Cff f " THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED LONDON ' BOMBAY CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO ATLANTA SAN FRANCISCO THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. TORONTO THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA BY SIR WILLIAM LEE-WARNER K.C.S.I. Ps OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 1910 Originally published as ' TJie Protected Princes of India,' 1894 Second Edition revised and with altered title, 1910. NOTE IN this second edition of The Protected Princes of India I have altered the title to one of more neutral tint. No part of the complicated task entrusted to the British Government in India demands more patience and tact than that of securing the co-opera- tion of the Native states in promoting the moral and material welfare of the Indian Empire. The ruling chiefs are sensitive and conservative ; they take a deep interest in the controversies to which such phrases as suzerainty, subordinate alliance, independ- ence and dependence have given rise ; and they realise that the general adoption of any title may give countenance to views which through the force of public opinion may direct the future conduct of the British authorities towards them. It is through our habitual bearing with others that we build up relations either of confidence or reserve. I have attempted to delineate the outline of British intercourse with states which I regard as semi-sovereign, but there is no object to be gained by pinning my colours to the outside of the volume. In my first attempt I hoped 204952 vi THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA that the indisputable fact of protection would give rise to no misconception or protest, but the phrase was taken by more than one Keviewer as a text for a sermon of warning to ruling chiefs that they "must keep pace with the rulers of British India." I have therefore adopted a title which is familiar to all and conveys no suggestion of any policy. I have endeavoured to profit by the remarks of my critics, and to turn to account important decisions of the Privy Council which have been pronounced since the first edition was published. But while I have revised the whole book and in particular the chapter on foreign jurisdiction, I have not altered the arrange- ment of its sections, and I have brought the work down to the present time without unnecessary altera- tions or additions to its contents. PEEFACE THE design of these chapters is to bring together in one view, from sources of information which, if not generally known, are yet accessible to the public, a short account of India under Home Kule. The number of Native states included in the Indian Empire is reckoned at 693 in the latest edition of the Imperial Gazetteer of India, but this calculation places the territory of Nepal which is independent in matters of internal administration, and the Shan states of Burma which might be classed as part of British India, in the same category. Such a treat- ment may be justified by geographical considerations, but it is open to objection on other grounds. This sketch is mainly concerned with the more limited area, computed at 630,068 square miles, of the internal principalities and chiefships which lie within the recognised boundaries of British India, exclusive of Baluchistan, Nepal, and the Shan states, being inhabited by a population of about 62,650,000 persons. Why was this vast tract of territory left above the tide of British conquest as it rose and submerged vii a viii THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA the 1,098,000 square miles which represent India under the King Emperor? How did the country princes survive the shock of a succession of policies that seem to be so dissimilar? Can any logical sequence be traced in the conduct of British intercourse with the Company's allies through its various phases of reciprocal alliance with a favoured few, of a general protectorate based on subordinate isolation, and now of an honourable union ? What events gave to the Treaty map its present shape ? What are the rights and what the obligations of the protected sovereigns, and how does the price which they pay for the sub- stantial benefits of partnership compare with the cost at which greater nations have entered into " firm leagues of friendship " for their common defence ? If any one is interested in seeking a reply to these questions, he will find that neither text-books on International Law, nor histories of India, readily furnish the requisite information. That Clive carved out the Province of Bengal by conquest, that Lord Wellesley added Madras and the North-western Provinces partly by treaty and partly by force, that Lord Hastings created the Presidency of Bom- bay, and that Lord Dalhousie transferred the Central Provinces, Oudh, and the Punjab from their Native princes to British possession, is the story unfolded by the historian of India ; but his interest in the country princes seems to come to an abrupt end when swords are no longer crossed with PREFACE ix them, and the responsibility for honest and orderly government shifted to their shoulders. No one need depreciate the biographies of India's rulers edited by Sir William Hunter, or the history written by Marshman ; but the fact remains that a serious examination of Indian treaties was beyond the scope of their particular design. The difficulties of the inquirer do not end here. He cannot turn over the pages of histories or Encyclopaedias without being confused by their want of agreement as to the position of the Indian states in relation to the British Government. The late Sir George Campbell, in his Modern India, devotes more space than other writers to the discussion of British obligations to the protected Native Govern- ments, and he arrives at the conclusion that "Nepal alone retains any remains of independence." Sir Richard Temple, in an article on India, published in Chambers' s Encyclopaedia, observed that " some are practically independent sovereigns." But when he proceeded to show that none of them can make war or alliances, and that the British Government " takes a paternal interest in the good government of the states," he materially detracted from the title con- ferred on them. Sir Travers Twiss allowed them no shred of independence, and classified them as " pro- tected dependent states." Sir Lewis Tupper prefers to style them Feudatory states, but this popular phrase, however suitable for the petty states in the Central x THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Provinces, does not apply to states such as Hydera- bad, Kolhapur, and Gwalior which entered into defensive alliances with the British Company. Sir George Chesney, in his Indian Polity, compared them to the mediatised principalities of Germany. Fresh ground was broken by Elisee Keclus in his Geographic Universelle. " Les princes vassaux " are, in his opinion, destined to become " une grande aristocratic comme celle des lords anglais." Dr. West- lake is the greatest living authority who practically adopts the same view. On the other hand Sir Henry Maine insisted on the fact that sovereignty is divisible, and that the chiefs of India are semi - sovereign. Austin ruled that " no Government can be styled with propriety half or imperfectly supreme." Parlia- ment in 1861 and 1876 used the expression " princes and states in alliance with Her Majesty " ; but in 1889 they were described, by Statute 52 and 53 Vic. cap. Ixiii., as " under the suzerainty of Her Majesty." A few modern writers on International Law, conscious of the vast field of interest opened up by the states, but unable to treat them as " nations " or subjects of International Law, refer their readers to Sutherland's account, written in 1833, of six classes of states, and to an article in the British and Foreign Review, published in 1839. The former work holds a high rank in the scanty literature of the subject, but it dates from a time when the protectorate was not even rough-hewn, much less shaped into its present form. PREFACE xi The later article is open to the same criticism and to far more serious objections. The inconsistent views as to the position of the Native states presented by these several classifications at least suggest that there is a mistake somewhere ; and while the doctors disagree so hopelessly in their diagnosis, the public may well shrink from forming an opinion on the case. If all the states are de- pendent, some cannot be " practically independent/' If their rulers resemble " les lords anglais," they are not even semi-sovereign states. Between the condition of subordinate alliance, and that of union with the British Government, there is more than a shade of difference ; and mere feudatories hold an inferior position to junior partners in an Imperial scheme. Is it presumptuous to hold that some further help is needed to guide the general reader to a definite conclusion ? It may be freely admitted that there are dangers in inconvenient precision and in premature inferences. There is no question that there is a paramount power in the British Crown, but perhaps its extent is wisely left undefined. There is a subordination in the Native States, but perhaps it is better understood and not explained. After the labours of a century and a half the British rulers of India have not entirely extricated themselves from the maze of complexities and anomalies which have retarded their progress in building up the Empire. The full stature of British dominion and ascendancy xii THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA cannot yet be measured. Under such circumstances, can any useful light be thrown on the questions pro- pounded at the commencement of this Preface ? It seems to me that they may be approached from two sides without prejudice, and without intrusion on the incalculable mysteries of statesmanship. A writer may trace the growth of ideas, follow up analogies, and when he has ventured upon an analysis of the rights and duties of the states, he may divert too serious attention by taking his reader an excursion into the fascinating dreamland of Staatswissenschaft. Or, again, avoiding the higher flights of philosophic inquiry, he may confine himself to the facts of history, the text of treaties, and the leading cases and decisions which have been advisedly published by Govern- ments and Parliament for general information. The broad currents of Indian history, and of the evolu- tion of the political system, will carry the inquirer towards some tolerably satisfactory conclusions as to the relations of the British rulers of India with the Native states. The engagements concluded by the Company, or by the King's Viceroys, with their neighbours will confirm, or correct, the impressions thus formed by a general study of the drift of events. The circumstances of bodies, and groups of states, in other countries and other times, and their attempts to adapt themselves to similar environ- ments will throw side-lights on the various phases of Indian political history. PREFACE xiii The latter is the course marked out for myself as promising the surest foothold in the task which I have undertaken. For this purpose I have relied upon sources of information accessible to every one, Indian histories, appeals decided by the Privy Council, reports presented to Parliament, and the able collec- tion of treaties, engagements, and Sanads, compiled by the late Sir Charles Aitchison, which is revised from time to time by the Foreign Department of the Govern- ment of India. The reader must make generous allowance for the difficulties which the examination of a complex and delicate piece of machinery entails. He must also calculate the constant changes which new conditions and healthy progress are bringing about. The day has passed when the East could " bow low before the storm in patient deep disdain." The legions still thunder by, but Oriental society can never go back entirely to what it was. To-morrow will not be as yesterday ; it is certain that the present century will witness alterations in the character of British relations with the Native states. It is well, therefore, to remember that the policy which has preserved the integrity of about 680 principalities in India has been justified by the loyalty of their rulers to the King, and by improved administration of the territories entrusted to them. This result has exceeded the most sanguine expectations of those who built up British Dominion in the East. It has afforded a striking object-lesson of good faith and xiv THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA political sagacity. Methods which have attained such a success deserve the study of those who may have to control the changes that are yet to come, and a knowledge of them may lead to the observance of the golden rule laid down by the Poet Laureate of the last century Regard gradation, lest the soul Of Discord race the rising wind. CONTENTS CHAPTER I INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION PAGE ABSENCE OF AUTHORITATIVE RULES OF TREATMENT . . 1 CERTAIN PRINCIPLES OF ACTION ARE BEING ACCUMULATED . . 3 CONTRAST BETWEEN THE REIGN OF LAW IN BRITISH INDIA AND THE RULE OF DISCRETION IN POLITICAL RELATIONS . . 5 THE FAILURE OF ROME TO PRESERVE HER NATIVE STATES . . 8 MODERN HISTORY SUPPLIES NO INSTANCE OF SUCCESS . . 11 THE RISK AND NEED OF INTRODUCING BRITISH JURISDICTION . 12 THE GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION OF THE STATES , . . 14 ADMINISTRATIVE OBSTACLES TO UNION .... 17 OBSTACLES ARISING FROM THE PERSONAL CHARACTER OF THE RULERS ........ 21 INSTANCES OF LEGACIES OF DISORDER .... 23 THE PERMANENCY OF THE UNION 27 CHAPTER II THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA SOURCES OF RULES OF POLITICAL CONDUCT .... 30 DEFINITION OF A NATIVE STATE ..... 31 WEIGHT GIVEN TO EVIDENCE OF USAGE .... 33 Loss OF JURISDICTION NEED NOT AFFECT STATUS. THANA CIRCLES 34 THE CORPUS OF INDIAN TREATIES AND ENGAGEMENTS . . 37 xv xvi THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA PAGE CLOSE CONNEXION OF HISTORY WITH THE TREATIES . 41 THREE PERIODS IN FILLING IN THE TREATY MAP . 43 THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME GOVERNMENT FOR TREATIES ..... 46 FORMALITIES OBSERVED IN THEIR EXECUTION ... 48 CHRONOLOGY OF INDIAN TREATIES . 49 CHAPTEE III THE POLICY OF THE KING-FENCE RESOLUTE ADHERENCE TO THE POLICY OF NON-INTERVENTION UP TO 1813 ....... 58 FOUR SUBDIVISIONS OF THE PERIOD, 1757 TO 1813 . 61 EVENTS IN BENGAL AND OUDH ..... 63 THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN MADRAS . . 65 DISSOLUTION OF THE FRENCH POWER AND ITS LEGACY . . 71 THE FIRST AND SECOND MYSORE WARS . 74 THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE AND THIRD MYSORE WAR ... 76 THE FOURTH MYSORE WAR AND ITS TREATIES ... 78 THE SITUATION IN BOMBAY, FIRST MARATHA WAR ... 81 THE SECOND MARATHA WAR, AND CENTRAL INDIA . . 84 EVENTS IN THE PUNJAB .... 85 ENDEAVOURS TO AVOID ALLIANCES ..... 88 THE FORMS AND SUBSTANCE OF TREATIES OF THE PERIOD . 90 TREATIES CREATING SUBSIDIARY FORCES . 93 CHAPTEE IV THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION MATERIAL CHANGES IN THE TREATY MAP BETWEEN 1813 AND 1857 .... ... 96 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE PERIOD . . . 99 THE ADMINISTRATION OF LORD HASTINGS . . . 102 Tne NEPAL TREATY . . . . . . .103 THE PINDARI ROBBERS ... 105 CONTENTS xvii PAGE THE SHELTER AFFORDED BY STATES OUTSIDE THE BRITISH ALLIANCE 107 THE COURSE OF POLITICAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE MARATHA POWERS 109 THE RAJPUTANA AND CENTRAL INDIA SETTLEMENTS . . Ill THE BOMBAY GUJARAT SETTLEMENTS . . . .115 THE KUTCH SETTLEMENT . . . .. . .119 THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE RULE .... 122 THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF LORD HASTINGS' TREATIES WITH EXISTING STATES ....... 123 THE CHARACTER OF HIS ENGAGEMENTS WITH NEW STATES . 126 CHAPTEK V THE CONNEXION OF ANNEXATION WITH NON-INTERVENTION ANNEXATION THE SAFETY-VALVE OF A POLICY OF UNCONCERN AND ISOLATION ....... 129 ANNEXATIONS PROMPTED BY IMPERIAL OR BY LOCAL INTERESTS . 133 IMPERIAL REASONS FOR ANNEXING SIND .... 134 THE GROWTH OF THE SIKH SOVEREIGNTY DELIBERATELY PLANNED . 136 CONTRAST BETWEEN THE SIKHS, MARATHAS, AND PINDARIS . 137 THE COLLISION, AND ANNEXATION OF THE PUNJAB . . . 139 STATES SAVED FROM ANNEXATION IN THE PUNJAB . . . 142 THE LESSONS OF THE COORG ANNEXATION .... 142 AN ALTERNATIVE TO ANNEXATION REJECTED BY THE HOME AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . 145 THE CONSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF OUDH .... 149 LORD DALHOUSIE'S POLICY A NATURAL SEQUENCE . . . 152 THE LEGALITY OF LAPSE OR ESCHEAT .... 153 THE NAGPORE ANNEXATION AND THE NEW DOCTRINE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ....... 155 CHAPTEK VI THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE UNION SKETCH OF LEADING EVENTS AFTER 1857 .... 157 COURSE OF BRITISH INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION AFFECTS THE STATES 160 xviii THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA PAGE LORD CANNING'S SANADS REMOVE MISTRUST . . .161 CONNEXION BETWEEN THE SANADS AND A POLICY OF UNION . 163 THREE LEADING CASES . . . . . .167 THE DEPOSITION OF THE GAIKWAR OF BARODA AND ITS LESSONS . 168 THE RENDITION OF MYSORE ...... 171 THE MANIPUR CASE AND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN IT . 179 GENERAL VIEW OF THE AGREEMENTS OF THE PERIOD . . 183 RISK OF BENEVOLENT COERCION 186 CHAPTEK VII THE PRICE OF UNION THE ACCOUNT OF PROFIT AND Loss MUST BE KEPT OPEN . . 189 DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT ...... 191 THE OBJECTS OF THE UNION . . . . . .192 FIVE SOURCES OF OBLIGATION THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE, ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, THE LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DIRECT AGREE- MENT, AND USAGE . . . . . .196 DUTIES MUST REST ON CLEAR EVIDENCE .... 205 THE PROFIT SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT .... 207 THE Loss SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT . . . 211 CONTRAST BETWEEN THE AMERICAN AND INDIAN STATES . . 212 FIVE CATEGORIES OF OBLIGATIONS . . 215 CHAPTEK VIII OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE THE EXACT LIABILITY OF THE STATES NOT YET DEFINED . . 217 ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF SUBSIDIARY FORCES . . . 220 OBSTACLES TO MILITARY CO-OPERATION . .225 FAILURE OF THE EXPERIMENT OF CONTINGENTS . 228 THE HYDERABAD CONTINGENT EXCEPTED . . 230 THE SCHEME OF IMPERIAL SERVICE TROOPS . 232 VARIOUS CLASSES OF MILITARY OBLIGATIONS . 234 UNLIMITED LIABILITY OF THE STATES IN CASE OF WAR 234 CONTENTS xix PACE GENERAL RESTRICTION AS TO THE STRENGTH OF THEIR ARMIES . 238 GENERAL RESTRICTION IN MATTER OF RECRUITMENT . . 240 GENERAL RESTRICTION ON FORTIFICATIONS AND EQUIPMENTS . 242 BRITISH RIGHTS OF PASSAGE, OCCUPATION, AND CANTONMENT . 244 RIGHTS OF ASSISTANCE IN PROCURING SUPPLIES . . . 247 RIGHT TO CLAIM EXTRADITION OF DESERTERS . . . 248 RIGHT OF IMPERIAL CONTROL OVER RAILWAYS, TELEGRAPHS, AND POSTAL COMMUNICATIONS . 249 CHAPTER IX OBLIGATIONS AFFECTING EXTERNAL RELATIONS THE STATES HAVE LOST THEIR INTERNATIONAL LIFE . . 254 EVIDENCE OF THIS GENERAL DISABILITY .... 256 INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATES BOTH ABROAD AND WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTIONS ..... 260 PROTECTION OF THE SUBJECTS OF NATIVE STATES ABROAD . . 263 PROTECTION UNDER PASSPORTS OR BY CONSULAR OFFICERS . . 265 OBLIGATIONS FROM THE SOURCE OF BRITISH INTERNATIONAL ACTION 266 JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN EUROPEANS OR AMERICAN SUBJECTS . 267 EXTRADITION OF FOREIGN FUGITIVE OFFENDERS . . . 271 RECRUITMENT FOR FOREIGN SERVICE .... 272 DISABILITY OF THE STATES TO NEGOTIATE WITH EACH OTHER . 273 FORM OF INTERSTATAL AGREEMENTS ..... 277 BENEFICAL RESULTS OF THE Loss OF POWERS OF NEGOTIATION 278 CHAPTER X OBLIGATIONS AFFECTING INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PHRASE OBLIGATION . . . 280 CATEGORIES OF OBLIGATIONS OR RIGHTS OF INTERFERENCE . . 282 EXAMINATION OF THE TEXT OF AGREEMENTS AGAINST INTER- FERENCE ........ 286 THE EXPRESSED INTENTIONS OF THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES . 289 A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION TO PREVENT DISMEMBERMENT OF STATES 291 xx THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA PAGE EXTENSION OF THE PRINCIPLE TO ACQUISITIONS OF LAND . . 296 LIMITATIONS ON POWERS OF CHIEF TO BEQUEATH ESTATES . . 297 RIGHT OF INTERVENTION TO SUPPRESS REBELLION . . . 298 RIGHT OF INTERVENTION TO CHECK GROSS MISRULE . . . 