of the community, and really exempted the richest. MR. BRYAN: Mr. Chairman-Before you put the Question, I should like to ask the Under Secretary of State for India a question relating to one item in these Finance and Revenue Accounts now before us. In the details of ex MR. MAGNAIC did not think that in India the income tax could be made a fair and equal burden upon all classes. He hoped this would be the last time that so important a question as the In-penditure for the year 1870-71, I see at dian Budget would be brought forward at a Morning Sitting within the last few days of the Session. MR. FAWCETT said, that he had been anxious to press the matter to a division; but it would not be respectful to do so in a House of about 26 Members. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. Accounts considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) page 33, under the head of "Allowances in accordance with Treaties or other Engagements," that in the Province of Bengal credit is taken for £52,306, paid to the Nizamut Stipend Fund, among the items of the allowance made to His Highness the Nawab of Bengal. On referring to the Estimates for Bengal for this year I cannot find any similar credit. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to inform us as to the nature of that Fund, and where credit is taken for it in the Estimates now before the House? MR. GRANT DUFF: The hon. Member for Kilkenny County asks me what MR. GRANT DUFF said, it would is the nature of the Nizamut Stipend not be expected of him that, at so late Fund? For a considerable period of an hour, he should enter into the various time it has been the habit of the Indian matters which had been referred to by Government-not in accordance with the the hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in provisions of any treaty or agreement, but the debate. Much had been said about because it considered, on the whole, it was the inconvenience of discussing the ques- the right and the wise thing to do-to tion of Indian Finance at so late a period allot a sum of about £170,000 a-year to of the Session; but although he should what it has been in the habit of describing prefer to have the discussion at an earlier as Nizamut expenses. These Nizamut date, yet he thought that the discussion expenses consist partly of a sum paid of the present evening was the most in-personally to the Nazim, partly of other teresting one at which he had ever assisted. He believed that next Session they would have the Report of the Euphrates Valley Committee, and he would then be able to state the views of the Government upon the subject. 64 Motion made, and Question proposed, That it appears by the Accounts laid before this House that the total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1871 was £51,413,686; the total of the direct claims upon the Revenue, including charges of collection and cost of Salt and Opium, was £9,266,931; the charges in India, including Interest on Debt, and Public Works ordinary, were £30,925,543; the value of Stores supplied from England was £1,315,750; the charges in England were £6,587,661; the Guaranteed Interest on the Capital of Railway and other Companies, in India and in England, deducting net Traffic Receipts, was £1,834,811, making a total charge for the same year of £49,930,696; and there was an excess of Income over Expenditure in that year amounting to £1,482,990; that the charge for Public Works extraordinary was £1,167,810, and that including that charge the excess of Income over Expenditure was £315,180."—(Mr. Grant Duff.) sums paid to the Nizamut family, and partly of sums paid to a variety of other persons. But after all these expenses have been paid, a certain sum remains unpaid, which it has been the habit of the Government of India-and will con tinue to be its habit-to consider in each year as a liability which the Government of India will, one day or another, be obliged to liquidate. That money it has been in the habit of describing as passing into a fund; but that fund has never had any real actual existence at all. That fund is simply a book-keeper's expression for the aggregate liabilities which the Government of India have conceived they may sometime or other be liable to pay for the purposes of the Nizamut family. What those purposes may be, will depend entirely upon the view that the Government of India shall take of the whole sum of its relations to the Nizamut family, at the time when the present head of that family shall cease to exist. I do not know whether there is any other question the hon. I that would amount in English money to Member would like to put to me? £208,500 "Then there is another sum of between 10 and 11 lacs of rupees, which is kept in hand to meet extraordinary unforseen claims-according to the statement here, it is 10 lacs, 73,508 rupees ❞— which would amout to £107,350. riages of daughters and repairs to public buildings, Now, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. (No. 7,329.) "When you speak of the Nizamut Fund, £850,000, what you mean is that there is a fund that ought to exist to this amount, but that £550,000 of that has been spent; and therefore instead of being a fund, so far as this amount is concerned, it is simply a liability?