the children of his old friend and benefactor. This, however, would be to beg the question I intend to raise, and I wish to appeal to reason as well as to sentiment. There are two sides to most questions. Perhaps, if we knew all about the countryman and the adder, we should find some cause to excuse even the latter’s ingratitude. But if the adder had been a lamb, it evidently could not have stung its protector. So there are questions that have only one side. I pledge any reputation I may possess to the statement that the question which will form the subject matter of this letter, is one of these—that there is literally “ no other side ” to it. This, however, I shall not forget, that I must prove both to your Lordship’s satisfaction, and that of those who may desire to become acquainted with the subject. To your Lordship I address myself under pecu- 3 liarly favourable circumstances, for you bave already proved by your vote in tbe House of Commons, tbat in your opinion this matter is one which calls for inquiry, and inquiry is all that is demanded. The inquiry, however, must be that of a body of impartial unprejudiced men, and not of those who have a foregone conclusion to satisfy, and who may have been executors in the business of which they are now invited to be the judges. The inquiry which the distinguished but imfortunate personage, in whose behalf I write, respectfully demands as a right, as well as solicits as a favour, is that of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. To this your Lordship, and many other eminent members of the House have already declared him to be entitled.* My observations will necessarily be directed to¬ wards establishing the absolute justice of the cause I plead; but I shall be well satisfied if I succeed in creating in the minds of my readers a conviction similar in nature and degree to that which led your Lordship, and a large minority of the House of Commons, in June last, to support a motion for a select Committee of that House to enquire into the claims of his Highness Azeem Jah to the title and dignity of Nawaub of the Carnatic. Before proceeding, I would briefly call your atten¬ tion to the miserable position which this Prince, together with most of his class in India, occupy. They are, in fact, under the protection of no laws. They are liable at almost any moment to be de¬ prived of rank, dignities and property,—all those * Appendix, p. 79-80. B 2 4 tilings, wliicli we value by no means liglitly, but to wbicb men cling in tbe East with a surprising tenacity and affection. A subordinate official of our Government may strip them of all tbey bold most dear, of rights and privileges banded down to tbem from a long line of ancestors, on tbe most flimsy pretext; and if be be supported by bis superiors—and be bas exceptional facilities for justifying bis conduct—tben tbe conflscation is complete, and there remains only tbe last Court of Appeal, tbe Parliament of England. But an appeal to Parliament costs money; those who could conduct it successfully are lucratively employed, and cannot abandon their occupations for a year or two without very large compensation, while tbe act complained of usually deprives tbe plaintiff of tbe means so necessary for asserting bis rights. He continues for years sending unavailing memorials, to wbicb curt and unsatisfactory replies are returned. It takes a long time to undermine bis faith in our integrity— be hopes on against hope, till at last, deprived of honour and dignity, bumibated and impoverished, be accepts as tbe will of God tbe injustice of man. There is no law to wbicb be can appeal except tbe law of national honour and good faith; and in tbe case in wbicb be is plaintiff tbe defendant is also tbe judge and tbe executioner. Tbe poorest peasant in tbe land bas a tribunal wbicb protects bis pro¬ perty and privileges from encroachment. His dirty scrap of paper presented to tbe judge will ensure bis rights from violation, while tbe formal and pretentious document wbicb embodies a treaty made 5 by a British Government with an Indian prince, pleaded by him before those whom surrounding circumstances encourage to repudiate it, receives at their hands an interpretation which may be sincere, but which has too often proved cruel and unjust. Surely, my Lord, men who are thus innocent outlaws in the British empire have more than a common claim on the attention of the House of Commons, when the Government of the day declines to hear their complaints. Suffering, or conceiving they suffer, under extreme injustice, living on the other side of the world, ignorant of our language, manners, and customs, helpless as children, and too often steeped in poverty by the very acts of which they complain, surely there is no class of persons within her Majesty^s wide dominions more entitled to the indulgent ear of Parliament, and to the generous consideration of the leading statesmen of the country. His Highness Prince Azeem Jah dejure Nawaub of the Carnatic, (the legal opinions appended to this letter place his title beyond dispute),* traces his family back over a thousand years. Certainly, the antiquity of his race does not add to the justice of his cause; but in debate last year, that antiquity was impugned, a sufficient reason alone for my refer¬ ring to it here. It is far from an unworthy senti¬ ment either that makes us regret more especially the decay and ruin of an ancient and distinguished house, the members of which have played a great part in history, and whose fall is due rather to the accidents of fortune than to any fault of its own. Be * Appendix, p. Gl. 6 this as it may, Azeem Jah is descended from a family whose common father was the Khalif Omar, who ruled over Arabia, Persia, and Syria from 634 to 644 A.D. Amongst his more eminent ancestors was Sheik Suliman, who in the year 726 a.d. invaded and conquered Cabul, reigning there under the title of Sultan Suliman. This family was overthrown by the Ghiznivides, and subsequently entered India with Ghengis Khan.* One member of it, Hajee Anwar, became Lord of the Prayer Chamber to the great Mogul Emperor Arunzebe, and was the father of Anwar-ood-deen Khan, the first Nawaub of the Carnatic, of the present family. Anwar-ood-deen was appointed Nawaub by the Nizam of the Deccan in default of lineal heirs to the former dynasty. On his death, which occurred in battle undertaken against the French in 1749, to punish them for attacking the English settlements in the Carnatic, contrary to his orders, his son Mahomed Ali, better known as Wallah Jah, espoused our cause, and was confirmed by the Nizam, as his successor in the Nawabship. This Prince, Wallah Jah, was the great grandfather of Prince Azeem Jah. I should here add that the Nawaubs of the Carnatic were deputy governors of the Nizam, who again was the Viceroy of the Mogul Emperor. These offices were both hereditaiy, but subject to the superiors sanc¬ tion ; they were in fact feudal offices, but by a firman, dated August 26th, 1765, the Mogul Emperor Shaw Alum granted to the Nawaub Wallah Jah, his eldest son, and their heirs for ever, the Government of the * Hist, of Bagdad, by Sheik Abul-barakat Baghdadi. 7 Carnatic and the countries dependent thereon, as a free gift, and subsequently in consideration of a sum of £50,000. (five lacs of rupees) the Nizam of the Deccan released Wallah Jah, his eldest son, their heirs and successors, from all dependence upon the Deccan, and gave him “ a full discharge of all demands, past, present, and to come.^’ Two years subsequently the East India Company became a formal party by the treaty of 1768 to these trans¬ actions, and Wallah Jah was recognised on all sides as an independent sovereign prince in the Carnatic.* At this time we were very anxious to strengthen the position of our very useful ally, the Nawaub of the Carnatic, for to do this was to fortify our own. “ The first and most distinguished of our con- “ nections,” writes the Governor of Madras, in 1780, “ is that which has been formed with the present “ Nawaub of the Carnatic. Our influence in the “ Carnatic is founded on the free will and consent “ of the Nawaub. From his confidence in our “ attachment and power, he requested, of his own “ accord, that the Company might garrison his forts “ and maintain troops at his expense, for the pro- “ tection of the Carnatic. Such a confidence ought “ never to be abused; to have deserved it, reflects “ honour upon our moderation, to abuse it would be “ to throw an indelible stain upon our character and “ memory. * * * It is certain that all the incon- “ veniences we suffer will be amply compensated by “ the advantages derived from an exclusive influence “ in the Nawaub’s country. * * * * It is unques- * Appendix, p. lOG. 8 “ tionably to tbis influence we are indebted for a great portion of our prosperity, for our success “ agaiust tbe French in India in the last war, and tbe “ decisive stroke made against them so early in tbe “ present war, to wbicb, as affairs bave since turned “ out, tve owe, perhaps, our present existence in the " East. * * * * Tbe support of tbe Company was “ originally given to bim, not upon bis account, but " tbeir own.” I make these extracts in order to show tbe vast service rendered to us in India by tbe great grandfather of tbe present Prince. I would bave it remembered now, and placed to bis credit, that we obtained possession of this vast territory in Southern India from its legitimate sovereigns without tbe shedding of one drop of blood, or tbe show of active resistance. Tbe close friendship and attachment wbicb bad sprung up between the Car¬ natic family and tbe English Grovernment during tbeir united and deadly struggle against tbe French and tbe Mysore Princes grew into a tradition, wbicb was loyally preserved on both sides until tbe un¬ happy decision of a few years ago wbicb has given rise to tbe present appeal to Parliament. During tbe wars against tbe French tbe great energy and ability of tbe English became patent to tbeir ally tbe Nawaub, and be made a treaty in 1787, by wbicb it was agreed that tbe Company should maintain a body of troops for tbe defence of the country, and that be should pay a certain stipu¬ lated sum every year to tbe Company in return.* He was very irregular in bis payments, alleging * These troops took a leading part in all the wars against Hyder Ali and Tippoo Saib. 9 that the resources of his country were unequal to this charge upon them. The Carnatic had been afflicted with famine, war had been continuous, and there appears no fair reason to doubt the truth of the Nawaub’s allegation. Tippoo Saib, whose grand¬ children have been lately treated with such liberality and consideration,* was evidently bent on mischief; and our pecuniary necessities were urgent. The Government represented to the Nawaub that the war impending was of purely domestic origin, that it was not, as heretofore, the outskirts of a great European quarrel, and that he was as much in¬ terested as the East India Company in punishing the aggressions of Tippoo. At last he yielded, though with the greatest reluctance, to the en¬ treaties of the Government, and a second treaty was made in 1792, in which the failure of the former treaty to answer the purposes intended was acknowledged; and further, to use the language of the treaty, “ in the event of war breaking out in “ the Carnatic and countries appertaining to either “ party, and dependent on the Carnatic, or con- “ tiguous thereto, it is agreed, for the better prose- “ cution of it, that as long as it should last the said Company shall possess full authority over the “ Carnatic, and shall collect the revenues thereof, “ the said Company hereby engaging that, during “ such war, they will pay to the said Nawaub one “ fifth share of the net revenue arising therefrom, “ and that at the conclusion of the war the Carnatic * The contrast between this treatment and that extended to the grand-children of our most faithful and serviceable friend and ally is extraordinary. Appendix, p. 7G. 10 “ shall be restored to the Nawaub, except in certain “ cases Avhicb are hereinafter mentioned/^ In the same treaty the sovereign rights of the Nawaub were specially reserved during the temporary alienation. A separate article stipulates that “ the said Nawaub '' shall receive regular information of any negociatioil which shall relate to declaring war or making peace “ wherein the said Company may engage, and the “ interests of the Carnatic and its dependencies be “ concerned; and the said Nawaub shall be con- “ sidered as an ally of the said Company in all treaties “ which shall in any respect affect the Carnatic and “ countries depending thereon, or belonging to “ either of the contracting parties contiguous there- “ to.’^ Thus much for the position of Prince Azeem JaVs great grandfather, only seventy-four years ago, and a few years before the Prince himself was born. It is evident that Wallah Jah had placed all his influence and resources, as legitimate Prince of the Carnatic, at our disposal, in our long and arduous struggle with the French, which was but the reverberation of contests waging in Europe. The forces which he subsidized us to maintain were also engaged in the wars against Hyder and Tippoo. At first an hereditary governor he at length became, by negociation and purchase, an indepen¬ dent prince. To add to the united strength of himself and his ally, the East India Company, he yielded to the latter in time of war all powers in his country till the restoration of peace, reserving for himself one-fifth of its revenues, and a voice in the councils of his ally. He continued our faithful ally for half a century. It was he who first induced his n father to take up arms in 1749 in defence of the small knot of English adventurers settled on his territory. From that time until his death in 1795 he remained our firm and unswerving friend. No other prince in India can be named from whom we received such constant and valuable aid, and whose long career was unstained by a single act of treachery towards us.