302 RIGHT OF INTERVENTION TO SUPPRESS INHUMAN PRACTICES . 303 RIGHT OF INTERVENTION TO SECURE RELIGIOUS TOLERATION . 306 RIGHT OF SPECIAL INTERFERENCE ACQUIRED BY TREATY . . 308 RIGHT OF INTERVENTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF BRITISH INTERESTS E.G. TRIAL OF EUROPEANS ...... 309 MATTERS OF CURRENCY . . . . . .310 RAILWAYS, FREE TRADE, JUDICIAL ACTS . . .311 CAUTIONS AND RESERVATIONS NEEDED IN READING THIS CHAPTER . 312 CHAPTEK XI OBLIGATIONS DERIVED FROM THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE OBLIGATIONS FLOWING DIRECT FROM THE CROWN . . . 316 EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SETTLE PRECEDENCE AND GRANT HONOURS . 318 ACCEPTANCE OF FOREIGN HONOURS ..... 322 THE RIGHT TO RECOGNISE SUCCESSIONS TO CHIEFSHIPS . . 323 THE RIGHT TO SETTLE DISPUTED SUCCESSIONS . 327 DUTIES ON SUCCESSION .... 329 THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE OR ACCREDIT AGENTS . . . 331 THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTER STATES DURING MINORITIES . . 334 THE DUTY OF LOYALTY TO THE CROWN 334 CHAPTEK XII BRITISH JURISDICTION IN THE NATIVE STATES THREE CLASSES OF JURISDICTION DELEGATED, RESIDUARY, SUB- STITUTED ...... 337 OBSTACLE TO BRITISH JURISDICTION ARISING FROM TREATY . 344 OBSTACLE ARISING FROM LEGAL LIMITATIONS . 346 LIMITATIONS ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE INDIAN COUNCILS 347 CONTENTS xxi PAGE MORE EXTENDED POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL ...... 353 How THE PROBLEM OF EXTENDING BRITISH JURISDICTION WAS SOLVED ........ 355 CANTONMENT JURISDICTION ...... 359 RAILWAY JURISDICTION ...... 362 JURISDICTION IN CIVIL STATIONS . . . . 364 RESIDENCY JURISDICTION ...... 366 PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUBJECTS . . . 367 EXTRADITION OF ACCUSED PERSONS ..... 372 RESIDUARY JURISDICTION ... . 375 SUBSTITUTED JURISDICTION ...... 380 CONCLUDING REMARKS . 382 CHAPTEE XIII THE TIE WHICH UNITES BRIEF RETROSPECT AT THE POSITION OF THE NATIVE STATES . 384 LOOSE GENERALISATIONS AVOIDED IN INDIAN TREATIES . . 387 THE TIE is NOT INTERNATIONAL ..... 390 IT is NOT FEUDAL ....... 393 IT is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL TIE ..... 395 PLEA FOR THE TERM SEMI-SOVEREIGN STATES . . . 399 THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING PAST POLICY . . . 402 INDEX 407 MAP TREATY MAP OF INDIA ..... To face p. 52 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHAPTER I INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 1. NOT the least of the victories of peace achieved NO author - by the East India Company was its transfer to the l ^* of Crown of Great Britain and Ireland of the honourable treatment, duty of maintaining and improving the network of alliances, which it had already established with nearly seven hundred states, of various degrees of import- ance, in the interior of the country. The political " union and friendship," to borrow a phrase from the Company's treaty with the Nizam in 1800, established with the Indian sovereigns had already taught native society that the British rulers, unlike any of their predecessors, desired as much to respect the rights of others as to maintain their own. The process by which such a result was achieved, and the gradual development of a more substantial union of India under British with India under Native rule cannot be appreciated without a close attention to the framework of history. It is a comparatively easy task to follow the path of those who have under- taken, and carried to a successful issue, the direct administration of provinces subject to British law and regulation. But for those who would pursue the inquiry into the nature and evolution of political intercourse between the King's Government and his B 2 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. allies, the ordinary landmarks are wanting. There are no collections of political rules, and no authorita- tive treatises to guide the inquirer. These matters are, according to some opinions, best left alone as the mysteries of the trade. Others see in this branch of Indian history an interesting field of study, and moreover a safe road through which official Blue- Books can guide them. But whatever system there may be, it is only to be gathered up by a tedious examination of numerous leading cases. Moreover, the history of other nations, whether ancient or modern, may be searched in vain for any precedent of a similar achievement. The most cursory ex- amination of the Native states brings to light a con- fusing variety in their size, their origin, and their development. In the first quarter of the nineteenth century they presented the appearance of a sea suddenly petrified while in a condition of stormy; unrest and disquietude. Commissioned by the Com- pany to cease from war and " make their subjects happy/' their rulers, who had in many cases carved out principalities by the sword or by intrigue, found themselves beset with constitutional difficulties of great variety and complexity. In one state a foreign dynasty was not merely set over a subject population that differed from it in caste and religion, but it had to maintain its position against a claimant whose family had been ousted from power only a few years before the Company placed war and aggressions under their interdict. In another state a powerful nobility claimed jurisdictory rights which seemed to render the maintenance of the sovereign's authority impos- sible. Elsewhere, again, the subject population was composed of predatory gangs, or of soldiers who had suddenly lost their dishonest means of livelihood. i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 3 The legacies of difficulty which each native sovereign inherited from the past were so heterogeneous that no uniform system of treatment could have been applied to the whole group. The British authorities themselves were undecided as to the tie by which the protected states could best be united to them. Three distinct policies were tried, and each political problem which presented itself for solution needed the disentanglement of the knots with which former experiments had complicated it. Amidst all these impediments to the consolidation of a living union between the states and the paramount power, it is no matter for surprise that hitherto no fixed system of political management has been drawn out on paper by superior authority. In fact, although principles have been publicly enunciated and applied to particular cases of interference, no body of authoritative rules governs the relations which to-day subsist between the British Government and the semi-sovereign states in subordinate alliance and union with it. 2. To some extent the absence of any definite A interstatal law must be recognised as depriving the ^principles states united to the Indian Empire of the safeguard is being w r hich all law or system provides. It obviously renders an inquiry into the action of the political department of the Indian Government more difficult than the examination, so frequently undertaken by historians, of the growth and progress of British administration in the provinces under our rule. But because the workings of the complex and delicate machinery which governs British intercourse with many hundreds of states are not exposed to public view in the debates of Legislative chambers, it need not be assumed that they are therefore resolved into the simple rule 4 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. Sir George Campbell, in his history of Modern India, published in 1852, wrote on the subject of our political relations with the Indian chiefs : " There is no uniform system, and it is impossible to give any definite explanation of what things we do meddle with and what we do not." Nine years later, Dr. Twiss, in his treatise on The Rights of Nations in Time of Peace, could give his readers no better idea of the political aims and acts of the British Government than that contained in volume viii. of the British and Foreign Review, published in 1839. In his contribution to that Keview the writer expressed his conviction that the Company meant to annex the states, but history has so far given an emphatic contradiction to his prophecy. It would seem that both Sir George Campbell and the authority quoted by Dr. Twiss missed the usual landmarks which the historian of British India finds to guide him in picking his way through the maze of Indian history. But because there are no rules or regulations bearing the stamp of public authority for regulating before- hand the relations between the suzerain and the protected states of India in the complicated circum- stances which may arise, it does not follow that a definite explanation of past policy, or of present intercourse, cannot be given. The records of Parlia- ment and the Indian official Gazettes, during the past sixty years, contain the fullest public explanation of the motives of Government in particular cases, and interspersed amongst them will be found many de- clared principles of political action. Thus, in the parliamentary papers relating to Manipur, a Despatch, dated the 5th of June 1891, is printed, in which the Viceroy in Council expresses himself to this effect : i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 5 " It is the right and duty of the British Government to settle successions in the subordinate Native states. Every succession must be recognised by the British Government, and no succession is valid until recogni- tion has been given. This principle is fully under- stood and invariably observed." It is clear, therefore, from this example, to which many others might be added, that the Government of India has not hesitated to pronounce and apply its " principles " ; and if it has hitherto and of necessity avoided the enunciation of any political law, or the authoritative collection of principles, its reserve is doubtless due to the senti- ment once expressed by Mr. Phelps in the Behring Sea discussion. Speaking even of International regu- lation, which had long since acquired a title to the use of the word " law," Mr. Phelps contended that the best precedents have been established, " when the just occasion for them arose, undeterred by the dis- cussion of abstract and inadequate rules." Experience has proved that as years roll on even the political commerce of equal nations with each other presents new and unprecedented problems ; and when the circumstances and numbers of the protected states of India are taken into account, it may readily be assumed that any rules which aimed at precision, or, as Lord Lytton has termed it, " vulgar compactness," would be inadequate. 3. In one sense the absence of such rules is an Contrast obstacle in the way of solid union with the Native JJJL states, since a clear determination of the relations of ? f law states, as well as of individuals, to each other obviates India and misunderstanding and collision. But it must not be * he rul . e of . discretion forgotten that the introduction of .Roman law into the in political protected states of the Republic was the precursor dealll ^ s - of annexation, nor that the Indian sovereigns value 6 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. above all other rights their guarantees against the intrusion of the laws of British India. The charge which some writers have brought against the Govern- ment of India for its unsystematic conduct of political affairs, indicates rather a difficulty which the British authorities have to encounter in maintaining the union than a defect in their policy. There is no analogy between the task of the British magistrate or collector in a Province of the empire, and that of the political officer who conducts relations with a Native state. In the territories subject to the King, the whole set of conditions favours the development of a system, because the various populations, however differentiated they may be by religion or race, are welded by a common law, and by subjection to a single judicial system, into one community. Nature has herself set statesmen a wise example So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life. The reign of law and system is often condemned as imposing a needless shackle upon the heaven-born administrator or the far-sighted reformer. But so long as the wheels of the Legislature run smoothly, there is no reason why the law or system should not keep abreast of the requirements of a progressive society. The individual officer who perceives the need for change, must indeed hold his hand until the law has removed its obstruction ; but when it does so the whole country benefits by the change, and not merely the single district to which the activity of one officer is confined. The historian finds his task rendered easy by the process. He has simply to fix his eye on the action of the law-maker as progress is registered in new enactments, and he experiences i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 7 no sort of difficulty in ascertaining the reasons and objects of the new departure. It is thus obvious that the compensation balance, which prevents the reign of system in British India from becoming too rigid, is the capacity of the Legislature to advance or recede. But the tie which unites the Native states, various in their size and social conditions, with the British Government is not strengthened by law or by the support of any federal courts. No supreme assembly defines or registers changes in the character of their political intercourse. Such principles as have been declared have resulted from particular conflicts arising out of their own environment of circumstances, and they are not to be found collected together in any manual that bears the stamp of authority. The particular support which any one of the hundreds of states requires, or the vitality which it is possible to infuse into its internal administration, depends upon conditions peculiar to it. The sovereign is the state, and the hereditary as well as the personal qualifica- tions for rule of each sovereign present every shade of difference. The sovereign's decree is the law. The judges are removable at his pleasure, and his executive officers are not amenable to the courts of law for their public acts. Only in Native states like Mysore, Baroda, or Kolhapur, which have long enjoyed administration by British officers during a minority or for other cause, do there exist any body of laws, and they are simply taken from the British Code, mutatis mutandis. The relations of each principality with the paramount power are conducted by a single representative of the British authority. Thus it appears that the personal factor, both within and without the state, overshadows the whole con- duct of interstatal relations. Where such conditions 8 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. prevail, any rule prescribed by authority would require a multitude of reservations and provisoes before it could be enunciated as a general principle and embodied in an established system. It may be found that in course of time such an uniform advance will be registered in the moral and material progress of all the states as will enable Government to trace the outlines of a political system, and to give the Native chiefs the strength and support of an Indian 1 political law. In the meanwhile, however, it must be admitted that the light upon the course of adminis- tration which is thrown by the proceedings of the Legislature in the provinces under British rule, is denied to the student of the states united to that rule. The charge brought by Sir George Campbell of the absence of definite explanation of interference is certainly not borne out by the facts. In all cases of serious interference the public have been taken into the confidence of the Government of India, and ample explanation of its actions has been afforded. But Sir George was justified in asserting that " there is no uniform system " ; and the impossibility of establishing one under present circumstances is a real difficulty in maintaining the union of the states with their suzerain which must be accepted and overcome. Rome 4. Another difficulty which deserves mention is pTesfrvc tlie failure of history to supply any precedent or mark Native out any track for the political task which the British have undertaken in India. The story of Eoman achievements offers many parallels, and not a few contrasts, to the general course of British rule in India. The Provincial administration of Rome, rich in lessons for the Indian official, lies beyond the scope of the present inquiry ; but it may be hoped that history will not repeat itself in the breakdown which i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 9 it records of Roman attempts to maintain the inde- pendence, or even the treaty rights, of its allies. The main help which Roman history can afford to the Political agent is the lesson of warning, and not of example, taught by failure. Under the Republic there was much in the policy of the commonwealth towards the allied states which sounds familiar to Indian ears. When Clive deliberately recognised the independence of Oudh, in order that it might be a buffer -state between the Company's territories in Bengal and the Mara tha - swept provinces of the tottering Mughal Empire beyond them, he repeated the action of Flamininus, who withdrew his troops from Corinth, and left 1 Greece free as a check on Macedon, and as a breakwater against invasion from the East. The same policy was continued when, after the fall of Perseus, Macedonia was preserved as a fetter on Thrace. But each barrier gave way in turn, and when Thrace itself was annexed, its ruling family was pensioned by Tiberius as the Sind Amirs were by Napier after 1842. The rewards of territory given to Rome's allies, such as to Rhodes, Pergamus, and the client state of Numidia, recall the divisions of the spoil between the Company and the Parties to the Treaty of offensive and defensive alliance against Tipu Sultan in 1790; whilst the terms imposed on Carthage in 202 B.C., and those on Philip of Macedon soon afterwards, which deprived the states of the right of waging wars or making alliances without the con- sent of Rome, remind one of the treaties negotiated 1 The Company, when it abstained from annexation, was frequently assailed by its officers, whose arguments may be stated in words borrowed from Livy, book xxxiv. 48: "Id minime conveniens videbatur tyrannum reliquisse, non suae solum patriae gravem, sed omnibus circa civitatibus metuendum." The groans of the Punjab peasantry and the appeals of the Sardars against the aggressions of Ranjit Singh can find no better expression. io THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. by Lord "Wellesley and Lord Hastings. The phrase civitas foederata applied to Gades is the exact equivalent of the term " Treaty -Jagirs," which to- day distinguishes the Southern Maratha Country, the Satara, and the Nagpore Jagirdars, honoured with the receipt of Sanads of adoption, from other pro- prietors of estates in foreign territory to whom the Sanads were not given. Again, when a state like Mysore adopts the provisions of British law as applicable to its own conditions, it may be said in Latin terms in earn legemfundus fieri. But although in two directions, namely, their arrangements for imperial defence and for subordinate isolation, the Romans anticipated the Company in several measures, which in British India have not led to annexation, their love of fixed law and system proved fatal to the maintenance of Native rule. The taxation and dis- armament of Macedonia, in 167 B.C., were compatible with its retention of sovereignty, but when once a Constitution was introduced, and when (as the phrase went, leges datae) the details of the administration of justice and the relations of the communities included in the state were defined by law, the separate existence of the allied State ceased, and the Roman province took its place. The process by which the change was effected was no doubt gradual, but the loss of inde- pendence became only a question of time when Roman colonies with their legal rights confirmed by a lex, a plebiscitum, or a senatus consultum, were planted in foreign territory, and to urban communities were conceded municipal rights. The intrusion of the Latin tongue, to which even the coinage of the Mauritanian kings bore testimony, drove one wedge into the indigenous system, but the Roman prefects and magistrates were the most potent instruments i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 11 of annexation. The statesmen of the time of Mount- stuart Elphinstone were sound scholars, and in their constant declamations against the intrusion of British law into the Native states, they only applied a lesson taught by their Roman history. They forgot, how- ever, in carrying their doctrine to the extreme limits of non-intervention, that India would soon come under the eye of a public opinion, which would not tolerate oppression and corruption. 