—It is simply a liability. The Government of India described it in past days as a book-debt." MR. BRYAN: I must apologize to "which has been invested, and, out of the interest the House for pressing questions at this of the sum thus invested, our own British estalate hour, but the answer of the hon.blishment, which we call the Agency,' is paid." Gentleman is so very unsatisfactory Of course, there is no objection to that. about this Fund being a "book-keeper's But he goes on to sayexpression," and on other points, that I must really beg the attention of the Committee for a few minutes to this matter. I intended to have brought the subject fully and more properly before the House at another period of the Session; but from the autocratic monopoly of time, which the Government have assumed, independent Members have not had the slightest chance of bringing forward any Motion. I have taken the trouble of going very carefully through the official accounts of the Bengal Nizamut for the last 12 years, and I should like-because this is really a serious matter-to make one or two observations about them. I hold in my hand a statement or analysis of these Nizamut payments extracted from the accounts annually laid before Parliament from 1859-60, which was the time when the Queen's Government came in and the East India Company went out; and one of the first items is a sum of £15,048 put down as paid to Munnee Begum, who died in 1813. That item is continued every year up to 1864-5. In 1865-6 there is nothing; but in 1866-7 it figures at £45,144. Again, in 1867-8, there is £15,048, the same in 1868-9; and in 1869-70, £13,794. But in 1871-2, for the first time, we find £52,306 credited to the Nizamut Deposit Fund. Well, I have also found that this Fund is not by any means represented by that small sum which I have mentioned, but amounts, in round numbers, to £850,000, mostly unaccounted for. I will be very brief with the Committee; but I must call attention to the proceedings of the India Finance Committee which is at present sitting upstairs, and of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works is Chairman. They had under examination recently Sir John William Kaye, who is, I believe, the principal officer in the India Department. The Chairman put the following Question: (No. 7,328.) "With regard to the Fund which you have just mentioned-the Nizamut Fundwill you explain what is the amount of that Fund?—Yes; there is a sum of 20 lacs, 85,000 rupees " I ask the attention of the Committee to this Question cial position of India, India is £550,000 worse off, (No. 7,331.) "But to look to the future finanand will be worse off, of course, than it would appear from the statement that this £850,000 is a fund? - Most certainly the Government of India owes that amount to the Nizamut family." Then the Chairman comes to the rescue, and asks this Question (No. 7,382.) "The Government of India does not consider itself under any obligation to account for that £550,000?-The Government of India do not consider themselves under any obligation to pay interest on that fund; but they do consider because they cannot help it, by the terms of Sir Charles Wood's despatch-that they must devote the whole of that money, in some form or other, to the benefit of the family. (No. 7,333.) "I understood that Sir Charles Wood's despatch was a suggestion, not an order? beg your pardon. It was, in the most emphatic terms, laid down in Sir Charles Wood's despatch that the whole of that money was the property of the Nizamut family; but it was suggested that the accumulations in that fund might be made a permanent provision for the family." Very well. There is nothing in this Revenue Statement in 1870-71, or in 1871-2, to show the existence or disposition of this £550,000. From another source we are informed that there is a deposit of £550,000 which appears no where in this account, and the hon. Gen- | invested with the consent of the Nazim of the tleman gives us no information on the subject. Where does this money go to? To whom is an account of it to be rendered? I will ask the hon. Gentleman to state to the Committee how this money has been applied, and who is responsible for its disbursement? a MR. GRANT DUFF: Mr. Chairman -I have no remark to add to what I have said before. Some years ago the name of fund was very unfortunately used with regard to this liability of the Government of India, and it seems to have given rise, in the minds of the hon. Member and of some other persons, to the idea that there was somewhere a definite fund or sum, which, in some way or other, went out of the power of the Government of India and into the power of the person in whom the hon. Member seems to be interested the Nawab Nazim. Nothing of that kind is the case. There is a much smaller amount, an invested fund-to which I do not understand the hon. Member to alludesum which has been invested, and the proceeds of which are regularly used for Nizamut purposes. But the large sum known as the Nizamut Deposit Fund is a mere liability of the Government of India to itself, which liability it will, some day or other, have to recognize and to pay as, in the whole or in part, a provision for this Nizamut family. If the Committee would like to hear a fuller account of the matter, I have, since the hon. Gentleman began to speak, procured an extract from a despatch of the Government of India-one of their most recent despatches on the subject which gives, I think, a very full and clear, though somewhat lengthy, account of the matter. If the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members would like me to read it, I will do so. The Nawab Nazim states that Lord Dalhousie wrongfully converted the deposit fund into a book debt bearing no interest; that the several funds were created by his ancestors