* If there is a single individual in India towards whom we are bound in common gratitude to be indulgent even to weakness, it is the great grandson of our old and unfaltering ally. Yet he simply asks for his rights—not even for his rights, but simply for a committee of honourable and impartial men to enquire into the validity of his claims. Wallah Jah died in 1795, and was succeeded by his son Omdut-ool-Omrah. No change took place in the relative position of the Nawaub and the Company during the life of this Nawaub. But the Government was early convinced of the great advan¬ tages that would accrue if the temporary powers conferred upon us by the treaty of 1792 in the Nawaub’s country could be made permanent. We were content to leave him the titular sovereignty and one-fifth of the revenues if he would allow us uninterrupted possession of the civil and military administration of the country. Our power had grown enormously since his father first espoused the cause of our fathers in 1749, and his power had correspondingly decreased. We urged our wish * I pass over the alleged intrigue with Tippoo as unworthy of credit, on the authority of Mill and other historians. It was investigated in Parliament, and disproved, and in Lord Hastings’ time (Appendix, p. 74), evidently no one believed in it. 12 upon liim. We represented to him earnestly and frequently that this concession would not detract from his high rank and dignity, and that it would ensure him a large and regular revenue, and also bring about the amelioration of the oppressed and impoverished population. All was in vain; the Nawaub would not yield to our importunities, or surrender on any terms the administration of his country. He alleged that his father, who had signed the treaty of 1792 with the deepest sorrow, had adjured h i m not to grant any further conces¬ sions, and he besought the Grovernor, by all that was due to filial respect and afiection, not to repeat a request with which it was impossible that he should comply. In this frame of mind he died in 1801, and we then determined to accomplish our wish, honestly if we could, but at any rate to accomplish it. A letter is extant from Lord ComwaUis which shows plainly enough by what motives the conduct of the Indian Government was guided in this matter. At the close of the last century Lord Cornwalhs was the great authority on Indian subjects, and even when he was presiding over the government of Ireland in the year 1800, his opinion was frequently demanded regarding them. He writes, on one of these occasions in a letter to Major General Ross, dated Phoenix Park, August 16, 1800, in the fol¬ lowing terms : “ Mr. Dundas sent me Lord Welles- “ ley^s letter, and his answer and papers respecting “ the Nabob of Arcot. I told him that I wished “ the latter to be so managed as either to frighten “ him so much as to induce him to give up the 13 “ management of tlie country, or to furnish a pretext “for taking it from himf^ This naive confession furnislies a key to all that subsequently occurred. Read by it we can fully understand tbe importance attacked by Lord Wellesley to tke vague suspicion of tke legitimacy of tke Nawaub’s son, and to tke commonplace letters to Tippoo found on tke capture of Seringapatam. ^Still even Lord Cornwallis desired only tke management ” of tke country. Tke nominal sovereignty and an ample revenue botk ke and kis successors in tke Indian government were quite willing to guarantee to tke Nawaub, but by kook or by crook tke “ management^’ of tke country was to be obtained. It was obtained in less tkan a year after Lord CornwalHs wrote tke above letter, and it is significant kow closely tke metkod em¬ ployed corresponds witk tkat suggested by kim. If, kowever, tke intentions of tke statesmen, wko were engaged in tkis transaction, were suck as kave been lately ascribed to tkem, words could not be found sufficiently strong to stigmatize tkeir treachery. But Lord Cornwallis, Lord Clive, Governor of Madras, and tke Marquis Wellesley, Governor- General of India, kad simply come to tke conclusion tkat tke current arrangements in tke Carnatic, founded on tke treaty of 1792, could not possibly continue; tkat events kad proved tkem to be im¬ practicable. There appears no reason to doubt tke soundness of tkis opinion. An open violation, however, of a solemn engagement, besides being a dishonourable was a dangerous course. We could * See Cornwallis’ correspondence. 14 not afForcl then, we can ill afford now, to alarm the native princes and chieftains of India hy the infringement of solemn engagements entered into with our oldest and best friends.* The correspon¬ dence between the Grovernor-General and his subor¬ dinates in Madras betrays this feeling fully, and it discovers, at the same time, an earnest and laudable desire to press lightly upon the fallen prince and his family, to spare their feelings as much as possible in consideration of their high rank and eminent services, and to give them as dignified a position and as large a revenue as the exigencies of government and the resources of the country would justify. Holding these views Lord Clive had long urged on the Nawaub Omdut-ool-Omrah the advantage of ceding to the Company in perpetuity the civil and military administration of the Carnatic, which former treaties had invested them with in time of war only, reserving to himself and his family the titular dignity of Nawaub and one-fifth of the revenues of the country. On the Nawaub’s death in 1801 the same arrangement was pressed on the Regents to whom the interests of his young son were confided by will, and as convenient doubts were circulated at the same time as to the young princess parentage, though he had been duly recognised by his father and the family, submission to our wishes was made the condition of British support against his rivals. After long negociations and considerable vacilla¬ tion, the prince declined to cede the government * The suppression of the Nawaubship in 1855 called forth a bitter remonstrance from the Nizam in open Dmrhar. 15 of the country to us in permanency. About this time some mysterious documents were discovered at the capture of Seringapatam, proving it was alleged that the deceased Nawaub, and even his father, our old friend and ally Wallah Jah, had been conspiring with Tippoo Saib against our interests. True or not the accusation does not affect the present claimant’s rights, which are based upon the treaty subsequently made with his father. Mill, the historian of India, investigates the charge at very great length, and pronounces the evidence against the Nawaubs unworthy of any credit.* This discovery, however, was much too useful to be un¬ welcome to us. The treachery of the Nawaubs was assumed with suspicious haste, and the discovery was made an instrument for gaining over the Carnatic family to our wishes. The Regents were informed that the deceased Nawaubs had sacrificed all the rights of the family under the treaty of 1792 by their treachery, and that the Company would now be fully justified in leaving them to their own resources. Still the young prince persisted in his refusal to give us up the government. We then had recourse to his cousin and rival, who, assuming the other’s illegiti¬ macy, was the proper heir. To him we made the same offer, and he accepted it, and entered into the treaty of 1801, from which Prince Azeem Jah derives his rights. He was, in fact. Prince Azeem Jah’s father. We immediately surrounded him with a guard of honour, and proclaimed him to the people of * The same view is taken by Mr. Horace Hayman Wilson, the last editor of Mill. See further, Bell’s “ Empire of India,” Letter IV. 16 tlie Carnatic as tlieir “ lawful Nawaub/’ from whom we accepted the permanent Government of the country as a “ sacred tru^t/^* The treaty was scru¬ pulously observed during his lifetime. On his death in 1819, it was decided, both by the Madras Govern¬ ment and by the Governor-General of India, that his son had a right to succeed under the treaty. In fact, the very question which was opened by the Government in 1855 had been discussed and settled by the Government in 1819.t The treaty was ac¬ cordingly observed during the lifetime of his son and grandson, who followed him in regular succes¬ sion. The grandson died without issue in 1855. Whereupon Prince Azeem Jah applied for his in¬ stallation. He was the eldest surviving son of the first Nabob of the junior branch—^he who made the treaty with us in 1801—and he was also the uncle of the young prince who had just died.f He had, moreover, been Regent for upwards of twenty years, and had been treated as a royal personage during that time. He had received letters of congratulation from the British Sovereign, and from the Court of Directors, acknowledging, as a matter of course, the hereditary status of the young Nawaub.§ He was the sole and undisputed heir of his nephew, both by Mahomedan and English law, and had further * Appendix, p. 101. f Appendix, p. 109. t It has been alleged lately that the uncle has not equal rights with the son. But in the first place, Nussur Ood Been Hyder, King of Oude, was succeeded by his uncle in 1837 with the sanction of the Government; and secondly. Article V. of the treaty reserves one-fifth of the revenue to the Nawaub and “ his “ immediate family” (Azeem Jah is his eldest surviving son). This clause, according to Dr. Twiss, secures the revenue “ explicitly,” and the title, &c. “ implicitly ” to the family. § Appendix, p. 110. 17 become tbe representative of tbe senior as well as of tbe younger branch of tbe Carnatic family. He bad besides been beir presumptive to tbe Nawaub- sbip from tbe death of bis brother tbe Nawaub Azum Jab in 1825^ and bad been frequently men¬ tioned officiallyin that capacity*. But tbe annexation policy was then in its zenith, and tbe fearful retribu¬ tion of 1857 undreamt of; the treaty, after having been observed for fifty-four years, during tbe life¬ times of three successive princes, was declared to have been binding only as respects tbe first Nawaub, whose son and grandson it was alleged bad been permitted to succeed to bis position solely as a matter of grace and favour, though they were never told of it; tbe treaty was declared, in apparent ignorance of tbe decision of tbe two Governments on this very point in 1819, to be a personal treaty, convey¬ ing no hereditary status to tbe family; and Prince Azeem Jab was informed that be was a mere private individual, but that tbe Company would generously allow him out of bis family revenues a stipend for life of £10,000 per annum. This tbe proud old nobleman peremptorily refused to accept, and it was not until compelled by absolute want that be drew a portion of its accumulations, under the special condition that be did so without prejudice to any of bis rights imder tbe treaty made with bis father by tbe East India Company in IdOl.f * Appendix, p. 109. •f So bitter was tbe feeling against the Prince entertained by some members of the Madras Government, that an attempt was made to cut him off from the benefit of these arrears. More generous coimsels prevailed, however, and justice was done to him in several recorded minutes. See Appendix, p. 107-8. C 18 This treatj’-j* my Lord, is by far the most impor¬ tant document to the present argument ; the whole question at issue is, whether the treaty gives or does not give an hereditary status to the Carnatic family as respects the Nawaubship. The treaty, and a few of the more important documents relating* to it, are appended to this letter, and each of my readers can form his own opinion as to their true meaning. In such a matter nothing should be taken on trust. Lord Harris, the Governor of hladras, and Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-General of India in 1855, in elaborate minutes, pronounced the treaty to be a mere personal engagement with the first Nawaub, conferring no hereditary right to the Nawaubship whatever on his descendants^ but I doubt if there will be many who will not regard as more correct, and at least as equally impartial, the professional opinions of the eminent legal gentlemen which will be found in the Appendix. J I willingly leave the correct meaning of the treaty to them to determine, and it will be admitted, I think, that it could not be left to men of greater eminence or authority in such matters. Granting then, as I appre¬ hend it must be granted, that the treaty secured the Nawaubship and all its advantages to the Nawaub and his family in hereditary possession, I would particularly direct your Lordship^ s attention to the fact, that the sole reason by which the suppression of this dignity in 1855 was justified was the as- * Appendix, p. .5.3. f Appendix, p. 85-8. % Dr. Travers Twiss, the Hon. J. B. Norton (now Advocate- General to the Madras Government), Robert Lush, Esq. Q.C. Appendix, p. Cl. 19 sumed non-hereditary or personal nature of the en¬ gagements contracted by the Company with the Nawaub. This is clearly and emphatically stated both by Lord Harris and Lord Dalhousie, and though loth to introduce foreign matter so often into my text, I must do so in this instance. Lord Harris writes —“ the question to be decided comes to “ this, has the Grovernment, including in that term “ thatof Madras, that of India, and that of theHonour- “ able Court, bound itself, by its acts or deeds, to “ maintain the hereditary succession to the musnud “ of the Nabob of Arcot so long as the family con- “ tinues.^^ Lord Harris then decides this question in the negative, and Lord Dalhousie concurs in the following paragraph of his minute :—“ I entirely “ agree with Lord Harris and the members of the “ Government of Fort St. George in holding that “ the treaty of 1801 confers no right of hereditary “ succession.” I will leave it to those acquainted with human nature to determine how it comes to pass that the opinions of those two noblemen are so directly opposed to the opinions so lately given on the treaty by the eminent lawyers to whom I have already referred. Wlien the defendant in a suit is also judge, jury, and executioner, it is not dilRcult to forsee what the verdict will be, or to estimate the amount of mercy likely to be extended to the plaintiff. I would only notice the fact which, if the subject were not so serious, would be amusing enough, that any breach of faith was all the while most virtuously deprecated. There were many in¬ conveniences, it was argued, attached to the Nawaub- c 2 20 sliip—I mean inconveniences to us—tlie rights and privileges of the Nawaubs were a stumbling block to many officials; but there was no question of break¬ ing a treaty in order to get rid of them. “ I will “ here state my very decided opinion/^ writes the Governor of Madras, “ that these rights and privi- “ leges should not be continued if they can be “ abrogated ivithout a violation of faith” The House of Commons will shortly be called upon to decide whether it accepts the intei-pretation of the treaty sanctioned by several of the most dis¬ tinguished lawyers in the empire, or that suggested by the two noblemen who are, so to speak, the defendants in this case. It will be for the House then to determine if the rights and privileges of this family have been abrogated without the vio¬ lation of faith which both Lord Harris and Lord DaUiousie admitted would be unjustifiable; and it Avill not, I should hope, place a fighter value on the national honour than was done by their Lordships. The great danger is that only a small number of members will take any trouble in the matter, and that this unfortunate Prince will suffer from the apathy of his judges. Twice in 1863 he has suf¬ fered by this apathy, while the questionable strata¬ gem, nay, I will say, the ungenerous and ignoble device* by which the Government last session secm’ed a small majority of seventeen in a House of 107, and “ bm’ked,” as was indignantly remai’ked after the division, the respectful appeal of a weak and oppressed Prince to its justice and liberality, had * Appendix, p. 76. 21 pi’actically the same effect.* The House was not asked to sanction the Princess claims, but to appoint a select Committee of its members to enquire into their validity. Very strong prima facie evidence was adduced to show that, whether intentionally or through mistake it is needless now to enquire, a very grievous wrong had been inflicted on a per¬ sonage to whom we were bound, beyond all others in India, to be constant and indulgent in our friend¬ ship, and by whose decay we had enormously pro¬ fited. The Government was silent, and no doubt the Indian Minister was glad to find means, however pusillanimous, to escape from the uncomfortable necessity of mistifying the House by arguments with the untruth of which he must now be only too well acquainted. But the Government found defenders in others, whose happy ignorance of the subject relieved them of any such reluctance, and at about half-past eight, in a thin House, the Minis¬ ters “ counted noses,” and divided. I would refer those who were absent from that division to the animated conversation that ensued, after it was taken, as truthfully representing the feelings of the House on the “ short knock,” to use an auc¬ tioneer's phrase, with which the Minister disposed of the motion, t In such an unequal contest as that of a poor and almost helpless Prince with a great Government, is it too much to expect that the latter * Mr. W. E. Forster said, “that he voted with the minority “ because he could not but suspect that the Government had strong “ reasons for not defending themselves when they allow'cd such “ charges to go without reply.” See Appendix, p. 78. t Appendix, p. 70. 