5. Most valuable to the British would have been Modem the experience of the States of America, had they s ^^ es shown a way to the preservation of the Indian states no on their borders. But here again History failed to give Indian administrators a helpful object-lesson. In 1846, the Supreme Court of America rendered it impossible to preserve the indigenous organisations by ruling that, where a country occupied by Indian tribes was not included within the limits of one of the States, Congress might by law punish any offence committed therein, whether the offender was a white man or an Indian. The intrusion into any such areas of the regular jurisdiction of Congress obviously ex- cluded Native rule. But it might be thought that, if the West gave the British no light to assist them in maintaining the country states, the East certainly did. Whence came the Native states which the British desired to uphold, and how did the Indian system treat dependent allies? Unfortunately the British arrived on the scene when nothing but disorder and the shadow of the Imperial rule at Delhi remained. The strongest powers with whom they came into contact were rebellious viceroys of Muhammadan provinces ; the rest were generally upstarts. The policy of un- concern outside the ring-fence of their own territories which the Company deliberately followed at first, left , 12 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. the ground clear for the Native method of dealing with the country princes. Accordingly in Central India each state carried on unceasing warfare with its neighbours, and the Marathas would have wiped the Eajput states out of the map if Lord Hastings had not amended his treaties with Gwalior and Indore, and thus removed the diplomatic obstacles which had prevented the extension of British pro- tection to Kajputana. In the Punjab Ran jit Singh annexed every principality outside the Company's ring-fence, which was, fortunately for the Phulkian states of Jind, Nabha, and Patiala, and other chief- ships in the Hill tracts, set back to the Sutlej. In the south of India, the Kolhapur state still includes some feudatory states, but they exist because of the British guarantee, and because, by the Treaty of Kolhapur, dated the 20th of October 1862, the residuary jurisdiction had been removed from the suzerain state and taken into the safe keeping of the British. In short, it must be confessed that amongst other forces, tending to the conclusion that the preservation of Native rule was an impracticable aim, was the failure of other nations and other times to supply a precedent for success in such an effort. intricate 6. The lesson taught by Rome's failure was not ofd^af thrown away on the East India Company. Although jurisdic- their engagements with the petty chiefs contained clauses enjoining attention to the happiness of their subjects and to the administration of justice, they solemnly undertook in their treaties with the larger states to have " no manner of concern with the Maharaja's subjects." At a later date, when ex- perience proved that a close and constant intercourse with the states demanded some intervention by the British Government on behalf of its own subjects, and i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 13 some pressure upon their allies in the interests of judicial reform, the spirit of these non-interference clauses was carefully observed. It was explained that the Company had guaranteed the states against the intrusion of its own Courts of law, or against any extension of its ordinary jurisdiction beyond the territorial limits of the Company's possessions. But where, as the only means of avoiding annexation, interference and the intrusion of British jurisdiction were absolutely called for, the Courts which were created for the exercise of that jurisdiction were estab- lished by the Government in its executive capacity, and not by the legislative authorities of British India. This cardinal distinction may appear subtle, but it has been the corner-stone of the judicial system introduced into the Indian states. \ It can easily be understood how, in course of time, conflict and protest gathered round the administration of justice by the imperfect courts of the Native states. Although the Company planted no British colonies in the princi- palities, it necessarily established some of its canton- ments in them for the purposes of common defence. To no urban communities in foreign territory were granted municipal rights, but trade and commerce attracted European merchants to certain centres, and for their control, no less than for their protection, British Courts became necessary. In this and other ways the need arose for the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction ; and the device, by which law and justice have been provided for the benefit of British or protected subjects in the states, without recourse to the Roman system, and without any unnecessary intervention in the internal administration of their, sovereigns, affords the most marked evidence of the desire to save the states from the " vortex of 14 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. annexation." The character of British Courts in foreign territory will receive attention in the twelfth chapter of this work. Here it is only necessary to notice the fact that some measure of judicial interven- tion was unavoidable, and therein lay one of the most formidable menaces to the maintenance of Native rule. For it seemed impossible to introduce British Courts into the states without driving in a wedge that must loosen the whole structure of the Native sovereignty. Such were the views of that eminent officer, Sir John Malcolm, who, in 1830, urged upon the Company the policy of " tolerating for a period what we deem misrule," and " not disturbing such communities with laws which they do not under- stand." But if the magnitude, position, and con- ditions of Native rule are examined, it will be seen that the British had no option but to regulate their jural as well as their other relations with states that were not only placed on their borders, but often enclosed within them. The geo- 7. The Statistical Abstract tells us that the ^sitiJTof Indian Empire includes 1,097,901 square miles of the states. British territory with 232,072,832 British subjects, and if we accept the boundaries of India as traced by geographers, 1 824,283 square miles with a population of 68,210,660 are regarded by the law of India as foreign territory, inhabited by people who, in the absence of naturalisation, are not treated in India as British subjects. But the difficulty of welding together these two parts of the Empire into one political system cannot be appreciated without a closer examination of the geographical position of the states. 1 For details the reader is referred to p. 103, Chapter III. vol. iv. of the Imperial Gazetteer of India. The Statistical Abstract gives 675,267 square miles with population 62,288,224. i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 15 A glance at the map of India shows that, excluding the frontier states of Kashmir, Baluchistan, Nepal, and Bhutan, there are five considerable blocks of foreign territory in the interior of the Empire. The Rajput states, under the Kajputana agency, forming a compact area of 128,918 square miles with a population of 9,841,765, stretching from the Punjab on the North to the northern division of Bombay in the South, and from Sind in the West to the United Provinces in the East, lie right across the line of communication between Bombay, which is the most important sea base of British rule, and the North- western Frontier, whence throughout her history danger has threatened the people of India. Adjoin- ing them on the South-east lie their hereditary foes, the Maratha states of Grwalior and Indore, which with others under the Central India agency claim 8,510,317 subjects scattered over an area of 77,395 square miles. Leaving a narrow strip of British jurisdiction to connect the Western Presidency of Bombay both with the Central Provinces and Bengal beyond them, and with the Madras Presidency on the South, lie the extensive dominions (covering, exclusive of Berar, 82,698 square miles and containing over eleven millions of population) of our oldest ally the Muhammadan Nizam of Hyderabad. In the Southern Presidency, Mysore detaches 29,444 square miles and 5,539,399 souls from subjection to the British Presidency of Madras. Finally Baroda, and the neighbouring groups of states consolidated under the Kathiawar agency, fill a large space in the Gujarat province of the Bombay Presidency. But the enumeration of these five massive blocks of foreign jurisdiction, barring the road from one Province of the Empire to another, leaves out of notice a vast 16 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. number of smaller states engulfed in the Presidency of Bombay and in the Provinces of the Punjab, Bengal, Central Provinces, and to a smaller extent in Eastern Bengal and Assam. The Government of India directly controls the intercourse of its agents with nearly 180 separate states, two of which are nearly as large as Italy without Sicily and Sardinia. The Governor of Madras has relations with 5, and the Governor of Bombay with 354 separate rulers, some of whom are very petty ruling states no larger than the Kepublics of Lubeck or Hamburgh, but very tenacious of their semi -sovereign rights. The Lieutenant-Governors of the Punjab, Bengal, and the United Provinces deal respectively with 34, 30, and 2 states ; whilst the Chief Commissioners of the Central Provinces, and of Eastern Bengal and Assam, control 15 and 26, the latter number including 25 Khasi states which collectively cover only 3900 square miles. There remains the province of Burma which is usually credited with 52 states, but it is doubtful whether any but the five Karen states should be regarded as native states outside British India. These bare statistics convey an inadequate idea of the difficulties which the recognition of so many foreign jurisdictions entails upon the administration of the neighbouring British territories. In the Bom- bay Presidency, for instance, there is hardly a single District outside Sind in which one or more enclaves of foreign territory do not abound. Even in the case of a solid block, such as the state of Hyderabad, the frontier is so irregular that several British villages are surrounded by the jurisdiction of the Nizam, and some of his villages lie in the heart of British territory. "When the Company was engaged in its i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 17 war upon organised bands of plunderers and profes- sional Thugs and poisoners, the asylum afforded by this break of gauge in the authority and jurisdiction of its officers afforded a very general argument against the maintenance of Native rule. Again, before the peace of India was secured, the military resources of some of the chiefs, who could not be trusted, more than once threatened a change of policy, and the attitude of the Gwalior state on the outbreak of the Pindari war materially affected the plan of campaign. Fear was not the only influence which ofttimes suggested annexation. The exemption of wealthy princes from any payment for the naval defence of a long coast-line exposed to foreign enemies and local pirates, or for the military protection of their frontiers, was repeatedly condemned as unjust to the British tax-payer. Thus, not without some show of reason, a change of policy was pressed upon the attention of successive Governor-Generals ; and this much may be safely conceded, that one motive or another, whether intolerance of disorder beyond the border, or financial necessity, would under similar circumstances have tempted any Roman provincial Governor to attach the client states to Imperial rule. 8. It must not be supposed that the obstacles, which presented themselves to the Company's servants in the way of preserving the integrity of the Native connected sovereigns, have been wholly removed with the union, ( establishment of the King's authority. The policy, which was so honourably and wisely pursued through- out the last century, still involves difficulty and additional expenditure upon the British Governments. No doubt the principalities have long since ceased to be blast furnaces into which the stormy elements of Indian society are drawn, until, as in the Pindari c i8 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. war, they sweep as a whirlwind upon the British districts. But they sometimes give shelter to those enemies of civilisation and order, who, descended from the criminal tribes and predatory castes of India, practise their infamous trade in the Native states, and seize every suitable opportunity of crossing the British line. The police administration of frontier districts consequently entails greater expenditure than that of districts in the interior, because the duties of guarding the frontier of a foreign state are so much heavier. The facilities afforded for the escape of criminals, in the intricate patchwork of jurisdictions which exist in the Presidency of Bombay, require special measures of prevention, and Courts of law are subjected to grave inconvenience from the difficulties of securing the attendance of parties or witnesses from villages where the King's writ does not run. The collectors of British revenue often experi- ence the impossibility of excluding untaxed opium or illicit spirits from their Districts, when an open frontier interposes no barrier to the free commerce of their villages with a foreign state, into which the British Inspector cannot carry his authority or his law and regulations. Again, where the necessity arises for sanitary measures, the spread of cholera or small-pox is dangerously assisted by the absence of precautions, such as vaccination or drainage, in close proximity to British Cantonments or to the capital towns of British Districts. Every servant of the King in British India, who is zealous in the dis- charge of his duties, must constantly fret at the frustration of his well-laid plans owing to influences from across the border which he has no power to counteract. Indeed, as the moral progress of India under the King advances, it brings into clearer i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 19 light many inconveniences attendant upon the neigh- bourhood of Native administrations conducted in a different spirit from our own. Thus infanticide, suttee, and the burning of witches continued to be practised and honoured just over an imaginary border, long after their suppression within the terri- tories governed by British law. The slaughter of kine, religious toleration, and social reforms, which have ceased to be burning questions in most parts of a British province, assume a different aspect in frontier tracts, where the public opinion of a neigh- bouring state and the prejudices of its sovereign remain heated upon the same subject. As an instance of the difficulty, may be cited the treatment accorded to Hindus who may change their religion. According to the laws observed in some states such converts lose all their civil rights, and even the custody of their infant children, whereas in British India, and even in British Cantonments established in the same states, a change of religion carries with it no loss of legal rights. So long as such differences of legal systems are found to be working side by side across a mere geo- graphical line, British principles of law and govern- ment are challenged and thwarted. On the other hand, it is only fair to remember, that to the ruler of a Native state who allows no freedom of the press or public discussion, who declines to subject his executive officers to the interference of law courts, and whose laws are not to be found recorded in any Code accessible to his people, the contact of British territory and British ideas must be even more inconvenient. But the fact remains that a dual system of Government in India, under the conditions which have been described, adds greatly 20 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. to the task of British administration ; and in propor- tion as increased efforts are made to provide for the wants of a progressive society, so must the co-operation of the rulers of Native states become more essential to success. The official Gazettes of the Indian Governments bear testimony to the force of this remark ; and, as an instance, attention may be drawn to the Bombay Government Gazette of the 31st of January 1889. On that date were published certain rules for regulating and limiting marriage expenses amongst the Lewa Kunbis, with a view to the extinction of the practice of infanticide which is prevalent in that community. The delayed publica- tion of these rules in the district of Kaira was due to the need for securing the co-operation of the Govern- ment of Baroda, whose villages are interlaced with the British villages. It is no exaggeration to affirm that the wheels of the administrative machinery of British India would be locked if definite arrange- ments were not made with the Native states in every department of Government. Not only x must the fugitive criminal be arrested, and breaches of the customs law be prevented, but the links of Imperial communication, by road or river, across intervening strips of foreign territory must be maintained ; and, since direct interference in the internal affairs of our neighbours is to be avoided, the action of the British executive must not be paralysed by too great a persistence on the part of the King's allies in their divine right to govern as they please. If contact, happily, does not always produce friction, it calls for a constant display of tact and temper, and it is to the credit of British statesmanship that annexation has been avoided, and each difficulty as it has arisen been met with forbearance and sagacity. i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 21 9. The rich variety in area, wealth, and geo- Personal graphical position of the Indian principalities, and ^^ the diversity of the circumstances which may call for Native a settlement, suggest the impossibility of committing to a body of rules or formulae the principles of British relations with the Native states. Those relations are, as has been shown, in a state of constant growth and development. But a further argument against hasty generalisation is supplied by a consideration of the volcanic origin of many of the states, and of the special difficulties against which their several rulers have to contend. If the problems calling for an understanding between the paramount power and its subordinate allies could be classified and valued, and if a set of principles for the solution of each difficulty could be established, there would still remain an unknown quantity before the equation could be solved in each individual application of the principles. The personal disposition and the capacity of the rulers to ; give effect to their obligations are factors which must j be taken into account. So, too, in the intercourse of independent nations, subject as they are to the so-called " rules " of International law, allowance has to be made for the relative strength or weakness of ; the powers in conflict. A demand, just in itself, may produce injustice, if enforced at a particular crisis, and " right too rigid hardens into wrong." The ! penalty which one injured nation might properly exact from another would, in the case of a third nation, prove of crushing severity. In the dealings of the British Government with its numerous pro- , tected allies in India, the personal equation defies complete solution. If it be true that aptitudes and tendencies have their origin in the past, we must look to the starting-point of the British connexion 22 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. with the country princes in order to ascertain what were the qualifications, and whether the qualifications were tolerably equal, of those whom the Company either invited or permitted to wear the crown. A glance suffices to show that the allowance, which must be made for the difficulties of governing and of regu- lating their internal policy in conformity to the advice of the British agent, varies very materially. Public opinion reasonably dwells on the fact that the task of British rule in India is increased by the accident that it