for special purposes, and ought to bear, and have borne, interest; that the orders of the Government were that interest should be re-invested as received; that, in reality, the funds have been created (1) from lapsed stipends arbitrarily diverted for that purpose; (2) from family property to which the Nawab Nazim would have fallen heir; and (3) from a sum of two lacs a-year paid by the Nazim. "Now, the facts are, that the fund consists of two parts: (1) invested, and (2) uninvested. The invested funds, to which the Nawab Nazim never contributed anything, but which, with exception of a portion of Munnee Begum's treasure, day, consists entirely of lapsed stipends, over have always borne interest, and bear interest to which the Nawab Nazim had no control whatever, this day. Part of the interest is devoted to the purpose for which the corresponding portion of the investment was originally made-viz., the agency establishments, although it is insufficient to meet the expenditure, and has had to be supplemented with grants from the other portions of the fund; and the remainder goes for Nizamut purposes over and above the payments made from the Government Treasury. If the interest of the Begum's fund has not been re-invested, as directed in 1823, it is because that fund never really came into existence, and the Nawab Nazim himself failed to carry out the arrangement by which he was to credit Rs. 56,000 a-year to the fund. He himself wrongfully appropriated the lapses, and so far from his having any claim, Government had actually to forgive him a debt of Rs. 2,70,137 on account of misappropriated lapses, and for this the Government of India incurred the censure of the Court of Directors. "In regard to the uninvested portion, not only was it never intended that it should bear interest, but it would be contrary to all the Government rules regarding deposits, if interest were granted upon it. Deposits in the Government Treasuries do not bear interest except under specific arrange ments made with the depositors. Since the first interest. It was not Lord Dalhousie who made it day of its formation the deposit has borne no a book debt; the uninvested portion of the deposit fund has never been anything else than a book debt ever since its formation in 1836. What Lord Dalhousie wanted to do was to abolish the balance to Government; but to this the Court of fund altogether, and to re-credit the uninvested Directors objected. If the fund had been invested it would at one time have been bankrupt. The demands upon it are heavy and fluctuating. A reference to the Report on the fund, which is date, will show that it has not always been enclosed in our separate despatch, No. 149 of this able to meet its liabilities. Between 1842 and 1851, for instance, there was a cumulative deficit varying from a quarter of a lac to nearly two lacs. Much confusion has, indeed, arisen from styling the balance of the 16 lacs a fund. The uninvested portion of the so-called fund is a mere account of certain liabilities which the Government of India may, at some indefinite time in the future, be called upon to meet. There is no obligation expressed or implied to give interest on this account; and on two occasions on which the present Nawab Nazim has brought forward his grievances, although apparently assisted by persons fully acquainted with all the facts of the case, he has not been able to adduce anything which implies a promise on the part of Government that interest would be allowed. appears to have been the view of Her Majesty's Government in 1864. At that time interest had never been paid on the uninvested part of the fund. The Nawab Nazim complains that the fund was converted into a book debt by Lord Dalhousie in 1854. The despatch of June, 1864, however, says not a word about interest, but merely decides that the unappropriated portions from year to year of the 16 lacs stipend unquestionably belong to the Nazim and his family, and can properly be expended only for their benefit.' This is precisely This the principle upon which the fund has been admi- MR. FAWCETT: I am not going to made by the Under Secretary for India has left such a confused impression on my mind in regard to this matter, and as to the way in which this fund is dealt with, that if any steps should be taken to re-ventilate this subject at a future time I should certainly lend every aid in my power to unravel the mystery. I am convinced that a good deal of injustice has been done to an Indian Prince who is at present staying in this country for the purpose of obtaining remedy; and it is quite impossible for him to prove the merits of his case unless a Committee is granted. No one person alone, for instance, will be able to fathom the obscurities of this account, which— if I, as a man of business, may venture to pass an opinion-is one of those kind of things it is impossible to understand in its present condition. It is quite beyond my comprehension. I have, unsuccessfully, endeavoured to gather from the statement of my hon. Friend what has become of the money, balances, book-debt-or whatever else it is-of £550,000; because I find in this account submitted to the House a sum of £52,000 entered as transferred to the credit of the Nizamut Stipend Fund, which the hon. Gentleman confesses is no fund at all. MR. GRANT DUFF: There appears to be some strange confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Brighton. He is under the impression that this sum is a receipt. It is nothing of the kind. It is a sum which we charge as a disbursement-a charge to our debit. It is not a receipt, or anything in the nature of a receipt. MR. BRYAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman another question? There appears to be no doubt that there is a sum of money somewhere, which has been received by somebody, and I suppose there are some accounts kept. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to state to the Committee where these accounts are, or to whom the Indian Government consider themselves to be accountable for them? Is it to the House of Commons, because no record of them appears in the Statement laid before us? MR. GRANT DUFF: Mr. Chairman MR. EYKYN: When this matter-Certainly the Indian Government is rewas discussed last year, the House re- sponsible for this sum of money to nofused to grant a Committee to inquire body but itself. From year to year into the merits of the case of the Nawab the Government of India considers that Nazim of Bengal. But the statement the sum that is not paid in the course of that year for Nizamut purposes will some day or other, at some indefinite future period, have to be used for Nizamut purposes; and therefore it transfers that sum-it puts it aside-makes itself unable to meddle with it by putting it down in its accounts as a debit; and it carries it to the account which is one day or another to be settled with this Nizamut family. MR. FAWCETT: I am still unable to understand this matter. I do not know whether it is that in consequence of this late hour my brain is confused. What I want to know is-what becomes of the money? It is spent, is it not? What is going to be done with this £52,000? I understand it will be spent. "No, no!"] Where is the money? Mr. GRANT DUFF: The money is lying in cash.] Then, as I understand, these cash balances-according to what has been said this evening-are liable at any moment to be spent if war breaks out. What is the justification of this enormous sum of money-of £24,000,000 of cash balances? The only justification of them is that they represent a reserve which may be spent. We find that they are partly composed of these liabilities, and can be spent as any ordinary income. And, therefore, whether the Government puts it to ordinary income or to cash balances, it has appropriated money which represents future liabilities. the mouth of my hon. Friend that I, sitting near him, did not hear him say. It has been stated that the amount of this fund represents a distinct and precise liability of the Government of India. My hon. Friend below me stated most positively that this amount represented an undefined liability. [An hon. MEMBER: But still a liability.] I think if the hon. Gentleman will take what I say in all good part, "undefined liability" and "liability" are two totally distinct things. An "undefined liability" is an unsettled account. A "liability" is a settled account. I think it is desirable that the question should be put precisely, because what falls from hon. Members may be used on a future occasion to the detriment of the people of India. As I understand the question, it is this: The Government of India considers it advisable to apply to a fund-and to that it applies-a certain amount in regard to an undefined liability. It applies that amount, and it retains it in cash balances; but it does not go out of its pocket. It holds itself liable if hereafter called upon to pay; but as money, it does not go out of its own care. It comes to the same thing, as regards liability, whether it keeps no account and pays 50 years hence, or whether it treats it in the way named. Friend and the Committee whose fault is it? Not the fault of the hon. Member for Kilkenny; because he had a Notice down for Tuesday night, and was prevented from bringing it forward because the Government claimed Tuesday night for Government business. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives that this might have been raised in a better way by a regular discussion; but I venture to remind him that it is no fault of the hon. Member for Kilkenny that that has not been done. MR. R. N. FOWLER: The hon. Member for St. Ives says this is an irreMR. BRYAN: The hon. Gentleman dis-gular discussion. I would ask my hon. tinctly admits to the Committee that there is a fund, and that whatever it amounts to it belongs emphatically and exclusively to the Nizamut family. I would ask him to be kind enough to tell me whether he does not consider that, under those circumstances, there is an obligation on the Indian Government to give an account of it, either now or at some future period, to the head of that family? MR. MAGNIAC: Before my hon. Friend answers the question, I should wish to say that in the discussion of a question of this kind in an irregular way, I think it extremely possible and probable that statements may be made and observations let fall which may hereafter be turned in a position adverse to the interests of the people of India. If you are to discuss this question of money it is extremely desirable that it should be discussed in a precise manner. Hon. Members below me have stated on two occasions-or rather put words into MR. MAGNIAC: I do not wish in the least to blame the hon. Member for bringing it on. I merely stated a fact. MR. R. N. FOWLER: What I wish to remind my hon. Friend is, that it was owing to the circumstances of the Session that the Government took that evening-very necessarily very likely; but I think the hon. Gentleman opposite is taking the only course open to him, when, owing to the period of the Session, |