22 sliould only use lionourable weapons. It is also worth while considering what will he the effect on the people of India of this mode of receiving a fair and open appeal, introduced and supported in the House of Commons by men of eminent position and every variety of pohtical opinion.* Of what value will that right royal Proclamation of her Majesty, which was addi’essed to the Princes, Chiefs, and People of India on the 1st of November, 1858,t be in their eyes if the House refuses to make its most solemn and explicit promises operative by insisting on their observance. This royal document is regarded, and it is to be hoped rightly so, by the inhabitants of India as the Magna Charta of their rights and liberties. Prince Azeem Jah and the multitudes who have signed the petitions in his behalf in India and in this country, appeal to that charter. The Prince shows that the treaty, which his father surren¬ dered so much in order to obtain, has been violated, and the violation has been sanctioned by the Secre¬ tary of State for India. He quotes the solemn as¬ surances of her Majesty that she accepts and will scrupulously maintain all such treaties, and will re¬ spect the rights, dignity, and honour of her native Princes as her own, and he asks the House out of respect for the honour of the Crown, if not for the claims of justice, to enquire thoroughly and impartially whether his allegations are well founded or not. I have no doubt that there are very many members who will consider that the repudiation of this treaty, which forms our only title-deed to a * Appendix, p. 80, -f Appendix, p. 81. 23 countzy now yielding a revenue of nearly four mil¬ lions sterling per annum^ is wortli a portion of tlie attention wliicli lias been lavisbed on tbe vio¬ lated constitutions of Poland or Hungary, or tbe treaty guaranteeing tbe integrity of Denmark. We tbougbt tbe violation of tbis latter treaty by Ger¬ many last year a monstrous act. I bave no hesita¬ tion in saying tbat it was a very respectable pro¬ ceeding indeed in comparison witb tbe confiscation of tbe rights and revenues of tbe Nawaubs of tbe Carnatic, and tbis is not tbe language of exaggera¬ tion, but of plain truth. I bave mentioned, my Lord, two defendants, but time has added a third to tbe number. Tbe present Secretary of State for India came into office in 1859, when tbis matter was still snh jiulice. He took four years to give bis decision upon it in a despatch to the local Government, adopting unreservedly tbe views set forth in tbe minutes of Lord Harris and Lord Dal- bousie, and declining to disturb their decision. Tbe singular reticence of tbe Government * in tbe debate of June last, compels me to accept Mr. Lowe’s speech as tbe ministerial defence. I pass by tbat gentleman’s interpretation of tbe treaty, as I ap¬ prehend the impartial legal opinions in tbe Appendix will set at rest all question as to its meaning; but Mr. Lowe dwelt witb some energy on tbe in¬ expediency of tbe House countenancing a motion which would introduce an element of instability into our Indian policy, by showing tbat, “ after any “ lapse of time there was never to be any rest to “ Indian questions.” Tbe time in tbis instance was * Appendix, p. 76. 24 seven and a lialf years^ upwards of three of which were made unavailing by the mutiny, during which the Prince considered it was his duty to assist the Government by setting an example of attachment and fidelity in place of embarrassing it by urging his claims actively on its attention. Had he pur¬ sued the latter course, as matters turned out, he would probably have gained his object, for the im¬ portunate beggar is not unfrequently successful; but he was the head of the first family in southern India, which formerly ruled over the Carnatic, and he was, besides, the Chief Priest of the Mussulman population, of which the Madras army is largely con¬ stituted; his conduct, accordingly, in that great crisis of our fortunes, is entitled to our favour and gratitude; and it does seem strange for any Eng¬ lishman to turn it into an argument for the rejec¬ tion of his present appeal.* Weak, however, and mifair as this argument is, my Lord, I feel con¬ vinced that it is the only argument that can now be adduced for opposing a motion in the House of Commons for a Select Committee to enquire into * The following truthful testimony, by a very competent eye¬ witness, has been born to the conduct of this Prince and his family in 1857. “ The tranquillity during the mutinies in Hindostan of the city of Madras—supposed to contain nearly 100,000 Ma- homedans, and any excitement in which would have spread imme¬ diately among their brethren in the districts of Arcot, Cuddapah and Kumool—may be entirely attributed to the influence of Prince Azeem Jah and his intimate counsellors. In spite of the recent notiflcation he had received in February, 1857, that the Court of Directors had rejected his appeal, all the Prince’s efforts were directed quietly but effectually to suppress the fanatical spirit and the smouldering spark of revolt, which a few words of provocation would have blown into ablaze.”—“ Empire in India,'’ hij 2Iajur Evans Bell, parje 283. 25 Prince Azeem Jah’s claims. Tlie question raised as to the meaning of the treaty and the status of his family is disposed of, for good, by the eminent lawyers whose opinions are annexed. I can easily show how the time, on which Mr. Lowe’s mind has such magnifying power, passed by, leaving the matter unredressed. The last Nawaub died on the 7th of October, 1855. The Prince, on being made acquainted with the decision of the Indian Govern¬ ment memorialized the Court of Directors in No¬ vember, of the same year, and the latter took ivards of a year to reply. To this reply the Prince rejoined, asking to be favored with the reasons on which the Board based its decision, but obtained no answer. During the mutinies the Prince con¬ fined himself simply to addressing letters to the Government, respectfully declining to acquiesce in the position assigned to him. In 1858, the sub¬ ject came imder the notice of your Lordship, then President of the Board of Control, and was by you referred to India for further information.* Though the matter was still under consideration, a bill was passed through the Calcutta Council, and the deceased Nawaub’s effects were publicly—I should say shamefully—sold, notwithstanding Prince Azeem Jail’s protest against this expeditious rapacity. In July, 1861, Mr. Layard,t who was not then in the Government, brought the matter under the notice of the present Secretary of State for India, the third defendant, and he most frankly agreed to enquire into its merits. In August of the same year the * Appendix, p. 79. f Appendix, p. 71. 26 Prince sent a fresli memorial to tlie Secretary of State,—liis former one liaving remained unanswered fov four years ,—tlie apparent willingness with which the Right Honourable Baronet consented to investi¬ gate the claim being regarded as a hopeful sign. In April, 1862, after a lapse of eight months, a despatch arrived from Sir Charles Wood reiterating all the fallacies used by Lords Harris and Dal- housie* as to the meaning of the treaty, and stating that “ a very full, patient, and searching revision of “ all the papers of this case, and of the arguments “ adduced by the memorialists, has convinced me “ that there are no grounds to justify me in dis- “ turbing the decision arrived at six years ago, and “ advising her Majesty to re-establish the titular “ -JSTawaubship of the Carnatic.” It is against this extraordinary decision that Prince Azeem Jah now appeals to the House of Commons. This is in effect the only opinion that has been passed on his claims, with all the facts and arguments on both sides laid before the Government. I call it an extraordinary decision, because the treaty and its accompanying documents have been laid before several eminent lawyers in succession, whose ability and impartiality no one will venture to impugn, each of whom has come to a conclusion the very opposite to that adopted by the Secretary of State for India If “ Very full, patient, and searching” the revision of * It appears not improbable that Lord Dalhonsie bad seen fit to doubt the propriety of his acts in the Carnatic, as in the minute of Eeview, -mfitten on the eve of his departure from India, he says, “ the Court of Directors has been advised to place the title of Nawaub in abeyance." f Appendix, p. Gl. 27 the papers in the India Office may possibly have been, it was wanting only in impartiality.* When a foregone conclusion has to be established, it is most charitable to suppose that the human mind is incapable of estimating evidence or understanding- plain language. In reply to this despatch the Prince, giving up all hope of obtaining justice from the Indian Government, addressed an elaborate • letter to the Secretary of State in refutation of the statements and arguments of the local Indian autho¬ rities, protesting against the decision as unjust, and distinctly refusing to acquiesce in it. In February, 1863, a motion was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Baillie, late Secretary of the Board of Control, which, if it had been suc¬ cessful, would have transferred the question of Prince Azeem Jah’s rights to the Judicial Com¬ mittee of the Privy Council. Late in the same Session a motion for a Select Committee was intro¬ duced by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and met a fate which is too usual in matters connected with India to excite any surprise. In the last Session of 1864, a motion was introduced by Mr. Smollett, member for Dumbartonshire, but was defeated by the stratagem I have already alluded to, the division being 45 for, and 62 against the motion.f It was very evident on this division that the case was at last making way, that members were beginning to understand, and conse¬ quently to support it. The case had been “ under con¬ sideration” from the date of the late Nawaub’s death * It is believed that the “ full, patient, and .searching revision ” was made, not by the Secretary of State for Incba, but by a mem¬ ber of the Indian Council, deeply implicated in the acts com¬ plained of ! t Appeinlix, p. SO. 28 in ] 855 to tlie date of tlie despatcli of tlie Secretary of State, viz., April 8tli, 1862. In India it had only been decided by one Government, that of Lord DaUiousie. AVIien the unfavourable despatch just referred to was received from the India Office, it was then too late to get the subject brought before the notice of Parliament in the current Session. The difficulty of introducing an Indian question of this nature, or indeed of any nature, into Parliament, with a fair prospect of success, is immense. I would not cer¬ tainly maintain that this difi&culty is wholly without advantage. The ultimate Court of Appeal of the nation should not be within too easy reach. But when an aggrieved party has overcome all these difficulties, when he has succeeded in interesting members of the House of undoubted influence and ability in his cause, when a very considerable minority of the House has supported a motion made in his behalf, then I say it is equally unjust and ungenerous to plead the delay occasioned by all the difficulties with which he has had to contend, as a reason for rejecting his petition. Yet this is what has been done. The delays of the Court of Directors, previous to the mutiny, in answering the Prince’s memorial, the mutiny itself, during which it would have been manifestly improper and un¬ friendly to have been loud or active in remonstrance, the difficulty of obtaining the official papers neces¬ sary to prove conclusively the injustice inflicted, the subsequent delay of nearly a year in answering the Prince’s second memorial, and the final difficulties connected with bringing the case before the House of Commons, are all reasons, in Mr. Lowe’s opinion. 29 not for giving a favourable reception to a case, the inherent justice of which has carried it in triumph over so many obstacles, but for flatly refusing to hear it at all! But surely, my Lord, this is a mon. strous doctrine. Those who profess it practically ask the House of Commons to abdicate its authority. For the Minister must be weak indeed who cannot stifle for a long time a grievance which has arisen on the other side of the world, with which very few here sympathise or are acquainted. And, under the most favourable circumstances, the hearing, dis¬ cussing, and deciding of an important and intricate matter like this, in which distant Governments are concerned, must consume several years. Five years passed by before the Prince could obtain from the India Office a full knowledge of the grounds on which the Nawaubship had been suppressed, and without this information it was manifestly impossible for him to lay his case fully and fairly before the Home Government. Surely the unfortunate claimant is not to blame for this; surely the Government cannot be allowed to profit by its own shortcomings, and by putting off enquiry into an alleged debt for years, intentionally induce that “ staleness ” which it ultimately pleads as a reason for refusing to recog¬ nize it. The House was informed in June last, that in 1858 the case came before your Lordship, then at the head of the Indian Government, and was by you referred to India for further information. From that date up to April, 1862, the claim was “ under the consideration” of Government, and the Prince waited patiently for its decision. It was 30 clearly liis duty to exhaust all the ordinary means of redress before making an appeal to Parliament. He was laudably reluctant to appear publicly as the accuser of the Government. Indeed, this is a posi¬ tion for which a native Indian nobleman has a mysterious dread. It was not until the despatch of April, 1862, shook his faith in the impartiality of the Home Government, and in the sincerity of the promises contained in the Queen^s Proclamation, that he at last determined to appeal to Parliament. The success that has attended his appeal has been satisfactory, and proportionate to the goodness of his cause. In the second Session 45 members voted for the motion made in his behalf, and 62 against it. Making the usual deduction for those who vote with the Ministry irrespective of the merits of the ques¬ tion discussed, it is plain that a majority of those in a position to judge fairly and vote according to their judgment was in favour of the motion. One, indeed, of the diflBculties, and that not the least, with which a case opposed by the Minister, as this unfortunately is, has to contend, is that almost every impartial member in the House must vote for it in order to carry it. Ninety or one hundred is a full House when an Indian subject is debated, and allowing thirty for the Ministerial queue, and deducting the proposer and seconder of the motion, who cannot vote, it is evident that if a few members, from ignorance or misapprehension, or any similar cause, vote Avith the Government, the motion must be lost, and justice defeated. The motion must, in fact, command the assent, the active assent, of almost 31 every impartial mind in tlie House^ otherwise it will not succeed. If 150 members had been present at the debate of June last, the motion would in all pro¬ bability have been carried, for the impartial element would have been so much the stronger. As it was, the independent support received by the Govern¬ ment was so small as to draw forth an observation to that effect from your Lordship.