is a foreign rule, and it insists on the import- ance of selecting with care all who are to bear office in the land from the Viceroy to the assistant Collector. Yet British officers thus carefully chosen and trained for the discharge of their duties, are controlled by administrative regulations and a well-prepared body of law. On the other hand, the " royal instruments of British power," as the Company's officers described the Kajas and Nawabs, commenced their rule under every personal disadvantage, and in one respect only was a single feature common to all. The power of every one, from the greatest to the pettiest, was absolute within the sphere of his authority, and hardly one of them had received any education. But, in other respects, their positions bore no analogy to each other. Some were foreigners, ruling over a people whose religion differed from that of the reigning family. Some could claim the formal recognition of the Emperor of Delhi, whilst others had rebelled from Imperial control and had ousted by force of arms more lawful claimants. In one territory, as in Kutch, the nobles were powerful, whilst elsewhere, as in parts of Central India, civil war had reduced the whole of society to one low level of helpless poverty. Here a resolute adventurer had sprung into power, and i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 23 purchased peace by bribing his adherents with grants of land or exemptions from taxation ; there a Kajput, claiming descent from the ancient King of Ajudhia and sovereignty through sixteen centuries, found himself crushed between the Marathas and the Muhammadans, and degraded by the defection of his feudatories. It needed no political biologist to predict that infinite patience, and the lapse of many genera- tions of settled order, would be required before any fixed system could be applied to sovereignties tossed up from such a vortex of disturbance. The close of the past century witnessed indeed a general sub- sidence of the volcanic forces that raised above the surface of Indian society so many Native states at its commencement ; but many years, must yet elapse before the paramount power can ignore the heterogeneous elements with which it has to deal, or attempt to apply one uniform rule in its treatment of them. 10. The tendency to generalisation and to the Examples application of " established " principles to wholly ^ le g acies differing states of society is so strong that it seems to disorder, be convenient at this point to illustrate by examples some of the various conditions under which the Native sovereigns commenced their careers as rulers, and the consequences of such variety. The Nizams of Hyderabad are fortunate in claiming descent from the able soldier whom the Emperor of Delhi chose as the Viceroy of the Deccan in 1713 ; and the active part which this important state subsequently played in the history of India has produced a succession of distinguished ministers, entitling it to a position in the first rank of Native states. Older far was the title to rule of the Rajput dynasties of Udaipur and Jodhpur : but their power, which ought to have 24 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. proved most acceptable to Hindu subjects, was well- nigh broken when they were called upon to resume authority under British protection. The legacies of disorder thus left to these allies of the Company proved for many years a source of conflict between them and their British protectors. The reclamation of the lawless Meenas and Mhairs, the appeal to arms of the nobles in 1827 against the tyranny of their Maharaja, Man Singh, the rekindling of smouldering disputes with them in 1868, and finally, the outbreak of disturbances which occurred on the frontier of Sirohi in 1871, reveal a succession of troubles be- falling the Jodhpur state which can all be traced to the starting-point of its enfeebled authority on its first contact with the Company's rule. The history of Gwalior, up to the mutiny, affords a different instance of a legacy of turbulence and disorder. The dynasty of Jodhpur was founded in the fifteenth century, and the difficulties described above were the result of internal disputes as to the succession, which led to factions of the nobles and their appeals to foreign help. But the Gwalior disturbances owed their origin to another cause. Maharaja Sindhia, who organised his adherents into a standing army under the Savoyard De Boigne, the Frenchman Pierre Cuillier, known to history as Perron, and other European officers, while he chose to profess a nominal allegiance to the Peshwa, was disturbed by no fear of his nobles and by no inability to restrain any tribe or class of his subjects. His rule, if modern, was at least vigorous. The source of conflict with the British power in his case was not his weakness as sovereign over the state of Gwalior but his strength. Madhavji Sindhia and his successor, Daulat Eao, had won and held rule by the sword. Their new role was laid i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 25 down in the Treaty of 1804 as the " faithful fulfilment of the Treaty of peace." Their swords were to be beaten into ploughshares. They were to resist the temptation to annex the territories of their Kajput neighbours, as well as to refrain from invading the Company's possessions. Their subjects, however, con- sisted mainly of fighting peasants, or tribes of profes- sional robbers, whose occupation was destroyed by the establishment of the Pax Britannica. These elements of disorder were henceforth to settle down under the rule of a Sindhia into a peaceful state of Gwalior, a prospect which neither the French officers of the army, nor the inclination of the sovereign, nor the temper of his subjects approved. Conflict between the paramount power and its protected ally was in- evitable, and the solution which averted annexation from Jodhpur would not have met the case of Gwalior. So it happened that, from the year 1781, when Col. Muir withdrew his force and Sindhia entered into a treaty to remain neutral, until Gwalior was taken by Sir Hugh Rose's force in 1858 and the Maharaja reinstated in power, the history of British relations was one of constant military interference and chastise- ment of the Darbar's troops. Yet with marvellous moderation the Company never superseded the Native dynasty. The actors came and went ; the brilliant soldier Madhavji, the headstrong Daulat Rao, the weak Jankoji, and the loyal Jayaji succeeded each other in power ; but the annals of each reign repeat the same scenes of disturbance and mutiny. The lessons taught to the Gwalior soldier -citizens at Aligarh, Delhi, Assaye, Laswari, and elsewhere, were repeated at Maharajpur and Panniar ; but not until after the suppression of the mutiny of 1857 were the fires of disorder, which had smouldered since the Pindari 26 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. war, finally extinguished. If the student of history is at times puzzled by the moderation or apparent weakness shown by the Company in its dealings with Gwalior, the legacy of past disorder explains alike the difficulties of the Sindhias and the forbearance displayed by their protectors. Sindhia was not merely a Maratha ruling over Marathas, but his soldierly qualities entitled him to their respect. In other states, the Company's officers were less fortunate, when their policy of con- solidating the existing status quo brought to hand unworthy instruments of rule. It was a fine irony of fate which caused a British General in 1817 to encounter the famous robber Amir Khan when actually engaged in the siege of a Jaipur fort, and to confirm his title to the state of Tonk. The Viceroy, who in 1867 deposed his grandson for instigating the murder of the uncle of the Chief of Lawa, recognised no doubt the hereditary taint of lawlessness and dealt leniently with the state. Amir Khan, however, and his brother-in-law the Chief of Jaora, were more qualified to rule than the Mekrani adventurer who established himself at Ali Raj pur, or the Persian tax-gatherer whom the collapse of the Muhammadan authority at Ahmedabad left founder of a dynasty at Radhanpur. Most strange was the freak of fortune which imposed upon a civilised power the task of recognising the authority of the Bhil Rajas in Khandesh, or the right of the Gond rulers of Khairagarh to apply aboriginal methods to the government of their mountain fastnesses.' It was inevitable that the experiment should require a more active interference by the protecting power in order to suppress the practices of witch -killing or human sacrifice. Thus it was that the Chindwara i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 27 Jagirdars were required to subscribe in 1821 to the following engagement negotiated between them and the Maratha Government by British officers : "Without the orders of the Sarkar, I will take no human life, and take fines for offences committed only according to custom, and not improperly. I will give no widow to any one against her consent." In short, the recognition by the Company of the status quo, and their resolute policy of avoiding annexation, and of evolving the best type of native Government out of the disorder which they found around them, brought the British power and the British sentiment of fidelity to engagements face to face with the most perplexing problems. Their guarantee made them partners to the damnosa haereditas of the past with allies who often had neither experience of orderly government nor title to the obedience of the popula- tion over whom they found themselves called on to rule. 11. The types offerees making against the solid The union of the Native chiefs with a civilised Govern- ment which have been enumerated might be inde- union finitely multiplied. But they will at least serve to illustrate the complex and difficult nature of the task which the British Government has undertaken in India, namely of preserving to its allies their semi- sovereign powers, and yet leading them to use their authority for the good of their principalities and for the common welfare of the whole Empire into which they have been admitted. If it is creditable to the Company and the Crown that the nineteenth century closed with the survival of so many states ; it is also no small honour to the native chiefs that from such a beginning and with so many drawbacks they have rendered an alliance possible. In 1832 Sir John 28 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Malcolm testified to " the general impression that our sovereignty is incompatible with the maintenance of Native Princes and Chiefs." Yet the fears which racked the minds of the Company's officers and their allies up to the outbreak of the mutiny are now out of date. x It is no longer doubted that the preserva- tion of the Native states is as much within the design and care of the King's officers as the maintenance of the British rule in the territories annexed to the Empire. Although no system of Indian Political law can yet be appealed to by the sovereigns of India, the gracious Proclamations of 1858 and 1908 and the object-lessons afforded by the treatment of Mysore, Baroda, and Manipur justify full confidence in the earnest desire, and also in the ability, of the British Government to uphold the union/ Not without many experiments and several failures have the principles of the subsisting union been worked out. The theory of the personal responsibility of rulers, emphasised in the three cases just mentioned, stands far apart from the principle of non-intervention which Lord Cornwallis tried to maintain. The idea of a living union is equally far removed from the isolation which Lord Hastings laboured to accomplish, and which was necessarily a prelude to the later policy of co-opera- tion and union. If the task was novel and difficult, it must be admitted that it has been accomplished. For, by one device or another, the map of British India is to-day studded with principalities in sub- ordinate alliance with the paramount and protecting power, and it is the declared object of the Imperial Government that they should grow with the growth of the British territories and strengthen with their strength. Surface currents may for a time sub- merge a Native state, but the tide recedes, and so i INFLUENCES MAKING AGAINST THE UNION 29 long as India under the British survives the shocks of rebellion or invasion, the preservation of the states under their own rulers and the permanency of their union and friendship with the suzerain power may be assured. CHAPTER II THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA Sources of 12. THE sources from which the rules or principles ^at g overn British relations with the Native states can be drawn, are first of all the Treaties, Engage- ments, and Sanads, entered into with them ; secondly, the decisions passed from time to time by the para- mount power in matters of succession, intervention, or of dispute with their rulers ; and thirdly, the custom or usage, constantly adapting itself to the growth of society, which may be observed in their intercourse. Each of these factors acts and reacts upon the others with which it is intimately connected. Express conventions amongst contracting parties must always command a solemn respect, although it is important, at the very outset, to observe that they are subject to the fretting action of consuetudinary law. The decisions of British Courts of Law interpret and affect the provisions of Acts of Parliament ; and by a similar process the judgments of the British Government upon issues raised by its dealings with the Native states test the treaties by the touchstone v of practical application. Again, although a treaty, like any other contract, cannot strictly bind a state which is not a signatory, a series of treaties concluded with several states in a similar position at different 30 CHAP, ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 31 epochs of time, embodying as the necessity arose principles applicable to the conduct of one out of a group of states towards its protector in a given set of circumstances, will necessarily affect other states, members of the same family, when they find them- selves in the same predicament. The Native states of India, although placed by treaty in a position of subordinate isolation, and excluded from direct negotiation or corporate action with other states, have derived the greatest benefit from the application to each one of them of the broad and generous prin- ciples which guide the paramount power in its general relations to the mass of them. This is par- ticularly the case with the petty chiefs, who have shared the consideration shown, and enjoyed most of the privileges accorded, to the more powerful members of the family. 13. What is a Native state? That is a question Definition to which some answer must be supplied at the very threshold of any inquiry into the rights and duties annexed to that status by writing or usage. A Native state is a political community, occupying a territory in India of defined boundaries, and subject to a common and responsible ruler who has actually enjoyed and exercised, as belonging to him in his own right duly recognised by the supreme authority of the British Government, any of the functions and attributes of internal sovereignty. The indivisibility of sovereignty, on which Austin insists, does not belong to the Indian system of sovereign states. As the late Sir Henry Maine wrote : " Sovereignty is a term which in International law indicates a well -ascertained assemblage of separate powers or privileges. The rights, which form part of the aggregate, are specifically named by the publicists, of Xative state. 32 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. who distinguish them as the right to make war or peace, the right to administer civil and criminal justice, the right to legislate, and so forth. A sovereign who possesses the whole of these rights is called an inde- pendent sovereign, but there is not, nor has there ever been, in International laws anything to prevent some of these rights being lodged with one possessor and some with another. Sovereignty has always been regarded as divisible. Part of the sovereignty over those demi-sovereign states in Germany, which were put an end to by the Confederacy of the Ehine, resided with the Emperor of Germany ; part belonged to the states themselves. So also a portion of the sovereignty over the states which make up the German Confederation belongs to that Confederation. Again, the relation of the Swiss Cantons to the federal power was, until the events of 1847 and 1848, a relation of imperfect sovereignty, and though at this moment" (1865) "it is dangerous to speak of the North American States, the relation of the several members of the Union to the Federal authority was, until recently, supposed to be of the same nature. In fact Europe was at one time full of imperfectly sovereign states, although the current of events has for centuries set towards their aggregation into large independent monarchies." Whether, then, in the case of an Indian community, claiming to be treated as a Native state, these divisible powers of sovereignty vest in one chief or are distributed, and, if distributed, in what mode and to what degree they are distri- buted, are questions of fact to be decided by the evidence of treaties or by that of usage ; and usage is the more cogent of the two. No Native state in the interior of India enjoys the full attributes of complete external and internal sovereignty, since to ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 33 none is left either the power of declaring war or peace, or the right of negotiating agreements with other states ; but the sovereignty of Native states is shared between the British Government and the Chiefs in varying degrees. Some states enjoy a substantial immunity from interference in nearly all functions of internal administration, while others are under such control that the Native sovereignty is almost completely destroyed. But communities whose rulers ordinarily exercise any, even the smallest, degree of internal sovereign authority, are classified in India as Native states and excluded from the territories subject to the King's law. 14. Occasionally a conflict arises between the Evidence evidence of writing and the evidence of usage, and in the^nSt 1 such cases superior weight is given to the latter, cogent, whenever the final decision rests with the executive Government. The Privy Council in the Bhavnagar case, Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram Kanji (Indian Law Reports, 1 Bombay, 367), and the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, in Triccam Panachand v. Bombay Baroda, and Central India Railway Com- pany (Indian Law Reports, 9 Bombay, 244), have upheld the principle that judicial inquiry cannot be denied to parties who challenge the most formal Notifications issued by Government. Whether any place or places were " in the Indian territories now under the dominion of Her Majesty " within which Parliament in 1861, by Statute 24 and 25 Vic. cap. Ixvii., provided for legislation, is a question of fact, which parties interested have a right to submit to the decision of the highest judicial authority. In the case of the tributary Mahals this test was applied, and the High Court of Calcutta (Indian Law Reports, 7 Calcutta, 523) ruled that these were part of British D 34 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Temporary loss of jurisdiction need not affect status. India, but that legislation generally did not extend to them without a special order of Government. But for the most part the status of Native states and Native rulers, as recognised by the Foreign Department of the Government of India, has been accepted with- out question, and the recognition accorded by that office has been based upon the evidence of long usage even more than upon that of treaties. It will, however, save mistakes to bear in mind the fact that many of the chiefs of Native states also possess villages, which, with the districts in which they lie, have been formally annexed to British India. They thus occupy a dual position, as, for instance, the Chief of Umetha, in the Mahi Kanta Agency, who, since 1817, has been a British Zemindar or proprietor in respect of Umetha and four other villages, whilst in respect of seven others he is a petty sovereign of an estate attached to the Political agency of the Mahi Kanta. 