* I think the searching ordeal which I have shown a case like this must undergo before it can command any degree of interest in the House of Commons, casts a very gsave responsibility on the Minister who practically refuses it a fair hearing; and on the member who, insufficiently acquainted with its merits, misleads the House by incorrect state¬ ments of facts, and by arguments logically enough deduced from them, but which necessarily partici¬ pate in their error. It is a disagreeable duty for a Minister to defend an unjust cause, and to appear as an oppressor of the weak. Still sometimes it is a duty. But the feehngs that prompt a volunteer to undertake such a task appear to me inexplicable on any supposition creditable to his generosity or fairness. I would here deal briefly with another argument used by Mr. Lowe. He stated that the “ territory became British property in conse- “ quence of seizure on accoimt of treason, but the “ Indian authorities were content to surrender a “ certain amount on specifled conditions, and not “ finding the elder branch ^villing to agree to those “ conditions they fixed on the yomiger branch.” * Appendix, p. 79. 32 I liave already sliown tkat, supposing tliis to be a correct explanation of wbat occurred, it is altogether beside tbe question, wbicli is—'VVbat are the “specified conditions” of the treaty of 1801, wbicb was actually made with, the Nawaub, and from wbicb, and tbe subsequent acts of tbe Government, be must derive any rights be lays claim to.* But tbe Government never seized tbe Nawaub^s territory, Tbe territory never passed out of tbe possession of tbe Nawaubs except temporarily, by their own consent, during tbe Mysore wars. It was in tbe Nawaub’s possession when tbe treaty was made. If Mr. Lowe’bad read tbe treaty be would have found in its twelfth clause tbe following words : “ And bis said Highness tbe “ Nawaub shall issue orders to all bis civil and “ military officers to transfer tbe district or districts “ under their respective charge to such persons as “ shall be appointed by tbe said Company to manage “ tbe said districts,” Tbe orders here alluded to were drawn up with tbe approbation of Lord Clive, and duly signed by tbe Nawaub. They are still extant, and as they are very important, I subjoin them re-translated into Engbsb; it will be seen that they acknowledge tbe “ lineal right and title ” of tbe Nawaub, and it was in obedience to them that bis officers debvered over peaceable possession of tbe country to tbe Company.f Without tbe inter- * This is clearly put by Lord Dalhousie himself in his minute, para. 6, “ it is from this treaty (of 1801) if at all that a right of “ hereditary succession to the musnud of the Carnatic must be “ derived.” See Appendix, p. 86. t “ Whereas the seat of the Soobadary of the Carnatic terri- “ tories was vacated, and I, who am the Nabob Wallajah. Ameer- “ ul-Omrah Azcem-ul-Dowlah, &c. See. have, by the grace of God, 33 vention of the Nawaub^ we could not have obtained the country without bloodshed and without pro¬ voking the extreme jealousy, if not the actual hostility, of the Nizam and the Mahrattas, whose union with Tippoo Sultaun and the partizans of the deposed Prince would have formed a combination dangerous if not fatal to our power in Southern India. The intense satisfaction with which Lord Wellesley regarded this treaty was well founded, for it gave us the whole control of the Carnatic at a most critical period of our fortunes. Briefly the facts are, that A certain treaty was drawn up by Lord Clive and was offered for acceptance to the son, or sup¬ posed son, of the deceased Nawaub. This treaty acknowledged the hereditary right of the young prince to succeed. After considerable hesitation, he refused to sign it; all the time the alleged “ treason ” was known to the Government. The same treaty was then offered to his cousin, the father of Prince Azeem Jah. He agreed to its conditions. Thereupon it was signed by him and by Lord Clive, and was sent to Calcutta to be ratified by Lord Wellesley. This treaty was actually ratified at Calcutta; but in returning it to Madras, Lord Wel- “ taken possession of the musnud of the said Soobadary, in pur- “ svance of the lineal right and title, as well as with the acknow- “ ledgment of the British Company Bahadoor, it is therefore “ directed that you should, immediately on receiving the order, “ deliver up, without resistance or excuse, the Taluks under your “ control, together wth all the records, papers and accounts “ therewith connected, as well as the treasures of the Circar of “the late Nawab Omdut-ool-Omrah into the charge of the officers “ of the British Company Bahadoor, who have been appointed “ with my approval. Consider this as an imperative command, “ and act according to the order.” D 84 lesley fonvarded witli it a second treaty, in widch any recognition of tlie Nawaub’s hereditary preten¬ sions to tbe succession was omitted. Lord Wellesley stated that tbe alteration was not of mucb conse¬ quence, “ tbat it did not affect tbe justice nor tbe “ principal advantages of tbe treaty in question,” but tbat if tbe Nawaub would agree to it, tbe treaty would bind liim and bis family by a deeper debt of gratitude to tbe Company. “ If,” writes Lord Wellesley to Lord Clive, "your Lordsbip is of “ opinion tbat tbe modified treaty may be proposed " to bis Highnesses acceptance, without tbe hazard “ of bis dissent or displeasure, or without compro- “ mising the dignity or tbe public faith of Govern- “ ment, which your Lordsbip in Council may possibly " have deemed it expedient to pledge to bis Highness " for the acknowledgment of bis hereditary title, " your Lordship will propose tbe modified treaty to " bis acceptance.” If, on tbe other band. Lord Clive considered it unadvisable to offer tbe modifi¬ cations for tbe Nawaub^s acceptance, be was ordered to return tbe modified treaty, “ and to consider tbe “ other as conclusive and binding.” Tbe Nawaub accepted tbe modification, which did not deny bis right in the ascending, and admitted it in tbe descending line. Tbe first article of tbe modified treaty established him in tbe " state and rank with " tbe dignities dependent thereon of bis ancestors “ heretofore Nawaubs of tbe Carnatic.” And tbe second article "renewed and confirmed” all parts of former treaties calculated to strengthen tbe alliance, cement tbe friendship, and identify tbe 35 interests of tlie contracting parties. Still it is necessary to remark tkat, tliougli tke treaty in its modified state did not specially recognize tke Nawaub’s kereditary rigkt in tke ascending line, all tke public documents connected witk tke act and witk tke assumption of tke permanent govern¬ ment of tke country dwelt empkatically on tins rigkt, and stated explicitly tkat tke coimtry was inherited from kis fatker. We believed, or professed to believe, tkat ke was tke rigktful keir, and wkile inducing kim to admit tkat kis family kad sacrificed all rigkt, not to their cotcntry which was held from the Mogul Emperor, but to British support in its sove¬ reignty, under tke treaties, we sold our support to kim afresk for tke cession of tke permanent govern¬ ment, and four-fiftks of tke revenue. Tke orders to tke native officials already quoted, tke official letters informing tke other native powers of tke Nawaub’s accession,* and, most important of all, tke Proclama¬ tion of the Madras Government itself, claiming the obedience of tke Carnatic population by virtue of “ tke rights and powers acquired to tke said Company “ by compact witk tke present lawful Nawaub of “ tke Camatic,”t contained a special and explicit acknowledgment of kis kereditary rigkt to tke succession. All tke princes and people of India, all tke inhabitants of tke Carnatic, were assured by these documents tkat tke Nawaub was tke legiti¬ mate keir of tke family, and succeeded by virtue of tkat position to tke musnud of tke Carnatic. In consequence of these assurances, tke permanent * Appendix, p. 103. t Appendix, p. 101. D 2 36 assumption of the cml and miKtaiy administration of tlie country created no alarm amongst neighbour¬ ing powers, or popular resistance in the Carnatic itself. We obtained all the advantages springing out of the Nawaub’s hereditary rights in the country, and if it be argued that he acceded to the altera¬ tions in the treaty proposed by Lord Wellesley, it may be replied that the Company renewed and con¬ firmed all the former treaties, and even after such alteration, of its own free will and consent, com¬ mitted itself to the recognition of his hereditary title in the public and important documents to which I have referred. It seems tolerably clear, then—1. That the Nawaubs never violated their engagements with the Company. 2. That the country never became “ British property^^ in any sense of the word, and was never “ seized” by the Com¬ pany. 3. That any forfeiture on the part of the Nawaubs was condoned by the treaty which re¬ established completely the status qiio ante. There were two—indeed, there were more—rivals to the succession, and we simply released ourselves from our treaty engagements, by setting up the plea of the deceased Nawaub^s treason,” and then sup¬ ported him who was willing to give us ‘‘ the security “ for British interests” which we demanded. We enabled him, for our own purposes, to commit what was probably an usurpation,!and hence we “renewed and confirmed” all the important parts of former treaties, amongst others that of 1768,* by which the Company recognized and confirmed the grants in * Appendix, p. 106. t It was so regarded by a large party in Parliament. 37 perpetuity made by tbe Mogul Emperor, and tbe Nizam to tbe Nawaubs of tbe Carnatic. It was stated in tbe debate of June last, by one of tbe principal supporters of tbe motion in Parliament, that ber Majesty’s legal rights in tbe Carnatic are actually co-ordinate with, and dependant on, tbe rights of Prince Azeem Jab; that ber Majesty in fact derives ber rights in tbe country from him. This is very clearly put by Dr. Travers Twiss, who says, “ If tbe immediate family of tbe Nawaub Azeem-ul- Dowlab (Prince Azeem Jab’s father) were to be- “ come extinct, it would be difficult to say that tbe treaty rights or treaty obligations on tbe side of “ tbe Nawaub attached to tbe body of any state.” Thus we have a vested interest in tbe preservation of this Family, for “ tbe treaty obligations ” of tbe Nawaub to us are co-existent with its durability. We did not, as I have already said, give this country to tbe Nawaub, reserving certain rights in it to ourselves, but be gave it to us, reserving certain rights to himself and bis family. He constituted tbe Company tbe perpetual trustee of bis family in tbe Carnatic.* There was no claim to the sovereignty of tbe country set up by tbe British Government at any time. All that was asked for was “ a security “ for British interests in the Carnatic.” Doubtless, tbe “ treason,” assuming its existence, gave us tbe right to seize tbe country, but we did not seize it any more than tbe albes did France in 1815. We * “Trust” was, in fact, the very word used by Lord Clive. “ His Lordship, in accepting the sacred trust, transferred to the “ Company by the present engagements.” Appendix, p. 103. 38 simply arranged by treaty for tbe future government of it. It never came to “ seizure/^ and all tbe correspondence shows bow very anxious Lord Wellesley and Lord Cbve botb were that tbis dangerous usurpation should be avoided. Fre¬ quent reference is made to tbe disturbed state of certain parts of tbe country, and to tbe jealousies of tbe other native powers, and tbe con¬ sent of a Prince of tbe reigning family, who bad a fair show of right to tbe musnud, to accede to tbe wishes of tbe Company, was bailed with intense satisfaction. Honours and attentions were showered on him, and be and tbe family were assured that be bad secured our eternal friendship by tbis arrange¬ ment, which was intended “ to preserve to bis re- “ spectable family its ancient ranlc among tbe Princes “ of Hindustan,” and was “ calculated in a particular “ manner to support tbe ancient dignity and bononr “ of bis House.”* If, then, we repudiate tbe treaty, we simply tear to pieces our own title-deeds. In tbe case of any other Indian Principality it might be argued that tbe Mogul Emperor was tbe Suzerain of all India, and that her Majesty bad succeeded to that Suzerainty. But tbe Nawaubs were released by tbe treaty of 1768,t to which tbe Company was a party, from all dependence on other powers, and were acknowledged over and over again by us, up to a recent period, as indejiendent Sovereign Princes.% There is, accordingly, no escaping tbe admission that the rights of tbe East India Company, and of its successor tbe Crown, in tbe Carnatic, can * Appendix, p. 98. f Appendix, p. 106. J See Appendix, p. 105-6. 39 only be derived from this treaty. Apart from it, we have the same right of might in the Carnatic wliich Germany has over the Duchies, or Eussia over Poland, and no other. If there were any great European power established side by side with us in India, prudence would compel us to respect the treaty rights of the Princes in alliance with us, and to pay, without hesitation, the price we had bar¬ gained for their concessions. Honesty and fair¬ dealing are always prudent, but if they were not, is a great nation to be less accessible to the call of honour than to the suggestions of expediency ? This family has never done us an injury, and has rendered us great services. With its rights in the country are connected, as I have demonstrated, the rights of our Sovereign. Taking even the lowest grounds, and leaving honour, gratitude and good faith out of the question, surely, my Lord, a valid title to a country of enormous extent, yielding a revenue of nearly of £4,000,000 per annum, is worth at least the price stipulated for it in the treaty under consideration. We act diffe¬ rently towards our own nobles. The Sovereignty of the little Island of Man was not wrested from the House of Athol, but bought and paid for by the nation, one hundred years ago; £200,000. was not considered too much for this small acquisition. Prince Azeem Jah will not sell his rights. He feels as indisposed as your Lordship would be to surrender the titles and revenues which have descended to him from a long line of distinguished ancestors for any “ consideration.” He recognizes duties to his an¬ cestors, and to his posterity, with which English 40 noblemen and gentlemen should not be slow to sympathize, and with that dogged determination which is the only weapon of the. weak, he persists, and I have no doubt will persist to the end of his days, and his children after him, in demanding the recognition of his treaty rights. A life stipend of ten thousand pounds per annum was offered him on the suppression of the Nawaubship in 1855, which he refused to touch. Subsequently, the Government, supposing he was merely actuated by the con¬ temptible idea of getting this annuity increased, offered him fifteen thousand pounds a year for life.* This was also declined, and voluntary poverty, and all its humiliations, were endured for years, are being endured now, with the spirit and determi¬ nation becoming to a man who is convinced of the justice of his cause, and shrinks from the dis¬ honourable surrender of the dearest privileges of his family.f My Lord, in the East, as in the West, family honours are highly valued, and family possessions and memorials are revered. Yet this unfortunate nobleman’s persevering endeavours to recover the property and position guaranteed to his family in 1801 are regarded in some quarters with jDetulant indignation, as if those feelings of family pride which are honourable in an English gentleman were ridiculous in a Mussulman Prince. * Appendix, p. 107. t The English journals in Madras advised the Prince to appeal to the courts of law, but this would have been derogatory to his position, and he preferred the assurances of others equally opposed to the confiscation, that the Home Government would cause the treaty to be observed. 41 I have little doubt that the legal opinions appended to this letter will place beyond doubt the true meaning of the treaty of 1801. But if further evidence should be required, it will be found in the letter of Lord Clive, addressed to the Carnatic family several months after the treaty of 1801 had been finally concluded and ratified, and the pro¬ ceedings of Lord Clive with respect to it had been approved and commended in the highest terms by the Governor-General.* This letter is only second in importance to the treaty itself, but it requires a little explanation, in order that its full force should be appreciated. It appears that the supporters of the deceased Nawaub’s reputed son were naturally discontented with the acceptance by his rival of the conditions offered by the British Government in return for its support. A considerable portion of the family accordingly became suspicious of the ten¬ dency of the treaty, and seems to have had a dim perception of the danger of the abandonment by the Nawaub of all power in the country. Reproaches were addressed to the Nawaub to this effect; and the hostility thus generated gave rise to complaints which ultimately were formally addressed to the Governor of Madras. In reply. Lord Clive issued in December 18th, 1801, the Declaration under notice, in which the origin, intention, and meaning of the treaty of July, 1801, are explicitly set forth.* The treaty is stated to have “ originated in the generous wish, founded on a long intercourse of friendship “ and union, to preserve to that respectable family its * See Appendix, p. 98. 42 “ ancient rank among tke Princes of Hindostan and tlie Nawaub is described as having succeeded to the rights of his illustrious ancestors, heretofore Nawaubs of the Carnatic. It is implied that, like his grandfather Mahommed Ali, he was an “ inde- “ pendent Sovereign,” and that the “ principles of “ the engagements ” made with him were “ similar ” to those made with that IsTawaub. The document, in short, is a plain and authentic declaration of the views of the nobleman who drew up and concluded the treaty. We may charitably suppose, what I believe to be the case, that the Madras Government of 1855 were ignorant of its existence. The assurances contained in it had the effect of tranquillizing the minds of the greater part of the family; and as the deceased Nawaub’s supposed son died shortly afterwards, without issue, the Nawaub Azeem-ul-Dowlah (Prince Azeem Jah’s father) became the undisputed heir and representative of both branches of the family, and all rivalry ceased. I would here briefly contrast with our treatment of Prince Azeem Jah the security enjoyed under circumstances in some degree analogous by our own countrymen. One instance in particular is most important, as it will add additional force to what has been already advanced as to the invalidity of our present title in the Carnatic, and would show that, in point of fact. Prince Azeem Jah^s sanction to the transference of the East India Company's rights in the Camatic to the Crown, is necessary in order to confer on the latter a valid title. Of course, if an appeal be made to superior force, we 43 have as much right to hold the Carnatic as Russia has to hold Poland. But if we are to be consistent, and not to abuse our power, the two important cases I am about to refer to well deserve public con¬ sideration. Wben India was transferred from the East India Company to the Crown, your Lordship will no doubt remember that the European troops of the Company claimed re-enhstment, and a fresh bounty. They argued that they had agreed to serve the Company alone, and that they could not be turned over to another authority, which they had never agreed to serve, without their own consent. The Government refused to entertain their claim, the men mutinied, and ultimately their demands were complied with, and they were sent home at the expense of the State, where they obtained fresh bounty on re-enlistment. This is the first case. About the same time the representatives of the first Lord Clive remembered that he had left a large sum in trust to the East India Company, to form a pension-fund for the benefit, under certain con¬ ditions, of the European officers and soldiers of the Company’s army. The deed provided that if the Company should cease to employ a military force, they should return the trust funds to Lord Clive or his representatives. Lord Clive’s representatives accordingly having appealed from the Master of the Rolls to the House of Lords, claimed, and what is more to the purpose here, obtained the restitution of the principal sum so invested by their ancestor. It was accordingly duly refunded to them by the Government. This is the second case. The father of Prince Azeem Jah made a contract with the East 44 India Company of a very similar nature to tliat made by tbe European troops witb tbe East India Company. He ceded to tbe East India Company^ and to it alone, tbe civil and mibtaiy administration of tbe Carnatic country^ reserving to bimself and bis family certain rights and privileges. If^ tben, tbe treaty of 1801 be an enduring contract, as tbe eminent lawyers, whose opinions are annexed, have abundantly demonsti’ated, and if tbe plea of tbe Company’s European troops* was recognized as just, is it not plain that tbe East India Company bad no right to transfer tbe civil and mibtary administration of tbe Carnatic, any more than those troops, to tbe Crown, witbont tbe consent of tbe original grantor or bis representative ? Again, if Sir J. B. Walsb could claim and obtaiu from an Engbsb Court of Justice tbe reversion of tbe gift of tbe first Lord Cbve on tbe demise of tbe Company as a territorial power, surely Prince Azeem Jab, if be has not an equal right to tbe Carnatic itself, has at least a just claim that tbe treaty by which its administration was ceded to tbe East India Company sbonld be maintained equally on both sides. Tbe treaty of 1801 was made only witb tbe East India Company; there is no reference to heirs and snccessors of tbe Company in tbe treaty, consequently, tbe grantee having ceased to exist, tbe rights devised return to tbe grantor or bis representatives. Thus, under tbe treaty of 1801, Prince Azeem Jab might claim not only tbe rights reserved by bis father, but tbe * The point of law was given by the Calcutta lawyers against the troops on the ground that the Company was only trustee for the Crown since 1833; but, assuming this correct, it camiot apply to a treaty made in 1801. 45 whole Government of the Carnatic, under the suzerainty of her Majesty derived from the Mogul. It is possible to get out of this predicament by saying’ that the treaty of 1801 was “ an act of State,” not determinable by municipal law, but this is only a device to cloak usurpation. In India this phrase has unfortunately been considered by many to cover and sanctify any obhquity. But to ordinary thinkers it will appear passing strange that the enlistment contract of a private soldier, and the trust deed nearly a century old of an English nobleman, can command an attention and respect denied to a solemn treaty and the enormous interests it involves. If Azeem Jah were a powerful prince, or had powerful allies, he would assert his rights, as the Company’s European troops did theirs, and we should recognize him and accept the renewal of the treaty thankfully, as we did in 1801. He is, however, weak, and at our mercy; but should we, therefore, refuse to extend to him that justice which our own private soldiers, and which the representatives of Lord Clive have already so successfully demanded. I doubt if this is compatible with the fair and honourable treat¬ ment which England desires to extend to all those who have preserved a loyal fidelity towards her, and who, being powerless to demand justice as a right, must be content to seek it as a favour. The East India Company’s soldiers could mutiny, and Sir J. B. Walsh could appeal to a court of justice. The only court to which Prince Azeem Jah can appeal is the English Parliament, and rough and narrow indeed is the path that leads to it. 46 No one, I venture to say, my Lord, can read tlie voluminous documents and correspondence con¬ nected with our gradual acquisition of the Carnatic country without a sense of humiliation and distress. When our power in India was small, and our position insecure, we were overflowing in protestations of affection and respect for these Princes.* I will not say that they, on their side, never gave us occasion for dissatisfaction, hut such discontent was the off¬ spring of our own inordinate expectations, much more frequently than the result of the Nawauh^s neglect or indifference. At the period of which I write, Englishmen had not yet got rid of their vain idea that India was a country abounding in riches. Our necessities “were great, our wars were continual, our officials were not always incorruptible, and our demands on our allies were frequent, and often ex¬ orbitant. We made a free use of the Nawaub’s resources, and employed the troops which he sub¬ sidized us to maintain in the wars with Prance, Hyder and Tippoo, and in the conquest of Seringapatam. Our demands increased with our power, and in 1801 we acquired, in the manner I have described, the permanent cession of the civil and mihtary adminis¬ tration of the Carnatic. At that period, we asserted and promised that the arrangements should be liable to no alteration, that they should last as long as “ the sun and moon should endure,” that they were for ever;” and that, to use the words of Lord Clive, it would be our “ especial duty to resist any * Mr. Edwin Arnold, in Hs late work entitled The Adminis¬ tration of Lord Dalhousie, says, “ he (Lord D.) thrust from his shadowy throne that Carnatic Prince, to whose house we owed our first footing in the East." 47 “ attempt wliicli may be made to encroach on those “ rights, or to violate the principles of the alliance, “ now firmly and perpetually established.” * Who would have thought, then, that we should have been the first to violate the alliance ourselves ? Our pledges and promises lasted for fifty-four years, but they were not proof against that extraordinary hallucination which seized upon the minds of the great majority of Englishmen in India during the regime of Lord Dalhousie, and spread its misleading influence even to the Court of Directors at home. In 1855, on the demise of the late Nawaub, language was distorted from its plain meaning, the negative evidence of omission was forcibly dwelt on, the acts of former Governments were misrepresented in the most extraordinary manner, and noblemen of high position—keeping carefully aloof from their official legal advisers—became amateur lawyers, and quoted freely from Grotius and Vattel, with the usual success of amateurs, all for the purpose of ridding ourselves of engagements which were felt, in accordance with the fashionable Indian policy of the day, to be onerous and unpleasant to keep. High sentiments of honour and respect for national good faith were on our lips, but greed, jealousy, and the arrogance of conquerors, were in our hearts. The policy of annexation was rendered palatable even to generous minds, by an alleged regard for the populations of whom the aristocracy of the country was assumed to be the enemy and oppressor. It was a strange un-English doctrine, but too alluring to be resisted, for in reality the annexation policy was simply an attempt to re- * See Appendix, p. 100-2. 48 place tlie native nobility of India by English officials.* This sweet arcadian prospect of myriads of happy peasants paying their taxes punctually to the British patriarchs was dissolved in lurid clouds of mutiny and rebellion. We have commenced a new era, which has been inaugurated by a proclamation worthy in point of magnanimity and statesmanship of the som-ce from which it has emanated.f It is neces¬ sary to watch with jealous care that the promises of that proclamation are observed with- all the scru¬ pulous exactness becoming to a great sovereign, and an honest and generous as well as a prudent people. In the present instance, I do not hesitate to state that they have been flagrantly violated. I am unable to find in all the documentary evidence for and against Prince Azeem Jah’s claims a single valid argument, based either on expediency or jus¬ tice, to warrant the course that has been adopted. J There was here no question of territory to be trans¬ ferred or abandoned to misrule, or of any intricate and questionable “ right of adoption.” The here¬ ditary claims of the Prince to whatever could be derived of right from the late ISTawaub was conceded on all sides. The question was what the rights were, and this I have endeavoured to demonstrate. I plead then for the installation of this Prince in those rights which Lord Dalhousie advised the late Court of Directors to “ place in abeyance.” If we desire an aristocracy in India, and this I believe is pretty generally admitted now, surely, my Lord, it is suicidal to doom to speedy extinction this ancient, * See Kaye, Hist. Sepoy Wax passim. f Appendix, p. 81, t Appendix, p. 73. 49 distinguislied and influential family. The theory “ of the dead-level is against nature, and cannot be “ enforced without a convulsion.’’ * It was the people,” in whose alleged interests so much in¬ justice was perpetrated, that rebelled against us in 1857; the Princes, so many of whom had been our victims, remained faithful. After the leveUing pro¬ cess that has prevailed for years in Southern India we might preserve a nobleman therein as we would some rare beast in a menagerie, if for no higher purpose. We offer the representative of the first family between Hyderabad and Cape Comorin, a life stipend of £15,000 a year, instead of that rank and revenue which our national faith has been pledged to secure him in.f The Indian Exchequer is deriving a profit every year of over £50,000 by the abrogation of the treaty, and the disreputable gain increases according as the life-stipends fall in. In another generation the whole family will be swept away. The Palace of the Nawaubs, a dear rehc of the once great fortunes of their House, has been turned into a Government office, and Prince Azeem Jah is compelled to pay a heavy rent for one of the minor residences which is of right his own. I think much is due to a Prince, who has been so grievously wronged, and so illiberally treated. In the despatch of the Secretary of State for India some credit appears to be taken for paying the late Nawaub’s debts (it is not stated that property of nearly an equal amount was appropriated or sold by the Government), and for raising Prince Azeem * Kaye, “ Hist, of Sepoy War.” £ t Appendix, p. 107. 50 Jail’s stipend from £4^,800^ “ the sum enjoyed by “ him in the late Nawauh’s lifetime^ to £15,000 per “ annum.”