15. So powerful is the weight given to evidence of custom, that it is almost a maxim, " Once a Native state, always a Native state." The solidarity of class-feeling in India, and the jealous watchfulness with which the chiefs regard the action of the paramount power in its dealings with any of their order, make it expedient to preserve the status of a Native state, even where the representative of the family, whose members formerly exercised rule over the territory, is no longer capable of exercising any of the functions of sovereignty. The bare possibility that in the future the fragments of the divided state may again be united under a chief qualified to rule over it, affords a reason for treating the parts of it as foreign territory. Such a condition of affairs has arisen in what are called Thana circles in the Bombay ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 35 Presidency, of which the Mahi Kanta Agency affords a notable example. In this group of Native states, which covers 3125 square miles, situated in the northern division of the Bombay Presidency, there is only one chief, the Kaja of Idar, who ranks as a sovereign of the first class. The remaining chiefs, or Thakores, were on the eve of the British conquest subject to the annual invasion of the Gaik war's Mulkgiri army, which took the field to collect by force the tribute claimed by Baroda after the expul- sion of Muhammadan rule in 1753. The piteous appeals of the Thakores and their raiats induced the Company to depute Colonel Ballantyne in 1811 with the Mulkgiri force to make a decennial settlement of the Gaikwar's claims. Eventually, in 1820, the exclusive management of the Gaikwar's tributaries was transferred to the British Government, under an engagement dictated by Mountstuart Elphinstone to the Maharaja of Baroda, better known as the Gaik war ; and, as shown in the celebrated " Joint Keport," dated the 2nd of May 1865, the whole of the tributary chiefs, communities, and villages were transferred in the lump to the Company's control, according to the lists of the Mulkgiri officers. Thus a great variety of persons and corporate bodies came at once to be treated as states by the British Govern- ment, whereas their neighbours, who were left under the Baroda Administration, and whose status presented few points of difference, have lost their sovereignty and fallen under the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts of Baroda. As time proceeded, the local law of inheritance, which favoured an equal division of the petty chiefs estate on his decease, frittered away the property and the sovereign's attributes. One small chiefship, for instance, named Magona, was 36 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. partitioned into twelve shares, and disputes arose as to the limits of the jurisdiction of each shareholder. The heads of the divided families were steeped in debt and absolutely uneducated. By means of judicial fines they sought to supplement their scanty revenues, and the energies of their ill-paid police were devoted to the augmentation of the judicial receipts. It was found too expensive to maintain prisons, and the most serious crimes, including murder, were punished only with fine. The para- mount power was therefore forced to interfere, not merely because justice miscarried, but because the jurisdiction of the petty Patels and Thakurdars was contested, and there was no one on the spot who could be trusted to dispense justice in the divided estates. The remedy applied is instructive. The estates, which had formerly formed parts of a Native state, were not brought under the dominion of the Company. By long usage they had been treated as Native states outside the jurisdiction of British Courts, and beyond the reach of the Indian Legislature. It was decided that they should remain so, even though it was found necessary to entrust the powers and privileges of sovereignty to an agent of the British Government acting on behalf of the chief, who might have ruled if his territory had not been reduced to fragments by this process of partition and decay. Of the many hundreds of existing chieftains who claimed to be treated as ruling chiefs because their ancestors, not exceeding one hundred, had signed the security bonds of 1811-1812, twenty-eight have remained capable of exercising jurisdiction, the most cherished and essential of the attributes of sovereignty. These chiefs accordingly govern their own territories in the present day, and their estates are classed as ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 37 petty states. The rest of the once semi -sovereign communities are grouped under one or more Political divisions, called Thana circles, over each of which a Thanadar with magisterial and judicial powers presides. All of the descendants of the original chiefs conduct the revenue administration of their patches of territory on their own system, and their holdings are treated as beyond the jurisdiction of British India. But their jurisdictory powers vest for them, and by their tacit assent, in the Political officers of Government. The Thanadars, and the British agent who supervises them, are subject to the executive orders of the British Government, but not to the jurisdiction of the Courts of law established in British India. The Native state thus subsists and is not converted into a British province ; and the remedy applied avoids the precedent set by Eome of annexation under the plea of misrule. That which has happened in the Mahi Kanta has occurred also in Kathiawar and in the Rewa Kanta, where many Talukdars who have lost their jurisdiction retain the status of Native chiefs. 1 6. From this digression as to the definition and The corpus vitality of a Native state, it is convenient to pass to the examination of British treaties with the King's allies. Although these solemn documents are not exempt from the recognised laws and necessities of interpretation, and cannot be dissevered from the environment of circumstances, which alter from time to time, and fix the mutual relations of both parties, they have acquired the most formal recognition of Parliament. The position of " Trustees for the Crown of the United Kingdom " was assigned to the Company in 1833, by Statute 3 and 4 William IV. cap. Ixxxv. ; and, when the trust-administration of 38 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. India was determined or ended by the Act of 1858, Statute 21 and 22 Vic. cap. cvi., 67 enacted that " all treaties made by the said Company shall be binding on Her Majesty." The Native states, no less than the territories in the possession or under the Government of the East India Company, thus passed into the safe keeping of the British nation. A complete collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads was published in 1812, and again in 1845. The latter was reprinted by order of Parliament in 1853, and the well-known edition of them compiled by Sir Charles Aitchison, with his able summaries of historic events, is periodically revised and corrected up to date by the Government of India. The phrases " treaties and engagements " are sufficiently distinct, but the Indian term "Sanad" requires explanation. It may be translated as a diploma, patent, or deed of grant by a sovereign of an office, privilege, or right. In fact, in Lord Canning's Sanads of adoption the word grant replaces the more usual term Sanad in the proviso attached to the grant of the right of adoption. In common parlance, the expression " Indian treaties " covers these three varieties of agreements or compacts. Even viewed by themselves, without refer- ence to the decisions based on them or to the accretions of the customary law, the treaties with the Native states must be read as a whole. Too much stress cannot well be laid on this proposition. In their dealings with a multitude of states, forming one group or family, neither the Company nor the King's officers have added to the collection without absolute necessity. Whenever a general principle called for the conclusion of a fresh agreement with a single state whose attitude compelled the British authority to reduce its relations ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 39 to writing, the occasion was taken not to revise the whole body of treaties but to declare the principle and its reasons in a single treaty. The circumstances of each state are, as has already been shown, very various. In its dealings with one state the para- mount power has declared its military policy, in another case its obligations to the law of humanity, and in others its claims to co-operation or its rights of interference. In only one instance, namely, the instrument of transfer given by Lord Ripon to Mysore in 1881, has even an attempt been made to embody all obligations in a single document. In all other cases, additions have merely been engrafted upon previous compacts, in the position which was most appropriate to them, and at the time when the necessity for amendment or addition actually arose. The student who is familiar with the general outlines of Indian history would thus properly look to the Treaties of Gwalior for a view of the military obliga- tions not only of that but of other Native princes. In the treaty concluded with Maharaja Jayaji Rao Sindhia by Lord Ellenborough on the 13th of January 1844, article 6 enunciated a principle of general appli- cation : " Whereas the British Government is bound by Treaty to protect the person of His Highness the Maharaja, his heirs, and successors, and to protect his dominions from foreign invasion, and to quell serious disturbances therein, and the army now maintained by His Highness is of unnecessary amount, embarrass- ing to His Highness's Government and the cause of disquietude to neighbouring states, it is therefore further agreed that the military force of all arms hereafter to be maintained by His Highness shall be," etc. The care taken in the recital of these conditions shows clearly that the Company chose the occasion of 40 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. their*difference with the Gwalior state to lay down and publish a general principle for the conduct of their relations with all the Native states should similar cir- cumstances arise elsewhere. There is nothing unjust in such a procedure. Students of international law know well that a constructive argument is frequently deduced from even the silence of a first-rate Power upon a capital occasion. Far-reaching application must also be given to the obligations dispersed through Indian treaties against the " barbarous practice of impalement," the seizure of persons " on the plea of sorcery, witchcraft, or in- cantations," the " horrible trade of buying and selling slaves," or the "murder of female children." The language in which the British Government has inti- mated to particular states its abhorrence of practices which it has stigmatised as criminal, is addressed to one state, it is true, but it is equally applicable to all members of the Indian family of states. So, generally, the obligations of each state cannot be fully grasped without a study of the whole corpus or mass of treaties, engagements, and Sanads. There is another reason why the position of any given state, as evidenced by the book of treaties, can only be understood by extending the view to the whole body of them. There are some states with which no treaties of any sort have been concluded ; and yet, by long usage as well as in the spirit of Acts of Parliament, they are as much entitled to the protection of His Majesty as if their relations were fully expressed in writing, and not merely left to be inferred from the writings addressed to their fellows. Thus the ruler of Pudukkottai, with an area of 1101 square miles, has received the marked distinction of a Sanad of adoption signed by Lord Canning, which ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 41 confers upon him the right to adopt a successor under certain conditions, " so long as your house is loyal to the Crown and faithful to the conditions of the Treaties, grants, or engagements which record its obligations to the British Government." The Raja's ancestor obtained in 1806 a concession of land in perpetual lease, but for evidence of his status as a Native chief prior to 1862 he can appeal to no treaty or engagement with the British Government. In the same way, the only document which the Muham- madan ruler of Savanur, in the Bombay Presidency, can produce as his title-deed, is the Sanad of adoption issued to him by Sir John Lawrence in 1866. The delay in the issue of his Sanad was due to doubts as to whether Savanur could be described as a Treaty - Jagir, 1 civitas foederata, and the decision in its favour was based on the evidence of usage and the arguments of analogy. 17. The treaties, grants, and engagements of the close con Indian chiefs must therefore be studied together as a ^orL f whole. The parts of them which obviously concern with the only the individual state and its protector are easily identified ; and if any doubt existed at the time as to the application of a general principle to a particular state, such doubts have been set at rest by the usage of nearly a century, and by the mutual relations established between the paramount power and its allies. It is equally important to study the treaties in connexion with the general framework of history. Lawyers hold that conventio omnis intelligitur rebus sic stantibus. Wheaton in his International Law, 29, remarks that " the obligation of treaties, by whatever denomination they may be called, is founded not merely upon the contract itself, but upon those 1 Vide supra, chap. i. section 4. 42 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. mutual relations between the two states which may have induced them to enter into certain engagements. Whether the treaty be termed real or personal, it will continue so long as those relations exist." The acts of statesmen are no more exempt than humanity itself from the law of nature, which distributes change over the whole of creation. The treaties and engagements of the Native states cannot be fully understood either without reference to the relations of the parties at the time of their conclusion, or without reference to the relations since established between them. As Wheaton observes : " The moment these relations cease to exist, by means of a change in the social organisation of one of the contracting parties, of such a nature and of such importance as would have prevented the other party from entering into the contract had he foreseen this change, the treaty ceases to be obligatory upon him." The resignation by the Peshwa of sovereignty in 1818, the trial of the Emperor of Delhi, the transfer of the Company's rule to the Crown, and the deposition of the late Gaikwar of Baroda, are historical events which affect Indian treaties and modify phrases of equality or reciprocity, just as the "War of Secession" adds to the Constitution of the United States the principle that the Union cannot be dissolved. The onward movement of mankind carries with it, as does that of a glacier in its progress through ages of time, all the accretions of the past, and constantly shifts their relations to the surrounding mass. The Treaty map of India was not filled in by one hand in a single generation ; but as each Governor-General wrote in a state within the British protectorate, he either carried on or he reversed the policy of his predecessor. Sometimes he wiped out of the map of the protec- ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 43 torate a state already included. One Governor- General added much, another only rounded the corners of the ring-fence. The policy which guided the Company in the three well-marked periods of its map-making must be thoroughly understood by any one who seeks to ascertain what the relations of the parties were then, and what they have since become. 18. Each period is the expression of an idea, Three which has left its mark as much on the form and pe^fm language of the treaties as upon their extent and filling in their objects. Up to the year 1813, which maybe m a p . rea y fixed as the closing year of the first period, the pres- sure of Parliament and the prudence of the Merchant Company operated in the direction of a policy of non- intervention. The Company was barely struggling for its existence, and it recoiled from the expense and the danger of extending its treaties of alliance and self-defence beyond the ring-fence of its own territorial acquisitions. In the next period, which lasted from 1814 to the Mutiny of 1857, larger schemes of empire dawned upon its horizon and dominated the policy of its Governor-Generals. The exclusion of any states from the protectorate was proved by experience to be both impolitic and cowardly. Empire was forced upon the British rulers of India, and the bitter fruits of a policy of leaving the states unprotected were gathered in the Pindari war, in the revival of schemes of con- quest in the minds of the Maratha chiefs, and in the humiliation of the Rajput Houses. Surrounded on all sides by the country princes, the Company's officers saw that no alternative remained except annexation, which they wished to avoid, or a thorough political settlement of the empire step by step with the extension of their direct rule. Without order 44 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. on their frontier, peace in their own territories was impossible ; and the only prospect of order amongst the Native states was to undertake arbitration in all their disputes with each other, and to deprive all alike of the right to make war, or to enter into any unauthorised conventions with each other. The policy adopted in this period was one of isolating the Native states, and subordinating them to the political ascendancy of the British Power. The expressions of "mutual alliance" and " reciprocal agreement" were exchanged for the phrases " subordinate alliance," " protection," and " subordinate co-operation." But whilst the states were deprived of all control over their external relations, the traditional policy of non- interference was still for a while preserved in their internal affairs. There the phrases of international law maintained their last stronghold, and it was deemed inconsistent with a sovereignty to introduce a foreign agency for effecting any reforms. No remedy for continued misrule was then known except a declaration of war, or, at a later date, annexation. These were the weapons of International law when sovereign states could not agree oh a vital issue, and thus to the King of Oudh, who had broken his solemn treaties, Lord Dalhousie offered the alternative of war or virtual annexation. Then the Mutiny occurred, and after its suppres- sion a final change took place in the relations of the Native states with the paramount power. As Lord Canning expressed it, "the Crown of England stands forth the unquestioned ru]er in all India." From that date prevention was regarded as better than punishment ; guidance and correction preferable to war or annexation. If International law abhorred intervention in the internal management of an ill- ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 45 governed state, then it was necessary to adjust the spirit and the rules of that law to the necessities of the case. The main object in view was to preserve the Native principalities from annexation ; and if the intervention of the British authorities was needed to save a protected principality from ruin, then it was better to abandon the principle of non-interference so dear to International lawyers, and so avoid more serious alterations in the map of India. These views prevailed, and the thoughts of statesmen turned from subordinate alliances to the best means of promoting a solid union between the territories of the Empire governed by the British and the states protected by His Majesty. A new set of engagements were con- cluded, which brought to light the common purpose of working hand in hand to extend railways, provide canals, and promote measures and works of public benefit. The relations, which to-day subsist between the protected states and their protector, are the resultant of these three periods, and of these several ideas, namely, non-intervention, subordinate isolation, and union. The Treaty map, as drawn at the close of each period, reflects these three phases. Up to 1813 the allied states were few and vaguely defined. They were either within the Company's ring-fence or on its border. Lord Hastings not only added to the pro- tectorate scores of states, but he broke up the large blocks of undefined foreign territory. His successors up to 1857 completed the process of addition to the list of allied states, while they transferred others to the territories of the Company. After 1857 the map required further alterations. A few more states dis- appeared, but others had grown larger. Nepal, for instance, regained territory lost in a former period. 