* This was a curious announcement to make to the heir of the ISTawauhship, to the “ de jure “ Nawaulj” f the inheritor of the rights and ohliga- gations of the treaty of 1801. To him the offer of “ a stipend” J was an insult, and the usurpation hy the Government of his family privileges an intolerable wrong. “ I am distinctly of opinion,” says a recent author of ability and great Indian experience, ^“^that if “ there had been no Nawaub of the Carnatic we “ ought to have invented one. * * * Of this I “ am certain, that the great barrier against Mussul- “ man fanaticism in Southern India has been broken “ down, the most effectual restraint removed, and “ a cause of offence and hatred instituted by the “ disinheritance of Prince Azeem Jah, the bitterness “ of which will rather be aggravated than dimin- “ ished by the lapse of years * * *. Now by a “ flagrant breach of faith we have deposed the recognized hereditary Imaun (high priest) our “ friend and ally, and have handed over the Maho- “ medans of the Madras Presidency, guideless and “ uncontrolled, to the first mad fakeer or moulavee “ who can contrive, perhaps, at some difficult crisis “ to set himself up as a spiritual leader.” § These are wise words, to which, if the Government * See Appendix, p. 83. t See Hon. Mr. Norton’s Opinion. Appendix, p. 63. j The idea of “ a stipend” was expressly repudiated by Lord Wellesley in 1801, and the Nawab’s civil list fixed proportionally on the revenue of the Carnatic. § Evans Bell, “ Empire in India.” 51 remains deaf, the Legislature should lend a willing ear. The representative of the ancient sovereigns of the Carnatic, poverty-stricken and degraded through our instrumentality, is far from an edifying spectacle, but the place which his death will leave vacant in the Mahomedan system of religion, if we persist in refusing to recognize him, will be a source of continual danger. We can put an end to this shameful exhibition—to which no one is more averse than the Madras local Government and the Madras press*—and can avoid this impending danger by simply doing our duty, and withdrawing our fingers from the purse of this unfortunate Prince. Writers on Indian subjects are sometimes blamed by home critics for the violence of their language. We are violent because we have full and often personal know¬ ledge of the acts which we condemn, and the people who have been their victims. As I write, the journals are fuU of the sorrows of Timothy Daly, a pauper deceased; what protection a free press throws over even the meanest Englishman ! Let me give a list of the sorrows of Queens and Princes, made out, not by me, but by Lord Dalhousie’s latest and not least eloquent apologist ;t “ He broke the hearts, but “ not the spirit of Lakshmi Baee, Queen of Jliansi, “ and Dhondho Punt, heir of Bithoor; he brought the “ grey hairs of Banke Baee iu sorrow to the fimeral “ pile; over-rode a pious law at Sattara and Nagpore, * The entire Madras press, both European and Native, has long advocated restitution, so that the act would be as popular as it would be just. Appendix, p. 108-9. t Mr. Edwin Arnold, “ Administration of Lord Dalhousie.” E 2 52 “ and took a slieriff’s-oflGicer’s advantage of tlieNizam “ at Hyderabad; thrust from his shadowy throne that “ Carnatic Prince, to whose house we oive our first “ footing in the East ; and by a tecbnicabty of law “ courts refused to tbe Kanee of Tanjore tbe crown “ and tbe treasure tbat belonged to ber.” I ask no one, my Lord, to take for granted my statements. Tbe official documents connected witb tbe case are appended to tbis letter witb unswerving impartiabty. Tbe cause is too good to need any suppression of facts could I condescend to sucb insincerity, or em¬ ploy my pen in tbe support of claims wbicb I did not believe to be indisputably just in themselves, and also expedient for ns to recognize. Our honour and our interest are one in tbis matter. If my arguments have been insufficient to ensure a con¬ viction tbat tbe faith of tbe nation pledged to tbis family in 1801, and on numerous subsequent occa¬ sions, has been distinctly violated, and tbe assurances of her Majesty’s gracious proclamation set at naught by tbe decision of tbe Indian Grovemment, I trust I have at least fully proved tbat respect for solemn engagements and generosity towards tbe family of our most ancient and useful allies in India demand tbat tbis unfortunate Prince’s claims shall be investi¬ gated by a Committee of either House of Parliament in tbe ensuing session. It is a modest and moderate request, and it should not be made in vain. I have tbe honour to remain. Your Lordship’s very obedient Servant, INDOPOLITE. Felrvary 1865. APPENDIX. - 4 - EATiriED TEEATY. TREATY WITH AZEEM-UL-DOWLAH, 1801. Treaty for settling the Succession to the Soubahdarrt of the Territories of Arcot and for vesting the Administration of the Civil and Military Government of the Carnatic Payen Ghaut in the United Company op Merchants trading to the East Indies. AA^hereas the several Treaties which have been concluded between the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, and their Highnesses heretofore Nabobs of the Carnatic, have been intended to cement and identify the interests of the contracting parties ;* and whereas, in conformity to the spirit of the alliance, the said Company did, by the Treaty concluded on the 12th July, 1792, with the late Nabob AValajah, relinquish extensive pecuniary advantages, acquired by the previous Treaty of 1787, with the view, and on the con¬ sideration of establishing a more adequate security for the interests of the British Government in the Carnatic; and whereas subsequent experience has proved, that the intention of the contracting parties* has not been fulfilled, by the provisions of any of the Treaties heretofore concluded between them; and whereas the musnud of the Soubahdarry of Arcot having become vacant, the Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder has been esta¬ blished by the Eriglish East India Company in the rank, property, and possessions of his ancestors, heretofore Nabobs of the Carnatic, and whereas the said Company and his Highness the said Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder have judged it expedient, that additional provisions should, at this time, be made, for the purpose of supplying the defects of all former engagements, and of establishing the connection between the said contracting parties* on a permanent basis of security, in all times to come; * It is evident that these “ said contracting parties,” between whom this treaty was made, are the East India Company and the Nawaubs in their representative capacity, and not merely Prince Azeem-ul- Dowlah and the Company. 54 whei'efore the following Treaty is now established and concluded, by the Eight Honourable Edward Lord Clive, Governor in Council of Fort St. George, by and with the sanction and autho¬ rity of His Excellency the Most Noble the Marquis Wellesley, K.P., Governor-General in Council of all the British possessions in the East Indies, on behalf of the said United Conapany, on the one part, and by his Highness the Nabob Walajah Ameer- ul-Dowlah Madar-i-ul-MulkAmeer-ul-Hind Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder Shawkut Jung Separ Salar Nabob Soubalidar of the Carnatic, on his own behalf, on the other part, for settling the succession to the Soubahdarry of the territories of Arcot, and for vesting the administration of the civil and military govern¬ ment of the Carnatic in the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies. Article I. The Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder is hereby formally established in the state and rank, until the dignities dependent thereon, of his ancestors, heretofore Nabobs of the Carnatic, and the possession thereof is hereby guaranteed by the Honourable East India Company to his said Highness Azeem-ul- Dowlah Bahauder, who has accordingly succeeded to the Soubah¬ darry of the territories of Arcot. Article H. Such parts of the Treaties heretofore concluded between the said East India Company and their Highnesses, heretofore Nabobs of the Carnatic, as are calculated to strengthen the alliance, to cement the friendship, and to identify the interests of the contracting parties,* are hereby renewed and confirmed, and accordmgly the friends or enemies of either are the friends and enemies of both parties. Article HI. The Honourable Company hereby charges itself with the maintenance and support of the military force necessary for the defence of the Carnatic, and for the protection of the rights, person, and property of the said Nabob Azeem- ul-Dowlah Behauder; and with the view of reviving the funda¬ mental principles of the alliance between his ancestors and the English Nation, the said Nabob Azeem-ul-DowIan stipulates and agrees, that he will not enter upon any negotiation or corre¬ spondence with any European or Native Power, without the knowledge and consent of the said English Company. Article IV. It is hereby stipulated and agreed, that the sole and exclusive administration of the civil and military governments of all the territories and dependencies of the Carnatic Payen Ghaut, together with the full and exclusive right to the revenues thereof (with the exception of such portion of the said revenues as shall be appropriated for the main- * The “ contracting parties” here are also clearly the Company and the Navvaubs generally. 55 tenance of the said Nabob and for the support of his dignity) shall be for ever vested in the said English Company; and the said Company shall accordingly possess the sole power and authority of constituting and appointing, without any inter¬ ference on the part of the said Nabob, all officers for the collection of the revenues, and of establishing courts for the administration of civil and criminal judicature. Article V. It is hereby stipulated and agi'eed, that one- fifth part of the net revenues of the Carnatic ^all he annualhj allotted for the maintenance and support of the said Nabob and of his own immediate family,* including the Mahal of his Highness the Ameer-ul-Omrah. The said fifth part shall be paid by the Company, in monthly instalments of twelve thousand Star Pagodas ; and whatever circumstance may occur, affecting the net revenues of the Carnatic, the said instalments shall not be less than twelve thousand Star Pagodas. Whatever balance of the said fifth part may remain due at the exph-ation of each year, shall be liquidated upon the settlement of the accounts, and the said fifth part shall be at the free disposal of the said Nabob, consistently with the principles of the said alliance. Article VI. The fifth part of the revenues, as stated in the preceding article, shall be calculated and determined in the following manner, viz. all charges, of every description, incurred in the collection of the revenues, the amount of the Jaghire lands stated in the ninth article in the Treaty of 1787 at Star Pagodas 2,13,421, and the sum of Pagodas 6,21,105, appropriable to the liquidation of the debts of the late Mahomed Ally, shall, in the first instance, be deducted from the revenues of the Carnatic; and after the deduction of those three items shall have been made, one-fifth part of the remaining net revenue (including the Polygar Peshcush, which shall always be calcu¬ lated at the sum of 2,64,704 Star Pagodas 20 Fanams 26 Cash, according to the Treaty of 1792) shall be allotted for the maintenance of the said Nabob, and for the support of his Highness’s dignity. Article VII. Whereas it was stipulated by the fourth article of the Treaty of 1792, that the sum of six lacs twenty- one thousand one hundred and five Star Pagodas should annually be applied to the discharge of certain registered debts, due by the late Nabob Mahomed Ally to his private creditors, imder agreements concluded between his Highness and the Honour¬ able Company, and guaranteed by the Parliament of Great Britain, until the said registered debt should be liquidated; the Honourable English Company accordingly hereby charges * As distinguished from the fixmilies of the two deceased Nawaubs, provided for separately by Article IX. 66 itself with the annual payment of 6,21,105 Pagodas from the revenues of the Carnatic, until the remainder of the said regis¬ tered debt shall be liquidated. Article VIII. Whereas certain debts are due to the said Company by the ancestors of the said Nabob, and whereas it is expedient, in order that the present Treaty may include a complete arrangement of all affairs depending between the said Company and the said Nabob that an adjustment should be made of the afore-mentioned debts, wherefore the said Nabob formally and explicitly acknowledges the debt, commonly called the Cavalry Loan, amounting, with its interest, to 13,24,342 Star Pagodas 6 Fanams 47 Cash, and also the portion of the registered debt heretofore paid by the said Company to the ci’editors of the late Nabob Walajah (according to the annexed Schedule) to be just debts; and whereas, exclusively of the above-mentioned debts, other unadjusted debts also remain, which were referred to the adjustment and decision of the Governor-General in Council of Bengal; and whereas the said unadjusted debts have not been determined according to that intention, the said Nabob hereby engages, that whenever tlie said determination shall be made, his Highness will acknow¬ ledge to be a just debt the amount of the balance which shall be so declared to be due to the said Company. It is not, how¬ ever, the intention of this article to cause any diminution from the fifth part payable to the said Nabob, but, on the contrary, it is specified, that no deduction shall be made from the revenue on any account whatever, excepting the three items stated in the sixth article, previously to the determination of his High¬ ness’s proportion. Article IX. The English Company engages to take into consideration the actual situation of the families of their High¬ nesses the late Nabobs Walajah and Omdut-ul-Omrah Behauder, as well as the situation of the principal officers of his late Highness’s Government; and the British Government shall charge itself with the expense (chargeable on the revenues of the Carnatic) of a suitable provision for their respective main¬ tenance. The amount of the above-mentioned expenses, to be defrayed by the Company, shall be distributed, with the know¬ ledge of the said Nabob, in such a manner as shall be judged proper. Article X. The said Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder shall, in all places, on all occasions, and at all times, be treated with the respect and attention due to his Highness’s rank and situation, as an ally of the British Government; and a suitable guard shall be appointed from the Company’s troops for the protection of his said Highness’s person and palace. 