46 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. But the chief addition to British rule was due to the acquisition of land for railways and canals, which were to benefit and unite all parts of the Empire. Thus the map records the variations and outcomes of policy. But any one who desires to understand what the treaties meant when they were written, and what changes in the relations of the parties have since occurred, must not be content with a glance at the map. He must follow, step by step, the course of historical events. Direct 19. The binding force of a formal treaty or com- P ac ^ between states is fully recognised by the Govern- ment of India, and consequently extreme care is used to attach to the highest authority in India exclusive ment responsibility for its execution. The Charter of treaties. Charles II., which in 1661 confirmed the Charter of 1600 given by Queen Elizabeth to "the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies," empowered the Company to make peace or war with any Prince not Christian. Such a power necessarily involved a right of making treaties of peace or defensive alliances. When this Company was amalgamated with the "English Company," to which William III. granted a Charter in 1698, and when thus in 1709, by a series of Charters of Queen Anne, " the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies," otherwise known as "the Honourable East India Company," was formed, events soon developed which suggested to Parliament the necessity for asserting their control over the sovereignty exercised by the Indian authorities. Statute 13 Geo. III. cap. Ixiii. 9, required in 1772 that the " consent and approbation of the Governor-General and Council " should first be obtained for negotiating or concluding any treaty of THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 47 peace or other treaty with Indian princes and powers, " except in such cases of imminent necessity as would render it dangerous to postpone such treaties until the orders of the Governor-General and Council might arrive " ; and the Governor-General was placed under a general obligation to report all transactions relating to the Government to the Court of Directors. Then followed the celebrated trial in Chancery of the suit brought by the Nawab of Arcot against the Company for an account of profits and rents derived from his territories between the years 1781 and 1785, under certain engagements. In January 1793, Lord Com- missioner Eyre dismissed the Bill on the ground that it was a case of mutual treaty between persons acting in that instance as states independent of each other. The treaty, he held, was, as it were, a treaty between two sovereigns, " and consequently is not a subject of private municipal jurisdiction." In June of that year the provisions of Statute 33 Geo. III. cap. lii. 42, which confirmed the title of the Company to their territorial acquisitions " without prejudice to the claims of the publick," restricted the powers of the supreme Government in India. It was then enacted that, "without the express command and authority" of the Court of Directors or the Secret Committee, the Governor-General in Council should not declare war, or enter into any treaty of war or guarantee except in certain specified cases ; and the local Governments were forbidden to conclude any treaty (except in cases of sudden emergency or imminent danger, when it shall appear dangerous to postpone such treaty) unless in pursuance of express orders from London or Calcutta. Later enactments, e.g. Statute 53 Geo. III. cap. civ. which saved from prejudice " the undoubted sovereignty of the Crown of 48 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in and over the said " territorial acquisitions, maintained the responsibility of the highest controlling authority for the execution of treaties ; and, as the natural outcome of the statutory obligations of the Viceroy, no negotiations tending to an agreement with a Native chief are permitted to be initiated by a local Government without the prior sanction of the Govern- ment of India. For the avoidance of subsequent dispute or misunderstanding, a few general rules have been prescribed in regard to the form and method of executing Indian treaties. Formaii- 20. It is a standing rule that only those transac- ex^cutioiT ti ns to which a fair degree of permanence attaches of treaties, should be embodied in a treaty. Matters of detail, liable to subsequent alteration, are usually provided for by rules made under the authority of a clause in the treaty. The Native chief binds himself, his heirs, and successors ; and his titles and decorations are recited in full, provided only that they have been recognised by the British Government. The authori- tative version of every engagement or treaty is the English, and if a Vernacular edition of it is asked for it is supplied for convenience only. This precaution is justified by experience, inasmuch as tedious disputes have arisen from a conflict between the two versions of the Kutch treaty of guarantee to the Jareja nobility, and the Indian vernaculars are in many cases unable to convey the exact equivalent of an English phrase. An Indian treaty almost invariably runs in the name of the Govern or -General and not of His Majesty, being headed by its title and object. The names of the contracting parties are recited, and the fact is plainly stated that the British officer executes on behalf of the Governor-General in Council or of the ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 49 British Government. After the recitation of these preliminaries follow the articles as already sanctioned . by the Government of India in accordance with the understanding arrived at with the Native chief. Duplicate copies, or if the local Government requires a copy, triplicates of the treaty are engrossed upon parchment, and after signature by the parties con- cerned, they are transmitted to the Government of India for ratification by the Viceroy. One copy is then delivered to the state, and the other copies are recorded in the archives of the supreme and of the local Governments. If the obligations of an engage- ment are not dynastic but personal, being intended to bind a particular chief only, they are usually not embodied in a treaty drawn up on the lines just described, but conveyed in the form of a letter from the Governor or the Governor -General, as the case may be. The communication addressed by Lord Harris, Governor of Bombay, to the Nawab of Cambay after the disturbances which occurred in \ 1890, or the letter addressed by Lord Hardinge to the Maharaja of Kashmir, both of which have been published by the authority of Parliament, are instances of such communications. If the matter is one of less moment, the Political agent is authorised to make | the required communication. When a state is re- ' granted, as in the case of Garhwal or Tehri conferred upon Bhowan Singh in 1859, the grant is conveyed in a Sanad. 21. The care taken in the execution of these Leading ' compacts affords some measure of the great respect j*]^ f paid to them. Although they must be read in con- treaties. < nexion with their historical setting, that is to say, with i the events and relations out of which they arose, and I with the subsequent modifications of such relations, E 50 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. and although they are subject to the same rules of interpretation that are applied to legal instruments, yet they require the most generous construction of which the circumstances permit. Their validity has been solemnly recognised by Parliament, and they are surrounded with all the solemnity that full de- liberation, formality, and the ratification of the repre- sentative of His Majesty can confer on them. In the statement given at the end of this chapter the states of the principal Indian sovereigns ruling in the interior of India who are entitled to a salute from British forts or batteries, are entered in the order in which they were finally written in on the map as allied or protected states. A few of the annexed states from which the British derived political powers are also shown ; and whilst the Burmese and trans-Indian states, such as Kelat on the North-western frontier, are omitted, Nepal, which is not a protected state of the Indian group, is entered because through it the British Government acquired political ascendancy in Sikkim. The date attributed to the admission of Nepal, 1816, will also serve to explain another principle on which the statement is constructed. The first treaty with Nepal, dated the 1st of March 1792, was ex- clusively a Commercial treaty, although it served as a " basis for concord." The next treaty, ratified by Lord Wellesley on the 30th of October 1801, was subsequently dissolved, and the treaty of 1815 was not ratified by the Darbar until 1816, which date is accordingly selected as the date of inclusion in the list of allies. The date of acceptance by the Native state, and not the date of ratification by the Governor- General or Governor, is entered in the statement, because the treaties operated from the former date. ii THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 51 In conclusion a word of caution is needed. The states are classified, for the purpose of this review, in the order of their final inclusion in the Treaty map, and the keynote of the treaty is given in the state- | ment. But, for reasons which will appear in subsequent ! chapters, no classification of the rights and duties of i states can be based either on the period in which the British connexion was first established, or on the circumstances under which they first entered into relations with the British Government. A state which fell to the British Government by conquest or cession, and was then recreated or regranted by the Company, is not on that account inferior to one which never came into British possession, and whose original relations with the British were formed on a footing of equality. From Tipu was wrested the principality of Coorg, which was then granted to the Kaja, and after the victory of Buxar Oudh was conquered and recreated ; yet both states were treated with as much consideration as Hyderabad or Indore. The differentiation of states as allied, tributary, created, or protected is illusory. All are alike re- j spected and protected. Nor can the duties of the I states be classified by an exclusive analysis of their | own treaties and engagements. The statement given j below is merely intended to present to the view the I list of the more important of the allied or protected states in the two great periods of contractual activity. i It shows at a glance that, despite the active admini- l stration of Lord Wellesley from 1798 to 1805, nearly I the whole of Kajputana and most of Central India, i much of the Bombay Presidency including the greater : part of Sind, and the Punjab beyond the Sutlej, remained unwritten on the Treaty map. The course I of Lord Hastings' active career is marked by an 52 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. alliance with Nepal, the protection of the Hill states, and the addition to the Treaty map of the whole of the Kajputana Agency, and of numerous states in Bombay and Central India. Lord Auckland's and Lord Hardinge's contributions appear in their proper place, and if it seems that, after 1857, no room remained for further negotiation, it is only because the statement shows the date of the first effective admission into political relations, and not the suc- cession of subsequent and important changes gradually effected by treaty, time, and usage in the position of the states, when their protection was at length accepted by the Crown as a solemn duty. It will also be remembered that the Burmese and Shan states brought into the protectorate by Lord Dufferin are excluded from this work as previously stated. [TABLE . Qua, 10. Hill ral 11. KolJ 12. Can: 13. Kuc! 14. Bhui 15. Dhoi 16. 17. N 18. Car* Ad 19. Cool 20. Cocl 21. Rani 22. Trai 23. Bar< 24. Bam 25. Pudt 26. Bha: 27. Alwi 28. Sunl . Bari 30. Dati 10TK3L Chai .Indc (H 33. Chhi 34. Mail 35. Baoi (M Sti 36. Pam 37. Ajai 38. Katl 39. Nagi 40. Lahi 41. Cis-l chi THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 53 TABULAR STATEMENT SHOWING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LEADING STATES WERE FINALLY ENTERED IN THE TREATY MAP State. Geographical Position. Nature of Treaty. Date of Treaty. Remarks. mtwari Bombay . Offensive and defensive Jan. 12, The peace was constantly alliance against the 1730 broken and re-estab- Pirate Angria lished by subsequent Treaties. Janjira . Do. . General Alliance, and Dec. 6, specially against 1733 piracy Poona, the Do. . Maritime and Com- July 20, Poona became a Party Peshwa (Baji mercial Treaty 1739 to the Triple alliance Rao) against Tipu in 1790, and to a subsidiary Treaty in 1802. Hyderabad . Deccan . Agreement of mutual May 14, Treaty regarding the neutrality 1759 Sarkars and military alliance in 1766. Jafarabad Kathiawar, Friendship and pro- Jan. 3, A dependency of Janjira. Bombay tection of British 1761 marine Tanjore . Madras . Guarantee to a tribu- Oct. 12, The first direct agree- tary agreement be- 1762 ment with the Com- tween the Carnatic pany in 1776. The and Tanjore titular dignity was extinguished in 1855. Manipur Assam . Defensive alliance 1762 Treaty of 1762 is lost. The first extant Treaty is dated 1833. Mysore under Madras . Mutual assistance May 27, Concluded by the Bom- Hvder All 1763 bay Government. Oudh . United Pro- Firm union Aug. 16, Annexed in 1856. vinces 1765 HiU Tipperah Eastern Bengal A state of subjection 1765 No Treaty given. declared Kolhapur Bombay . Firm friendship Jan. 12, Dictated after an ex- 1766 pedition to put down piracy. Canibay . Do. . Treaty against the April 23, The Nawab describes piratical Kolis 1771 himself as the Com- pany's servant. Kuch Behar . Bengal . Admission of subjec- April 5, tion 1773 Bhutan . Treaty of peace . April 25, 1774 Dholpur . Rajputana Perpetual friendship . Dec. 2, After the Treaty of Trans-Cham- 1779 Salbai Dholpur was bal abandoned. Its per- manent admission to the Treaty Map dates from 1806. Gwalior . Central India . Peace and alliance Oct. 13, The Treaty of Sarje 1781 Anjengaon is dated Dec. 30, 1803. 54 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. State. Geographical Position. Nature of Treaty. Date of Treaty. Remarks. Nagpore Now the Central Friendship and mili- 1781 or Berar Provinces tary alliance Carnatic Madras . Perpetual friendship . Feb. 24, The Treaty with France, or Arcot 1787 1754, left Muhammad Ali Nawab of the Carnatic. The Na- wab resigned the Government in 1801. Coorg . Do. . Friendship and alli- Oct. 26, State annexed after war ance against Tipu 1790 in May 1834. Cochin . Do. . Vassalage and alliance Jan. 6, 1791 Rampur . United Pro- Engagement of guar- Dec. 13, The Company also gave vinces antee 1794 their guarantee in 1774 after the Rohilla war. Travancore Madras . Friendship Nov. 17, Additions made to the! Mysore (under its new dyn- Do. . Protective and sub- sidiary 1795 July 8, 1799 Treaty in 1805, as the intentions of 1795 were not fulfilled. asty) Baroda . Bombay . Engagement to pro- June 6, A prior Treaty of alli- mote good under- 1802 ance, dated Jan. 26, standing and sub- 1780, was cancelled sidiary alliance by the Treaty of Salbai. Bansda . Do. Made tributary by Dec. 31, the Treaty of Bassein 1802 with the Peshwa Pudukkottai . Madras . Sanad or grant . July 8, 1803 Bhartpur Eastern Rajpu- Perpetual friendship . Sept. 3, The alliance was in- tana 1803 terrupted by breach of agrv. ement and re- newed in 1805. Alwar Rajputana(near Offensive and defensive Nov. 14, Delhi) alliance 1803 Sunth . Bombay Rewa Tributary alliance Dec. 15, A Treaty with Luna- Kanta Agency 1803 wara, as well as this Treaty, dissolved by Lord CornwaHis. Bariya . Bombay do. . Protection Dec. 30, By the Treat/ with 1803 Sindhia. Datia . Bundelkhand . Friendship and sub- March 15, Treaty of protection in ordination 1804 1818. Charkhari Do. . Grant of state on sub- July 29, mission 1804 Indore(Holkar) Central India . Treaty of peace and Dec. 24, dictated by Lord Lake. amity 1805 Chhatarpur Bundelkhand . Recognition by Sanad April 4, 1806 Maihar . Baghelkhand . Do. ... Nov. 18, 1806 THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 55 State. Geographical Position. Nature of Treaty. Date of Treaty. Remarks. Baoni (Muham- Bundelkhand . Recognition by letter . Dec. 24, madan state) 1806 Panna . Do. Confirmation by Sanad Feb. 4, 1807 Ajaigarh Do. Do. . June 8, 1807 Kathiawar set- Bombay Presi- The security bond 1807 tlement (first- dency against misbehaviour class chiefs are was signed by the Junagarh, principal chiefs, when Nawanagar, in 1807 the joint Porbandar, forces of the British Bhaunagar, and the Gaikwar Drangdra, entered Kathiawar Morvi, Gondal) Nagod . Baghelkhand . Subordination . March 11, 1809 Lahore . The Punjab . Treaty of friendship April 25, A special Treaty against concluded by Metcalfe 1809 Holkar was concluded on Jan. 1, 1806. Cis-Sutlej chiefs Do. Proclamation of guar- May 3, The chief states with antee against en- 1809 whom also subsequent croachment from engagements were Lahore made are Patiala, Jind, Nabha, Kalsia, Maler Kotla, Faridkot. Lower Sind . Now part of the Eternal friendship Aug. 22, The Talpur dynasty Presidency of with the three Amirs 1809 granted commercial Bombay Mir Gholam Ali, Mir privileges in April Karim Ali, Mir 1800. Murad Ali Bijawar . Bundelkhand . Sanad on submission . March 27, 1811 Mahi Kanta Bombay . Settlement by security 1812 Some of the Rewa Agency; Idar bonds Kanta states were and other included in the settle- states ment. Nawanagar Kathiawar, Submission Feb. 23, Bombay 1812 Rewa Baghelkhand . Protection Oct. 5, 1812 Orchha . Bundelkhand . Subordinate alliance . Dec. 23, 1812 Radhanpur Bombay . Relations with Baroda Dec. 16, mediated by Treaty 1813 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. SECOND PERIOD State. Geographical Position. Nature of Treaty. Date of Treaty. Remarks. Hill states Tract of Hills Sanads of title, e.g Sept. 21, The result of the Nepal Punjab from the Gogr that given to Sirmur 1815 war. to the Sutlej Patiala . Punjab . Sanad granting terri Oct. 20, tory 1815 Kutch . Bombay . Protection and sub- ordinate alliance Jan. 15, 1816 Treaties for the suppres- sion of piracy made in 1809. Nepal . Northern Fron Treaty of peace anc March 4, Some delay occurred on tier of India friendship 1816 the part of Nepal in ratifying the Treaty presented in 1815. Sikkim . Bengal . Subordinate alliance . Feb. 10, 1817. Tonk . Rajputana Engagement of guaran- Nov. 9, The first fruits of the tee and subordinate 1817 Pindari war. alliance Karauli . Do. Protectorate Nov. 9, 1817 Samthar Bundelkhand . Subordination . Nov. 12, 1817 Palanpur Bombay . Mediated Treaty of Nov. 28, A tributary engagement subordination 1817 was mediated in 1809. Bhopal . Central India . Subordinate alliance Dec. 23, Bhopal was refused a granted by letter 1817 Treaty in 1809. Kotah . Rajputana Protectorate Dec. 25, 1817 Tributary Ma- Bengal . These territories were 1817 to hals of Chota ceded in 1817, and 1825 Nagpore engagements of sub- jection taken from the chiefs Jaora Central India . Protected by Treaty Jan. 6, with Holkar 1818 Fodhpur Rajputana Protectorate Jan. 6, A previous Treaty of Marwar) 1818 1803 was dissolved. Jdaipur . Do. Do. Jan. 13, Meywar) 1818 Bundi . Do. Do. Feb. 10, 1818 Bikanir . Do. Do. March 9, Request for Treaty in 1818 1808 not granted. iishengarh Do. Do. March 26, 1818 Jaipur . Do. Do. April 2, A previous Treaty of 1818 1802 declared void. 'artabgarh Do. Do. Oct. 5, A previous alliance dis- 1818 solved. Ali Rajpur Central India . Mediatised Dec. 8, Part of the Central 1818 India political settle- ment. )ungarpur lajputana 'rotectorate Dec. 11, 1818 1 THE TREATY MAP OF INDIA 57 State. Geographical Position. Nature of Treaty. Date of Treaty. Remarks. Dewa? . Central India . Protectorate Dec. 12, The date of ratifica- 1818 tion by the Governor- General is given. Jaisalmir Rajputana Do. . Dec. 12, 1818 Banswara Do. Do. . Dec. 25, An offer of Alliance 1818 declined by the Com- Ratlam ^ Western Engagements for their Jan. 5, pany in 1812. Sitamau Malwa, protection mediated 1819 Sailana Central India by Sir John Malcolm Dhar Central India . Protectorate . Jan. 10, 1 1819 Satara . Bombay . State created by Lord Sept. 25, Lapsed. Hastings 1819 Tehri or Garh- United Pro- A Sanad of restoration March 4, Regranted by Sanad, wal vinces after Nepal war 1820 Sept. 6, 1859. Jhabua . Bhopawar, Guaranteed by engage- Aug. 22, Central India ment 1821 Rajpipla Bombay Rewa Agreement to submit Oct. 11, The Baroda state on Apr. Kanta . to the British settle- 1821 3, 1820, agreed to pre- ment fer no claims against thechiefsand residents of Kathiawar andMahi Kanta except through the British. Chhota . Do. Engagement of sub- Nov. 21, Executed in conse- Udaipur ordination 1822 quence of doubt as to whether the above- cited agreement ap- plied to this state. Sirohi . Rajputana Protectorate Sept. 11, The state was claimed 1823 by Jodhpur, and thus its inclusion in the pro- tectorate was delayed. Ava Burma . Treaty of peace and Feb. 24, friendship 1826 Moharbhanj Bengal . Engagement of submis- June and other sion 1829 Tributary Ma- hals of Orissa Khairpur Sind Treaty of friendship April 4, and commerce 1832 Bahawalpur . Punjab . Sternal friendship and Feb. 2, the promotion of com- 1833 merce Jhalawar Rajputana Protection April 8, This principality was 1838 carved out of Kotah. Kashmir Northern India Creation of the state March 16, out of the ruins of 1846 the Lahore state Trans-Sutlej Punjab . Recognition Oct. The dates of the Sanads states 1846 vary. That given is the Sanad of the Raja of Mandi. Jind Do. Grant of new estates Sept. 22, after the Punjab war 1847 Shahpura Rajputana Protection June 27, 1848 CHAPTER III THE POLICY OP THE RING-FENCE Adherence 22. To the preceding chapter I attached the title of non 1Cy " Treaty Map," because, in examining the relations of interven- the British Government with the states of India, the tion up to 1813. eye must not be directed merely to the engagements entered into with one or another state, but it must take in the whole area covered by the Company's alliances. The careful student of Indian history can tell by a glance at the map of India at any period, provided that it shows the country protected as well as the country annexed, what was then the guiding spirit of British dealings with its allies. As a fresh hand fills in a space with British protection, a new factor is introduced into the spirit of Indian inter- course, or commercium, with the Native states ; and this influence is not confined to British dealings with the sovereignties then for the first time brought under protection. It modifies and affects the future conduct of relations with the states already included in the protectorate. The key note of the foreign policy of the Company towards the princes of the country from 1757, when Clive, after the victory of Plassey, won on the 23rd of June, acquired the Zemindari of the district round Calcutta, to the close of Lord Minto's rule as Govern or- General in 1813, was one of non- 58 CHAP, in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 59 intervention or limited liability. The omission from the map of protected India in 1813 of the whole of the Punjab beyond the Sutlej, of almost the whole of Eajputana, of much of Central India, of many of the Bombay states other than Baroda and its tributaries, and of Central and Upper Sind, attests the sel^ restraint which the Presidency Governors, and the nine Governor-Generals l who held office during that period from 1774 onwards, imposed on themselves. Beyond the ring-fence of the Company's dominion they avoided intercourse with the chiefs, in the hope that the stronger organisations would absorb the weaker, and become settled states. When the events of these fifty-six busy years are called to mind, the palpable anxiety of the Company to avoid both annexation and alliances stands out in the clearest relief. There is the battle of Buxar in 1764, vhen Oudh lay at the feet of Major -Munro, but was not annexed ; the Eohilla war, after which Warren Hastings conferred the conquered territories on the Wazir of Oudh ; the first Maratha war, which closed, after the victorious march of General Goddard from the banks of the Jamna to Ahmedabad, in the resti- tution of Bassein and the restoration of the status quo by the Treaty of Salbai, dated the 17th of March 1782; and, finally, four Mysore wars, ending with the fall of Seringapatam in 1799, from which the allies of the British derived the main advantage, whilst the former Hindu dynasty of Mysore was gra- tuitously raised from the ashes of Haidar Ali's and Tipu's dominion. The second Maratha war was inevitably made an 1 Of these Sir Alured Clarke merely acted as Governor-General for a few weeks pending the arrival of the Earl of Mornington in 1798. The title of Governor-General was assumed by Warren Hastings, previously Governor of Bengal, in 1774. 6o THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. occasion for extending the political ascendancy of the British, but the terms of peace were conspicuous for their moderation, and after the departure of Lord Mornington, better known as Marquis Wellesley, the three Governor -Generals who filled up the interval till the arrival of Lord Moira, reverted to the previous policy of non-intervention, broken only by the treaty with Kanjit Singh in 1809. Thus, obedient to the orders which they received from home, they nursed the storm which finally blew to ribbons all the paper restrictions imposed by Acts of Parliament or by the Court of Directors upon the expansion of the Indian Empire. The term of Lord Wellesley's office constituted for an interval a striking departure from the rule of his predecessors; and in July 1804 he tried to allay the fears of his masters by the assurance that nothing more remained to be added. He wrote : "A general bond of connexion is now established between the British Government and the principal states of India, on principles which render it the interest of every state to maintain its alliance with the British Government." But the first act of his successor, Lord Cornwallis, was to draw up a scheme of withdrawal, which, after his untimely death at Ghazipur, guided the political actions of his successors. It seems that Lord Minto fretted against the ill-considered restraints imposed on him, and was not slow to observe in the constant disturbances reported to him from Central India the impending collapse of the policy of unconcern. But beyond sending three embassies to Persia, Afghanistan, and Lahore, and accompanying in person an expedition to Java, he dared not go. With some difficulty he managed to prolong to the close of 1813 the continuity of the policy of non-intervention handed down to him. in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 61 His treaty with the Lion of the Punjab served only to accentuate the spirit of the time. The limited extension of alliances, which it was impossible for Lord Minto and his predecessors to avoid, was forced on the Company by the absolute necessities of self- defence, and by the outbreak of hostilities with France in Europe, which exercised a direct influence on India's history. For the rest, the steadfast adherence of the British authorities to the avoidance of treaties and alliances claims the more particular notice, because, until the passing of the " Eegulating Act of 1772," really passed in 1773, the thirteenth year of the reign of George III., no restriction was placed upon the diplomatic powers of the local Governors ; and even after its enactment the diffi- culty of communication, and the unexpected course and pressure of French wars, often compelled the local Governments to act independently of the supreme authority. 23. The scene shifts so frequently on the stage Four sub- of Indian history, and the plot is so complicated by oJ e onfi the personal ambitions and changeful policies of the period. adventurers who came forward as the leading actors in the early part of the last century and the close of the preceding one, that it is only possible to bring into our field of view a very limited group of historical personages and leading events. Until Lord Hastings undertook his political settlements, the affairs of the country princes continued to be tangled, and in no period of Indian history was the entanglement more confusing than in the years with which we are about to deal. But a brief sketch of the Company's wars and treaties to the close of the eighteenth century will suffice to place in the foreground three prominent facts. The Company was compelled in its own self- 62 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. defence to conclude certain alliances. In the next place, it avoided them as long as possible, and it extended its liabilities no further than the absolute necessities of the case demanded. Finally, in accord- ance with principles of international law, it treated its allies as if they were independent nations. From the mass of incident with which the early struggles of the British for dominion and supremacy in India are enlivened, four central transactions may be selected as the pivots upon which their leading treaties and the main results of their contest turn. The first of these is the Treaty of Oudh, dated the 16th of August 1765, by which it was intended to fix the limits of the Company's extension in Bengal ; while the second is the Triple alliance with the Peshwa and the Nizam against Tipu Sultan, dated the 1st of June 1790, which led eventually to the suppression of Haidar Ali's dominion in the South, and to the conclusion of a series of alliances with Hyderabad, Poona, Tanjore, Travancore, and other principalities in the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay. The Treaty of Bassein, dated the 31st of December 1802, next revealed the fact that power had departed from the head of the Maratha confederacy, and it entailed fresh wars and alliances with the leading members of that confederacy. The fourth transaction was the Treaty of Lahore, dated the 25th of April 1809. These four documents stand out as conspicuous landmarks in the period commencing with Olive's victory at Plassey, and ending with the close of Lord Minto's administration. A short account of the transactions which led up to them will now be given, to be followed by a review of the subsidiary alliances negotiated by Lord Wellesley. 24. In August 1690 Job Charnock, chief of the in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 63 Hooghly factory, was permitted by the Native state of authorities to return to Calcutta, from which he had twice been driven out. Half a century later the an <* Maratha horsemen carried their plundering expeditions into the remote provinces of the Mughal empire right up to the ditch of Calcutta. In 1756 the usurper Ali Vardi Khan, Nawab of Bengal, was succeeded by his hot-headed grand-nephew Murad, alias Siraj-ud- daula, five years before the ambitious schemes of the Marathas for the conquest of Northern India were crushed on the bloody field of Panipat. Within a few weeks of his succession, Siraj-ud-daula attacked Calcutta in the middle of June, shutting up 146 Europeans, who had surrendered on the 20th of June, in the Black Hole, where all but 23 were suffocated in a single night of horrors. Clive, who had recently returned to Madras, having captured Gheria in Bombay on his way out, was preparing for a struggle with the French at Hyderabad, but he at once realised the necessity of deferring action in the South until the wrong done to his countrymen had been avenged in Bengal. He started in October with 900 European and 1500 Native troops, accompanied by Admiral Watson's squadron, and after his recapture of Calcutta on the 2nd of January 1757, he defeated the Nawab's army, and took from him an engagement not to molest the Company, which was followed by an " honourable Treaty of peace and mutual alliance." The area of French hostilities, which had begun with the capture of Minorca by the French, and are known in history as the Seven Years' War, now extended to India, and Clive attacked the French settlement at Chandanagore. Faithless to his treaty, Siraj-ud-daula rendered aid to the French, and Clive, having agreed by treaty to support his rival, Mir Jafar Ali, marched 64 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. out to Plassey, some eighty miles from Calcutta. On the 23rd of June, with a trivial loss, Olive won a decisive, if not glorious, victory during the downpour of a monsoon storm, which led to the formation of the Bengal Province. During Olive's absence in England Mir Jafar was deposed, and his son-in-law Mir Kasim was set up in his place on terms more ad- vantageous to the Company than agreeable to the new Nawab, who straightway entered into an alliance with the Nawab Wazir of Oudh for the overthrow of the British power. The decisive victory of Buxar, won by Major Munro on the 23rd of October 1764, laid Oudh as well as Bengal at the feet of the Company, and Lord Clive returned to India to decide the all- important issue, whether the territories of Oudh should be annexed or brought into alliance with the Company. Having assured his own position in Bengal by acquir- ing from Shah Alam, Emperor of Delhi, the title of Diwan of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, and having taken note of the revival of ambitious projects amongst the Marathas, and of the state of paralysis into which Mughal authority had fallen, Clive boldly decided against the annexation of Oudh. The events of the recent war, however, left the British no option but to enter into some sort of political relations with Oudh, and the Governor of Bengal, in restoring the conquered territories to the Nawab, fancied that he had erected a solid barrier of friendly alliance between his Province and the outer world. The Treaty of "reciprocal friendship," dated the 16th of August 1765, which he concluded with the state of Oudh, marks the first step in the endeavour maintained by the Company in their foreign policy for nearly half a century to enclose British interests within a ring- in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 65 fence, and to remain, as far as possible, unconcerned spectators of what might go on beyond it. It was not long before the Company's new ally required their help. The Marathas threatened Eohilkhand, on the frontier of Oudh, and political rather than moral considerations induced Warren Hastings to annex the Rohilla District to Oudh, thus continuing Olive's policy of preserving a buffer -state beyond which events might shape themselves. Behind the curtain of Native rule the Maratha tempests might rage, the rapid process of the decay of Imperial rule might go on, or the striking genius of the then infant Ranjit Singh might found a new Empire. The British rulers were content to wait and see what time might bring. To this principle of non-intervention they adhered so firmly that, when Warren Hastings left India in 1785, the only additions made to the Company's territories since the departure of Olive were the formal transfers of Benares and Ghazipur, and two small acquisitions in Bombay. 25. The policy which enclosed and covered the The Company's acquisitions in Bengal by creating a buffer kingdom in Oudh was not adapted to the conditions of in Madras. Madras. The authorities wished that it might be found applicable, but their wishes did not alter facts ; and much as they regretted the diversion of the revenues of Bengal to schemes of conquest in the south, they were obliged to submit to necessity. The truth was that the French had gained a start in Hyderabad ; and if the political plans of Dupleix and the military contingent organised by Bussy had been left to work out to their natural conclusion, there would have been no room for British dominion in Madras, for Pondicherry would have given its name to that presidency. Events in another continent determined F 66 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. the fate of the south of India. "Wars between France and England succeeded each other with such rapidity that the subjects of these two powers could not rest at peace in Asia, and their contests dragged in the Native chiefs of India, who, it must be confessed, sought to turn to their own advantage the quarrels of other powers, just as they employed foreign mercen- aries in their own disputes with each other. The war of the Austrian succession was being waged in Europe, when Dupleix, who had already been appointed Governor of Pondicherry in 1741, entered upon his ambitious schemes for suppressing the competition of the rival Company. Besides their factories at Masulipatam, Vizagapatam, Porto Novo, and elsewhere, the British held a few possessions on the Coromandel coast, confined to narrow limits, con- sisting of Fort St. David and a tract round Fort St. George, or Madras, which extended five miles along the coast and one mile inland. The French possessed the prosperous town of Pondicherry, south of Madras, with Mahe in the same parallel of latitude on the Malabar coast, and Karikal, which in 1726 had been acquired from Tanjore. Ceylon still be- longed to the Dutch, and Mauritius was in the hands of the French. The military establishments of the two Companies were no more than were required for the defence of their factories and forts. For troops to carry on warfare and to support their policy in the interior, the Governors of Pondicherry and Madras had therefore to look elsewhere. Naturally their eyes turned to Hyderabad which lay near at hand, surrounded by aggressive enemies and on the eve of internal dissensions about the succession to the throne which Asaf Jah had established. Kound this centre the intrigues of the two European Companies revolved, in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 67 and even peace in Europe did not suspend their activities. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, while it ended the war of the Austrian succession in the west, saw the out- break of the wars of Indian succession in Hyderabad and the Carnatic. When at last affairs were being settled in India, the Seven Years' War broke out in Europe, and the ink on the Peace of Paris concluded in 1763 was hardly dry when fresh complications arose out of the American war. Thus, the struggle between France and England kept open the quarrels of the two Companies in Madras, entangled the British with alliances and jealousies, and prevented a satisfactory settlement of the questions which kept the Native states in the south of India at war with each other. The leading princes who were engaged in chronic disputes with their neighbours in Madras were very different from the feeble antagonists disposed of in Bengal. The Nizam of Hyderabad, formerly the Imperial (Subahdar) Viceroy of the Deccan, the Sultan of Mysore, and the Peshwa of Poona, were all potentates who commanded large armies and cherished great schemes of conquest ; while minor parts in the struggle were played by the Nawab of the Carnatic, and the two Hindu Rajas of Tanjore and Travancore. Of these Hyderabad had a special importance, because the Carnatic was nominally subordinate to it, and the Nawab of the Carnatic claimed allegiance from Trichinopoly and tribute from Tanjore. The Carnatic was the name given to the country lying along the Coromandel coast from the Kistna to the Cauvery, and between the sea and the central plateau of southern India. In 1732 the Nizam's Deputy, whose capital was at Arcot, died, and a dispute arose as to 68 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. the succession. The Marathas appeared on the scene, and at the battle of Damalcheruvu in May 1740 defeated and killed the Nawab Dost ,Ali, whose son-in-law, Chanda Saheb, was also turned out of Trichinopoly. Thereon Benoit Dumas, the French Governor of Pondicherry, offered an asylum to the fugitives in the French possessions. The Nizam now exercised his lawful authority and appointed Anwar- uddin Nawab of the Carnatic, whose son, Muhammad Ali, escaped from the battle of Ambur after the defeat and death of his father. A year before this event, in 1748, Asaf Jah, the famous Viceroy of the Deccan, having practically achieved his independence of Delhi had died. Hyderabad at once became the scene of a war of succession, the French supporting Muzaffar Jang, a grandson of the deceased Viceroy, against his son Nasir Jang, whose cause was espoused by the English. For the Carnatic the French put forward Chanda Saheb, while the British took the part of Muhammad Ali who at least had a better title to the throne of Arcot than his rival could claim. Three of these candidates met with their deaths at no distance of time. Nazir was assassinated at Gingee and Muzaffar Jang fell in a skirmish with Pathans, while Chanda Saheb lived until 1752, when he was put to death by the troops of Tanjore. Muhammad Ali lived to enjoy his title as Nawab of the Carnatic under the solemn guarantee of the Treaty of Paris. But the efforts put forth by the rival companies on behalf on their nominees filled southern India with the clash