57 Article XI. The entire defence of the Carnatic against foreign enemies, and the maintenance of the internal tranquillity and police of the country, having been hereby transferred to the British Government, his said Highness engages not to entertain or employ in his service any armed men without the consent of the British Government, who will fix, in concert with his Highness, the number of armed men necessary to be retained for the purposes of state. Such armed men as his Highness may, in consequence of this article, engage in his service, shall be paid to the exclusive cost and'charge of the said Nabob. Article XII. The Honourable East India Company shall, in conformity to the stipulations of this Treaty, enter upon the exclusive administration of the civil and military government of the Carnatic, on the 31st day of July, 1801 ; and his said Highness the Nabob shall issue orders to all his civil and military officers, to transfer the district or districts, under their respective charge, to such persons as shall be appointed by the said Company to manage the said districts, and also to deliver to the persons appointed, all records, accounts, and official papers, belonging to their re.spective Cutcherries or offices. This Treaty, bearing date the 31st day of .July, Anno Domini 1801, and consisting of twelve articles, having been executed by Edward Lord Clive, Governor in Council aforesaid, on the one part, and his Highness Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder on the other part, is hereby mutually interchanged, the said Edward Lord Clive engaging that a copy of the said Treaty shall be transmitted to Fort William, for the purpose of being ratified by his Excellency the Most Noble the Marquis Wellesley, K.P., Governor-General in Council, and that as soon as the ratified Treaty shall be received from Bengal, it shall be delivered to his said Highness, who will then return to his Lordship the copy which he now receives. {Signed) Clive, J. Stuart, Wm. Petrie, E. W. Fallofield. By the Right Honourable the Governor in Council. {Signed) J. Webbe, Chief Secretary to Government. 58 SCHEDULE Of the Account referred to in the Eighth Article of this Treaty. Amount paid by the Company to bis Highness the Nabob's Creditors on account of his consolidated debt of 1777 .... Star Pagodas 26,47,381 Deduct: Receipts of revenue from the Carnatic surplus to the military subsidy, in the Fuslj years 1200 and 1201 . 8,29,481 Interest at six per cent, for four years and a half. 2,23,960 - 10,53,441 Balance due by the Nabob . . 15,93,940 Add: Interest for four years and eleven months, at six per cent.4,70,211 Actual balance . Star Pagodas 20,64,151 {Signed) Clive, J. Stuart, Wm. Petrie, E. W. Fallofield. To the Right Honourable the Governor in Council. {Signed) J. Webbe, Chief Secretary to Government. A true Copy, {Signed) J. Webbe, Chief Secretary to Government. SEPARATE EXPLANATORY ARTICLES. Se 2 Mrate Explanatory Articles annexed to the Treaty for settling the Succession to the Souhahderry of the Territories o/Arcot, and for vesting the Administration of the Civil and Military Government of the Carnatic Pa yen Ghaut in the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies. Article T. Whereas it was stipulated by the fifth article of the Treaty that the sum to be appropriated to the support of the dignity of his Highness the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder shall be calculated at one-fifth part of the net reve¬ nues of the Carnatic, and whareas the improvement of the said revenues which, under Providence, may be expected to arise from the effects of the present arrangement, may render the said fifth part greater than will be necessary to the purposes 59 intended by the contracting parties, it is hereby explained, for for tlie better understanding of the fifth article of the Treaty, that whenever the whole net revenue of the Carnatic, including the sums to be deducted, according to the sixth article of the Treaty, shall exceed the sum of twenty-five lacs of Star Pago¬ das, then and in that case the fifth part of such surplus shall he applied to the repair of fortifications, to the establishment of a separate fund for the eventual exigencies of war, or to the military defence of the Carnatic, in such manner as may be de¬ termined by the Governor in Council of Fort St. George, after tlie previous communication to his Highness the Nabob Azeem-ul- Dowlah. Article II. Whereas it is stipulated in the sixth article of the Treaty, that the sum of 2,13,421 Pagodas on account of Jagheer, and the sum of 6,21,105 Pagodas on account of the private debts of the Nabob Mahomed Ally, shall be deducted from the amount of the net revenue, previously to the determi¬ nation of the proportion to be paid to his Highness the Nabob, it is nevertheless hereby explained, that it shall not be incum¬ bent on the Honourable Company to appropriate lands yielding a revenue to the said amount of 2,13,421 Pagodas, but that the said Company shall be at liberty to exercise its discretion in the mode and on the extent of the provision to be made, accord¬ ing to the ninth ai'ticle of the Treaty, for the support of the family and principal officers of the Nabob Mahomed Ally, and of the Nabob Omdut-ul-Omrah. And it is further explained, that notwithstanding the liquidation of the private debt of the Nabob Mahomed Ally, or of the debt due to the Honourable Company, the said sum of 6,21,105 Pagodas, shall always be deducted from the net revenue, and shall, in no case, be in¬ cluded in the net revenue, previously to the determination of the share to be allotted to his Highness the Nabob Azeem-ul- Dowlah Behauder, it being the intention of the contracting parties that the said sum of 2,13,421 Pagodas, and the said sum of 6,21,105 Pagodas, shall be considered to be deductions, in all times to come, from the revenue of the Car¬ natic. {Signed) Clive, J. Stuart, W. Petrie, E. W. Fallofield. By the Right Honourable the Governor- General in Council. (Signed) J. Webre, Chief Seo'etary to Government. A true Copy, (Signed) J. Webbe, Chief Secretary to Government. 60 The following Preamble, and the 1st Article of the Original Treaty of 1801, concluded between the Honourable East-India Company and the Nawaub Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behadoor, will show the only modification made in them when the Treaty w'as ratified by the Governor-General. The words between crotchets were modified by those in italics, which stand part of the Treaty. TREATY BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND AZEEM- UL-DOWLAH, DATED 31st JULY, 1801. Treaty for settling the Succession of the Suhahdarry of the Ter¬ ritories of Arcot, and for vesting the Administration of the Civil and Military Government of the Carnatic Payen Ghaut, in the United Company of Merchants of England TRADING TO THE EaST INDIES. Whereas the several treaties which have been concluded between the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, and their Highnesses heretofore Nabobs of the Carnatic, have been intended to cement and identify the interests of the contracting parties: and, whereas, in confor¬ mity to the spirit of this alliance, the said Company, did by the treaty concluded on the 12th of July, 1792, with the late Nabob Walajah, relinquish extensive pecuniary advantages acquired by the previous Treaty of 1787, with the view and on the condition of establishing a more adequate security for the interests of the British Government in the Carnatic! and whereas subsequent experience has proved that the intention of the contracting parties has not been fulfilled by the provi¬ sions of any of the Treaties heretofore concluded between them; and whereas the musnud of the subahdarry of the terri¬ tories of Arcot has now become vacant: [and whereas the right of Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder founded upon the here¬ ditary right of his father the Nawaub Ameer-ul-Omrah Behau¬ der, to succeed to the rank, property, and possessions of his ancestors, heretofore Nawaubs of the Carnatic, has been ac¬ knowledged by the English East India Company:] the Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behadoor has been established by the English East India Company in the ranh, property, and possessions of his ancestors, heretofore Nawaubs of the Carnatic; and whereas the said Company, and his said Highness the Prince Azeem-ul- Dowlah Behauder, have judged it expedient that a new treaty shall, at this time, be executed, for the purpose of supplying the defects of all former engagements, and of establishing the connection between the said contracting parties on a permanent basis of security in all times to come : wherefore the following Treaty is now established and concluded by the Right Honour- 61 able Edward Lord Clive, Governor in Council at Fort St. George, by and with the sanction and authority of his Excel¬ lency the Most Noble the Marquis Wellesley, K.P., Governor- General in Council of all the British possessions in the East Indies, on behalf of the said United Company on the one part; and by his Highness the Nabob Walajah Ameer-ul-Omrah, Mader-ul-Mulk, Ameer-ul-Hind, Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder, Showkut Jung Sepah Salar, Nabob Subahdar of the Carnatic on his own behalf, on the other part, for settling the succes¬ sion to the subahdarry of the territories of Arcot, and for vesting the administration of the civil and military government of the Carnatic in the United Company of Merchants of Eng¬ land trading to the East Indies. Article I. [The right of the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder, to succeed to the state and rank, and the dignities dependent thereon, of his ancestors, heretofore Nabobs of the Carnatic, is hereby formally acknowledged and guaranteed by the Honourable East India Company to his said Highness Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder, who has accordingly succeeded to the subahdarry of the territories of Arcot.] The Ncnmub Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder is hereby formally established in the state and rank, with the dignities dependent thereon, of his ances¬ tors, heretofore Nawaubs of the Carnatic, and the possession thereof is hereby guaranteed by the Honourable East India Company to his said Highness Azeem-ul-Dowlah Behauder, who has accord¬ ingly succeeded to the subahdarry of the territories of Arcot. The Claims of HiS HIGHNESS PRINCE Azeem Jah to the Nawaubship of the Carnatic. [Copy.] OPINION OF DK. TRAVERS TWISS. I AM not disposed to object to tbe classification of the treaty of 1801 under the head of personal treaties, for if the immediate family of the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah were to become extinct it would be difficult to say that the treaty rights and treaty obligations, on the side of the Nabob, attached to the body of any state; on the other hand, the fourth article of the treaty whereby the sole and exclusive administration of the civil and military governments of all the territories and dependencies of the Carnatic Payen Ghaut, together with the full and exclusive right to the revenues thereof, is for ever vested in the English East India Company, is an article of perpetual obligation, and as its duration does not depend upon the lives of the contract- 62 ing parties, that circumstance, according to publicists of very- high authority (Vattel, L. ii. § 187), -would warrant the classi¬ fication of the treaty under the head of real treaties. The substantial question, however, in this case is not whether this treaty ought to be placed in the class of personal treaties, by reason of some of its provisions becoming inoperative for want of parties on the extinction of the immediate family of the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah; but if it be assumed that some of its provisions are personal, whilst others are real, whether the treaty rights and treaty obligations, on the side of the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah, expired on his decease. I am of opinion that the treaty rights on the side of the Nabob, as stipulated under Article V., did not expire on his death, for that article explicitly binds the East India Company, in whom all the revenues have been for ever vested by the fourth preceding article, to allot annually one fifth part of the net revenues of the Carnatic, for the maintenance and support of the said Nabob and of his own immediate family. As long, therefore, as any member of the immediate family of the Nabob Azeem-ul- Dowlah survives, the stipulation of the treaty as to this annual payment will be operative and in force. On the other hand, 1 do not think that the East India Company are bound explicitly by any article of the treaty to recognize the claimant as the successor to the State of Azeem-ul-Dowlah as Nabob Soubah- dar of the Carnatic, but I think they are implicitly bound to do so, for Articles I. and II. of the treaty appear to me to con¬ template an alliance of a perpetual character, which would be binding, not merely upon the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah, but upon his immediate family, so much so, that if the claimant, as the head of that family, were to violate the obligations to which the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah acceded under Articles II. and III., the East India Company would be at liberty to renounce the obligations towards him and his immediate family, to which they acceded under Article V. If this construction of Articles II. and III., is correct, and it is the only view that is reconcilable with the Proclamation of Lord Clive, of 18th December, 1801, then, as the obligations of the alliance attach to the claimant, the benefits of the alliance cannot be withheld from him with good faith. Reciprocity in respect of benefits and burdens, as expressed in the maxim “ Qui sentit onus sentire clebet henejicium," is a prineiple of law which applies to public treaties equally as to private contracts. It follows, therefore, that the claimant, as he is subject to the burdens of the alliance under Articles II. and III., will be entitled to the benefits of the alliance under Article X., and the fulfilment of the obligations of the East India Company towards their ally under the latter article will involve the recognition, on their 63 part, of the claimant’s rank as Nabob of the Carnatic. It is on these grounds that I think the East India Company is implicitly bound by the treaty to treat the claimant with the same external marks of respect as they have shown to the eldest son and grandson of the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah, in the order of their succession. But apart from the obligations of the East India Company, under the treaty of 1801, to recognise the claimant as the successor to the rank and dignity of the Nabob Azeem- ul-Dowlah, the character of the status of the claimant and his family must be determined by the consuetudo prior and subse¬ quent to 1801, and that consuetudo is conclusively in favour of the status of the claimant and his family in reference to the Nawaubship of the Carnatic being hereditary. {Signed) TRAVERS TWISS. Doctors' Commons, Octobet \bth, 1864. [Copy.] Opinion of Mr. LusH, Q.C. I ENTIP.ELY concur in the opinions expressed by Dr. Twiss and Mr. Norton, that the treaty is an enduring contract, binding on both sides, so long as there exists any member of the family of the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah capable of succeeding to the rank. And I come to this conclusion upon consideration of the terms of the treaty itself, read with reference to the cir¬ cumstances under which it was made, and without regard to the Letter Proclamation and Despatch which followed it. These documents, however, might be called in aid, were the language of the Treaty ambiguous, as a contemporaneous ex¬ position of its meaning. But whether read with or without them, it does not appear to me to admit of any other construc¬ tion than that contended for by His Highness Azeem Jah. {Signed) ROBT. LUSH. Temple, Dec. Ist, 1864. [Copy.] Opinion of John Bruce Norton, Esq., note Advocate- General of the Government of Madras, on the Nawaub's case. In re Prince Azeem Jah, ^c. I HAVE very carefully perused and considered all the papers supplied me in this case, and it is my most decided opinion that his Highness is at this moment, dejure, Nabob of the Car- 64 natic. Lord Dalliouse, in his minute of 19th December, 1855, adds but little to the minute of Lord Harris of 25th Octobei’, 1855. He relies on one particular with more force, to which I shall presently allude, but generally he relies upon and treats as conclusive the minute of Lord Harris. All the Madras Council appear to have been unanimous. The Court of Direc¬ tors, in tlieir despatch of 15th March, 1856 (No. 15), in the Political Department, to the Governor-General in Council, adopt and confirm the opinions and views of Lord Dalhousie and the Madras Government. That despatch takes no new ground. I have not before me the minutes of the other Mem¬ bers of the Madras Government. The minute of Lord Harris, therefore, may be taken as the manifesto of the reasons on which the decision of the Govern¬ ment that the musnud is extinct, is based. It is argued by his Lordship that political reasons render it desirable to declare the right to the musnud extinct, if that can be done “ without a violation of faith." To prove that it can be so done it is argued, that the treaty of 1801 is a purely personaZ one between the East India Com¬ pany and Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah Bahauder, ending with his life. He died 15th August, 1819. In the first place, it is sought to cut off Prince Azeem-ul- Dowlah from any claim through hereditary right; and the omis¬ sion in the executed treaty of those passages in the unmodified treaty which expressly recited his hereditary right, certainly tends to show that the East India Company was anxious to sink, as far as decently could be done, such basis of recogni¬ tion. Further, it is stated that this was communicated to Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah, and that he acquiesced in it. If this be so, and we must take it on the faith of these despatches that it was so, I cannot think that any claim through hereditary right from Anwar-ood-Deen, Mahomed Ali, and Omdut-ul- Omrah, can be sustained independent of the treaty of 1801. Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that the alleged trea¬ son on the part of the Nabob of the Carnatic was proved, I am of opinion that it was clearly a sufficient cause for annulling the previous treaties, and as between the East India Company and Nabobs of the Carnatic justifying a forfeiture of the kingdom. Had the Nabobs been sufficiently strong they might, and probably would, have resisted this by force of arms, but as this was out of the question, it was for the claimants to accept or decline such terms as were offered. The alleged son of Omdut-ul-Omah declined, Azeem-ut-Dow- lah accepted, and nothing can be more unequivocal than his statements as they are set forth in the despatch of the Madras Government, dated 1st October, 1801, as quoted in Lord 65 Harris’ minutes. “ Throughout the late negotiations,” that desj^atch recites, “ the Nabob Azeem-ul-Dowlah stated his con- “ viction that the right of his Highness’s family, founded upon “ its connection with the Company, had been annihilated, and “ tliat his Highness considered the causes of his own elevation “ to have flowed from the generosity and moderation of the “ British Government.” I think that what the East India Company actually did was this, they determined to place Azeem-ul-Dowlah precisely in the position occupied by his ancestors, and for this purpose they entered into a treaty with him, whereby they expressly and in terms renewed all those parts of former treaties made with his ancestors, which were calculated to settle the succession to tlie musnud “ for all time to come,” on the one hand, and to vest in themselves the entire civil and military administration of the Carnatic “/or even-." Thus, whatever rights, privileges, dignities, titles his ancestors had the Company conterred and confirmed on him, but at the same time determined that the act by which he ascended the musnud should be theirs, and not in consequence of any claim on the part of Azeem-nl-Dowlah through hereditary right. I think that the difference between the ti'eaty of 1801, as it stands, and the unmodified treaty, clearly points to this. I am aware that the unmodified treaty was also executed, and that Lord Wellesley was not very particular as to which of the two should be ultimately the basis of settlement. If the Nabob would not accept the modified treaty. Lord Wellesley woidd be satisfied with the unmodified ; but, in a legal point of view, that treaty which was ultimately agreed upon by both parties to form the basis of settlement is the one which we must look to for the present purpose. That treaty places Azeem-ul- Dowlah precisely in the position occupied by his ancestors, but the omission in it of the passages in the unmodified treaty shows that this was by the act of the East India Company, not by virtue of a mere hereditary right. What the East India Company did was this:—They set up Azeem-ul-Dowlah as the Sovereign of the Carnatic, and accepted from him, in per¬ petuity, the delegated right to administer the affairs of the Carnatic, civil and military. They acknowledged that he had, in fact, succeeded to his hereditary rights, though by their sufferance, not his own title. Whether they further conferred upon him hereditary rights in the descending as well as the as¬ cending line is another question, is by far the more important question, is the question as far as the present contention is concerned. If they really entered into a purely ^;crsoKaZ treaty with Prince F 66 Azcem-iil-Dowlah, then, I think, Prince Azeem Jah has no legal claim ; if, on the other hand, the treaty was a real treaty, it is in effective operation still, or ought to be, and his claim is indefeasible at law. Both Lord Harris and Lord Dalhousie insinuate a doubt as to whether the treaty of 1801 can be con¬ sidered a treaty at all. This, I presume, on the ground that the whole power was in the hands of the one party, the other entirely at its mercy. But the very first word in the contract is “ treaty.” Treaties are divided into equal and unequal, and they may be so either with regard to tlie status of the contracting parties or the sub¬ ject matter, and the treaty is not less a treaty because of the inequality of the parties, however that may differ in degree. Though Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah was personally powerless, the condition of the country at that time, the comparatively unsettled power of the English, the chance of the Prince forming formidable alliances or combinations against them, were all ample considerations for their entering into a treaty with him as the next heir of the last tenant of the musnud. Lord Harris, in effect, confines himself to the treaty of 1801. Lord Dalhousie expressly says, “ it is quite unnecessary to make any reference to the treaties of 1785, 1787, and 1792. This is a very convenient and compendious fashion of getting rid of these treaties; but the treaty of 1801 is expressly “ for “ the purpose of suppying the defects of all former engage- “ ments;” it refers to the treaties of 1792 and 1787, which, it says, experience has proved not to have fulfilled their objects, and, according to all the ordinary rules of interpretation, all these treaties must necessarily be read together, and form, in fact, one treaty. If this be so, there is an end of the question, for the earlier treaties are all expressed to be with the Nabobs, “ their heirs “ and successors,'’’ and from a perusal of them it will be seen that they are real treaties from the very ohjects they sought to provide for. The treaty of 1801 provides “ additional" provisions for supplying the “ defects ” of former engagements. How can these defects be ascertained? how can what is additional be defined without a reference to the former treaties ? The 2nd article of the treaty of 1801 expressly ratifies, renews, and confirms all parts of former treaties which are “ cal- “ ciliated to strengthen the alliance, cement the friendship, and “ identify the interests of the contracting parties. How can the earlier treaties be repudiated in the face of this article? What can be more calculated to effect these objects than those parts of the former treaties which settle the order of succession to the musnud, and make it perpetual in the reign- 67 ing family, the very object of the treaty ot 1801 being to settle the succession “ to the Carnatic.” But I am further of opinion that the treaty of 1801, taken by itself, is a real and not a personal treaty. It is not necessary, as Grotius points out, that the terms heirs and successors should be introduced to make the treaty real. It suffices if such terms are used as show it not to be confined to a specified limited duration; and I find that the treaty of 1801 expressly recites that it is to place the connec¬ tion between the contracting parties on a permanent basis of security in all time to come. How is this language possible, compatible with a severance of connection immediately on the death of Azeem-nl-Dowlah. Article 4 inve.sts the adminis¬ tration of the Carnatic in the East India Company “/or ever." This is the other side of the contract, and surely the same duration must be given to the one as to the other. Looking at the acts of the East India Company when the musnud was vacant in 1801, I cannot but think that what they really did was to re-establish it in the person of Azeem-til- Doidali and his successors. If the whole body of treaties, as I think, forms one treaty, if the favourable parts of aU former treaties were renewed by the treaty of 1801, there can be no doubt about it. If the treaty of 1801 be looked at alone, I think its terms equally exclude the idea of its being a 'personal treaty. If tliere is any doubt, the rules of international law, as laid down by all jurisprudents for the interpretation of the treaties, require that the doubt should be given in favour of the weaker party, and that, if there is an uncertainty, that party who had it in his power to have expressed the matter unequivocally shall have the construction against and not in favour of itself. Thus far as to the treaties considered solely with reference to the construction to be put upon them from their own terms. Lord Harris vouches several passages from contemporaneous authorities in support of his position, and it is certain that con¬ temporaneous interpretation is one of the most forcible and legitimate sources of ascertaining the real intention of the parties. But then, such contemporaneous expressions must be public, brought under the cognizance of the party to be effected therelty, just as in the instance I have above cited with regard to the case of hereditary right abandoned by Azeem-ul-Dowlah. All the instances cited by Lord Harris are of private and secret character, intentions never conveyed to the other side, and never acted on or carried out. But there is one most forcible contemporaneous expression not alluded to by Lord Harris, or any of those who support his F 2 68 argument, which I think must be taken to be conclusive. I allude to the Proclamation issued by the Government on the 31st July, 1801, to the Zemindars, &c., of the Soubadharry, which expressly states that Azeem-ul-Dowlah “ has succeeded to the hereditary rights of his father, and by the full acknow¬ ledgment of the Honourable Company, to tlie possession of the said musnud.” This is confirmatory of the whole scope of the treaty of 1801, and especially of the first article, “ which establishes Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah in the state and rank, and with the dignities of his ancestors heretofore Nabobs of the Carnatic." But the authoritative interpretation does not cease here. The intention of the treaty and of the parties is evidenced by a long series of unequivocal acts, extending over more than halt a century. In point of fact, no public intimation was ever given of any other idea on the part of the East India Company than that the treaty was made with the heirs and successors of Azeem-ul- Dowlah, as well as himself personally, until the death of the late Nabob, when it is notorious that the wicked and foolish annexation policy was in its zenith, and when the shallowest pretexts were snatched at to seize the territories of every native prince who happened to die, be the treaties with him what they might. In 1819, Azeem-ul-Dowlah died. He was succeeded by his eldest son Azeem Jab. It was never intimated to him that he succeeded by the grace and favour of the East India Company, and not by virtue of the treaty of 1801, made with his father. Lord Harris alludes to the Government of Madras having referred to the Supreme Government for instructions, from its inability to recognise a successor; but this was merely a private communication between the two Governments, not brought home to the notice of Azeem Jah (the present claimant’s eldest brother), and the answer of the Supreme Government is con¬ clusive. It held that no fresh treaty was necessary., as Azeem Jah was ipso facto included in the treaty made with his father. This, no doubt, was good law, and is, in my judgment, conclusive ot the whole question. It is very remarkable that Lord Harris does not state the reply of the Supreme Government. Lord Dalhousie refers to it as follows: “ Upon the death of “ Azeem-ul-Dowlah, the treaty of 1801 was not renewed, it has “ never since been renewed. The Government of India on “ a former occasion, expressly declined to renew it." Yes, but this is surely a strange suppressio veri, for the Supreme Government declined to renew it, not because it was a personal 69 treaty, but a real treaty; not because it required renewal, but because it did not require renewal; not because the Govern¬ ment had any power to refuse to be bound by it, but because they admitted they were bound by it; not because it affected only Azeem-ul-Dowlah, but because his son was ipso facto included in the treaty, notwithstanding the term “ heu's and “ successors ” is not used in it. Again, in 1825, the late Nabob succeeded his father, a long minority ensued. Prince Azeem Jah, liis uncle, was recognised as Regent. On his majority he was formally installed, and neither was the treaty renewed, nor was it ever intimated to him that he succeeded not by virtue of existing treaties, but in consequence of the mere grace and favour of the East India Company. Thus I find two descents cast since the treaty of 1801, and it is impossible, in my judgment, to regard these facts as any other than most forcible expositions of the binding force of the treaty of 1801, as a valid and existing engagement. Independently of this, I find Prince Azeem Jah recognised officially in public documents as the next heir, the heir expectant of the musnud. The arguments used by Lord Harris and the Court of Directors, to get rid of the effects of these communications, appear to me puerile. It is said that they only intimate an expectation on the part of the writers, and that they can confer no right. Taken by themselves, this may be so, but the real question is their force and effect, as evidencing the interpreta¬ tion which at the time these public documents were written the East India Company placed upon the treaties. Prince Azeem Jah has never professed to found his claim upon these expres¬ sions exclusively. He bases his right upon the faith due to treaties, and puts forward these documents simply as evidence of the construction of the treaties by those who now seek to deny their validity. Lord Harris quotes extracts from Vattel, which show that a treaty may be destroyed by an alteration of circumstances. P)iit these passages are really beside the point. They speak with reference to an alteration of circumstances suhse