of arms, and led the victors into a series of wars with Mysore. To that country attention must now be turned. It had lately exchanged its Hindu for a Muhammadan dynasty, a change which was watched with some in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 69 concern by the Peshwa's court at Poona and not with- out suspicion by theMuhammadan rulers of Hyderabad. The Sultan of Mysore, Haidar Ali, rose to power by deposing his Hindu master, whose forces he com- manded in the operations at Trichinopoly. He extended his dominions at the expense of Hyderabad as well as his Hindu neighbours, and his military genius inherited by his son, Tipu Sultan, enabled Mysore to organise a formidable force which more than once exacted inglorious terms from the British. The contrast between the rabble army defeated at Plassey and the Mysore cavalry that overran Madras within sight of the British factory, or the troops that confronted Arthur Wellesley at Seringapatam, explains the long-drawn contest in the south of India, and the impossibility of maintaining there the policy of non-intervention so highly prized in Bengal and Bombay. The Sultan's hand was not only raised against the British. He tore away large strips of territory from Hyderabad. He encouraged Tanjore in evading the demands of the Nawab of the Carnatic, ; and before his overthrow Tipu despatched embassies both to Constantinople and Paris. But neither Haidar Ali nor his son possessed the art of employing diplomacy to enhance his military strength. Coali- | tions were discussed and dropped, common enterprises broke down where jealousies were so deeply rooted, and the ally of one day was despoiled of his posses- sions on the morrow. Between Mysore and Poona any lasting agreement was out of the question, and this deep gulf between the competitors for dominion in Southern India was an obstacle to the policy of ; the ring-fence which the authorities in Leadenhall Street did not at once realise. A brief notice of the position of the Marathas is 70 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. needed to complete this sketch of the powers which were about to enter upon the final struggle for ascend- ancy. Balaji, the first Peshwa of Poona, had, in 1720, obtained from the puppet Emperor a confirmation of the tribute or chauth, 25 per cent of the revenues, which Sivaji had levied by force. The third Peshwa enforced the claim by invading Hyderabad, and sending expeditions into the Carnatic. The gradual break-up of the Maratha confederacy after the battle of Panipat, and the growing independence of the Central Indian powers, Baroda, Gwalior, Indore, and Nagpore, tended to direct what energies the Poona Government still possessed towards the Southern Deccan and the Carnatic. The Company, who had lately fortified their own position, both in Bengal and in the Northern Sarkars and Madras, by securing the con- firmatory title of the Emperor, were as yet hardly strong enough to dispute the title of the Peshwa to chauth, and in some of their first engagements with other states they formally reserved the rights of the Peshwa. That tax was the main concern of Maratha rule. Expeditions were carried into distant regions not for extension of their dominion but solely for pillage and wanton destruction. What the Maratha hordes could not carry away they wantonly destroyed. In far-off Bengal even a " ditch " if properly defended or a buffer -state of Oudh might keep off the free- booters, but nearer home one swarm of robbers succeeded another, and the admission of their rights as fixed to-day was not a settlement which they were likely to respect on the morrow. Independently, too, of his pecuniary interests in the chauth, the Peshwa, as a Brahman, had a religious sympathy with th< Hindu dynasties still surviving in the south ; and ii addition to his traditional and racial hostility to th( in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 71 Nizam, he resented the means by which Haidar Ali had rebelled against his Hindu master and strengthened his position in Mysore at the cost of Maratha interests. On the other hand, the Poona Court watched with some degree of suspicion the growing power of the British, who, although they recognised the Maratha claims to tribute, yet were already exhibiting too much energy in the suppression of piracy and in negotiations with the maritime states. The Peshwa, compelled to be careful by the delicate state of his relations with the members of the Maratha confederacy, and in doubts as to whether he had most to fear from the Nizam or from Haidar Ali, hoped to play off the English against one or the other, and to step in where and when circumstances might offer a favourable opportunity for demanding pay- ment of arrears of tribute. 26. Upon this stormy sea of politics the rivalry Dissoiu- of Dupleix drove the British Company, who would p^h have much preferred a policy of watchful inactivity ; power, ; and although the immediate result of the contest was legacy. the downfall of the French, the entanglements which their foreign policy had woven were not so easily untied. Each of the three native rulers who were aiming at sovereignty desired to see both his adver- saries weakened, and felt that the aggrandisement of one at the expense of the other would not improve his own position. If the Nizam established authority over the province of the Carnatic and defeated Haidar Ali, the Peshwa could not expect his traditional enemy strengthened by success to give him tribute. Himself to all intents a rebel against the Emperor, the Viceroy of the Deccan was not likely to pay any respect to a vague title to chauth wrung from the imperial puppet. If the Peshwa succeeded, the 72 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Nizam, who had already suffered at the hands of the Marathas, would receive further drafts on his treasury for arrears of tribute supported by plundering expe- ditions. The success of Haidar Ali, who had shown conspicuous military talent, and whose strategic basis of operations supported by the forts of Dharwar, Bednore, and Bangalore, and the natural strength of the Ghats and Droogs, made him almost unassailable, would leave the Nizam face to face with a claimant for the viceregal office in the Deccan, and the Peshwa in antagonism with a younger and a stronger Muham- madan power than the Deccan had yet witnessed. As regards a British success, it is probable that at this period neither the Nizam, nor the Sultan of Mysore, nor the Peshwa entertained any serious v alarm for his own safety from the proceedings of the European Companies. So far, the French had been useful to Muzaffar Jang and his successor Salabut Jang, and their influence in Hyderabad seemed tolerably well established. But direct hostilities were now to take the place of intrigue, and within five years of the outbreak of war the French Com- pany was to be reduced to impotence. The arrival of the impatient and imperious Lally with reinforcements and a French squadron, on April 28, 1758, promised victory for the French. Hitherto the genius and military talents of Clive had turned cowards into soldiers at Arcot, secured the safety of Trichinopoly, and frustrated French endeavours to win over the Mysoreans. During his absence in Bengal the French had greatly improved their posi- tion in the Northern Sarkars, but their success at Chitapet in the south was balanced by British gains at Madura. Both sides had avoided any decisive action up to the close of 1757. But Lally was not in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 73 disposed to play a waiting game ; Cuddalore was taken, and soon afterwards, in June, Fort St. David capitulated to a superior French force. In the fol- lowing year Madras would have fallen but for the timely arrival of the British fleet on the 16th of February 1759, that fateful year which was to witness the surrender of Quebec, the battle of Minden, and Hawke's irresistible swoop on Conflans in Quiberon Bay. Lally, however, had made a fatal mistake in recalling Bussy from the court of the Nizam, and he paid the penalty. British influence naturally rushed into the vacuum created by his withdrawal from Hyderabad, and Salabut Jang undertook, on the 14th of May 1759, to expel the French. Thus the important step of bringing Hyderabad into treaty relations was taken. After the siege and recapture of Wandiwash the French were routed in 1760 by the English troops under Colonel Eyre Coote, and finally Pondicherry was besieged, and surrendered on the 14th of January 1761. In the same year Salabut Jang was deposed by Nizam Ali, and, when the " honourable and bene- ficial" Peace of Paris was proclaimed in 1763, the French Government formally recognised the British candidate, Muhammad Ali, as the Nawab of the Carnatic. Although, therefore, the ruins of Pondi- cherry were restored to the French by the same treaty, the British Company was now pledged in the face of Europe to support Muhammad Ali in the government of the Carnatic. The legacy of the war with France was a protectorate which was resented by both Haidar Ali and the Nizam, and an obligation of which French intrigue was able to take full advantage. The British received from the Nawab of the Carnatic a Jaghir, which was in due form confirmed by Imperial 74 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Firman in 1765, and thus an attack on the Carnatic henceforth involved not only the duty of assisting an ally, but also the necessity for defending the Company's own possessions. The first 27. The position so acquired by the Company M d sore nd brought them at once into collision with the Nizam wars. and with Haidar Ali. Nizam Ali, who had succeeded Salabut Jang, was invading the Carnatic when he was ordered to desist, and by a Treaty of Alliance, dated the 12th of November 1766, he was left in no doubt as to the intention of the Company to protect that country. The Nizam broke his agreement, how- ever, and joined with Haidar Ali, but after the dis- comfiture of the allies at Changama on the 3rd of September 1767, Hyderabad was bound by a fresh treaty of 1768 to desist from giving any protection or assistance to " Haidar Naik." Haidar Ali thereon continued his operations against the Carnatic, but after the destruction of his fleet he made overtures to Colonel Smith which were rejected. Accordingly, on the 29th of March 1769, he appeared within five miles of Madras itself. Unprepared to meet this assault at headquarters, the Company by a treaty dated the 3rd of April 1769, accepted the terms dictated to them, and closed the first war with Mysore on the basis of a mutual restitution of prisoners and forts. They also agreed that, if either of the " parties shall be attacked, they shall from their respective countries mutually assist each other to drive the enemy out." At the conclusion of this treaty the Company's stock was reduced in value by 60 per cent ; but the heaviest part of the price at which they purchased peace was the fresh entanglement it brought. The Marathas seized the opportunity to demand tribute from enfeebled Mysore, and Haidar Ali appealed to w w v crtwt OF in THE POLICY OF TH RING-FENCE 75 the British for aid. Upon the refusal of the Company to comply, it became clear that peace could not long be maintained. In 1778 the masked assistance which the French had given to America ended after Saratoga in an open alliance, and England and France were once more at war. The British, having conquered all the other French possessions in India, now attacked Mahe, and Haidar Ali, who was at all times well disposed towards the French, retaliated by invading the Carnatic. The second Mysore war, for which Haidar Ali, then in his seventy-eighth year, had made extensive preparations, commenced in July 1780, and on the 10th of September Baillie's force was annihilated. It is unnecessary to follow the varying fortunes of the campaign, or to dwell upon the successes gained at Tellicherry and Mangalore. The latter town, at which Haidar had established dockyards and an arsenal, suffered many vicissitudes. After capture by the British it had been restored in 1768 only to be retaken in 1781. Tipu secured it notwithstanding a stubborn defence in 1784 to lose it again in 1799. The personal influence of Haidar Ali was clearly established by the failure of the British to set his people against him, although they appealed to the supporters of the old Hindu dynasty at Mysore. Hostilities were not even interrupted by the death of Haidar Ali on the 7th of December 1782, for Tipu Sultan encouraged by French promises maintained the war with unflinching vigour until the peace of Mangalore, dated the llth of March 1784, which followed after the conclusion of the negotiations for the Peace of Versailles in 1783. The Sultan of Mysore had thus conducted two wars against the British with no loss of dignity, and with very 76 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. slight injury to his power. The havoc he had wrought on the Company's territories was disastrous, and its effects were accurately described by Edmund Burke, in his speech delivered on the 28th of February 1785 on the debts of the Nawab of Arcot, as having left " the country emptied and disem- bowelled by so accomplished a desolation." The Fifth Keport of the Select Committee on the East India Company, printed by order of the House of Commons on the 28th of July 1812, narrates how, after the termination of the war, there were hardly any signs of the previous occupation of the Company's own territory round Fort St. George save the bones of the people massacred, and the naked walls of burnt houses, choultries, and temples. When to the succession of massacres there was added the horror of famine, the country became depopulated and the treasury empty. By the Treaty of Mangalore the Nawab Tipu Sultan recovered the forts and places he had lost, and agreed to " make no claim whatever in future on the Carnatic." The Kajas of Tanjore and Travancore were expressly included in the arrange- ments as the allies of the Company, and thus once more the ground was prepared for a 'fresh outbreak of hostilities. The Triple 28. Upon the restoration of peace with the ^ncTtMrd British Tipu turned his attention to the Marathas, Mysore anc l fog ac ts soon revealed the bigotry of the man. His destruction of Hindu temples, and his forcible conversion to the faith of Islam of 100,000 people, aiforded a marked contrast to the toleration and conciliatory temper which his father had wisely ex- hibited. Accordingly, when in 1789 he attacked Cranganore and Jaikotah in Travancore in flagrant defiance of the Treaty of Mangalore, and forced upon in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 77 the British the third Mysore war, the Company's officers were able to take advantage of the feeling of animosity which he had provoked at Poona. It was necessary to avoid the mistakes committed in the previous wars, for neither of which had the British been fully prepared. In fact, their forces in the field had frequently been reduced to the verge of starvation. By the triple alliance treaties concluded in July 1790 with Hyderabad and the Peshwa, a league was now formed against Tipu. These alliances were contrary to the policy of the ring-fence, but they were in- dispensable. After some indecisive campaigns Lord Cornwallis took the command, and the injurious delays which had been involved in the last war by references to Calcutta were thus avoided. The British forces gained possession of the Droogs and Bangalore, whilst the Marathas, still with an eye to their own advantage, took Dharwar. The Nizam's troops oper- ated against the forts north-east of Bangalore. By occupying the passages of the Ghats and depriving Tipu of his seaboard, the British were at last able to march on his capital by the high-level road, when their commissariat arrangements once more broke down. From these difficulties they were extricated by junction with the Marathas, and by organising transport with the aid of the Brinjaris. A final march on Seringapatam brought Tipu to terms, and the Treaty of Peace, dated the 18th March 1792, ended the third Mysore war. The Sultan lost half of his kingdom, which was divided amongst the three allies. From that date Tipu recognised in the British his most formidable competitor in the Carnatic, and took note of the skilful policy of the league by which the peace of Seringapatam had been brought about. He lost no time in opening fresh negotiations with the 78 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. French, the Peshwa, and the Nizam; but although the Native states throughout India were now beginning to feel uncomfortable at the prospect of British ascend- ancy, it did not suit either of those princes to join him just then. The fourth 29. The Marathas indeed saw that a favourable war^and opportunity had arrived for promoting their own its con- interests, and that Tipu's help would not be con- sequent . m 1 1 ' TT1 Treaties, venient. They revived their claims against Hyder- abad for chauth, and since the British declined to help the Nizam in consequence of the determination of Sir John Shore to adhere to a policy of non-inter- vention, the Marathas inflicted a severe defeat on the Muhammadan state at Kharda, on the 1 1th of March 1795, whereby the Nizam was forced to pay an indemnity of 3 crores of rupees, and to surrender territory producing an annual revenue of 35 lacs. Once more the Nizam, disgusted with the Company, received French officers, but in 1798 a new Treaty was negotiated with him by which the subsidiary force was made permanent and increased. Mean- while the accession of Baji Kao to the office of Peshwa, through the influence of Sindhia, had produced dis- sensions at Poona, where a scheme for a French alliance was being seriously discussed. Events in the Carnatic, accordingly, once more hinged upon the proceedings of France in Europe. Tipu, who was in active correspondence with the French, and had enrolled himself as " citizen " Tipu in a local club, heard rumours of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt. The victory of the Nile, on the 1st of August 1798, shattered his anticipations of a French invasion oi India, but, until the battle of Alexandria in 1801 compelled the French to evacuate Egypt, the Sultai of Mysore did not abandon the hope that at lei in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 79 some important diversion would be made in his favour. He accordingly sent an embassy to the Isle of France, and somewhat prematurely boasted of his intention to sweep the English out of India. The Company in their turn had no alternative but to complete the work half finished in the last war. By strengthening their alliance with Hyderabad, they were able to count on the co-operation of the Nizam ; and, profiting by the experience of the past, they collected ample supplies and transport. Tipu had no allies, and his main defence lay in the strength of the fortress of Seringapatam. His troops, however, saw that fortune had turned, and after two battles had been won by the British on both sides of the Ghats they began to desert their leader. The brilliant capture of Seringapatam by General Harris, on the 4th of May 1799, terminated the fourth Mysore war, and on this occasion the Treaty of Alliance, dated the 8th of July 1799, created the new state of Mysore under a Hindu Maharaja in subordinate alliance with the Company. The Nizam received large additions to his territories and a fresh treaty, whilst the Peshwa refused to accept anything because the Company tacked on to their offer the conclusion of a subsidiary alliance with themselves. Shortly afterwards, however, Holkar defeated the united forces of the Peshwa and Sindhia, and the Peshwa was glad to entertain the British pro- posals. He signed the Treaty of Bassein, dated the 31st of December 1802, by which he received a subsidiary force of six battalions, and ceded territories for their maintenance, including Bundelkhand. He agreed to submit his disputes with the Nizam and the Gaikwar to the Company's arbitration, and to enter into no negotiations with other powers without consultation with the British. In the event of a British war with 8o THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. any European nation, the subjects of that nation were to be discharged from his service. Thus the distant possessions of the Company in the west as well as the south of India were agitated by the storm which raged in Europe, and by the wars which followed it in the East. The policy of non- intervention foundered on the rocks of necessity, and the friendship of Haidar Ali and his successor Tipu Sultan for the French compelled the Company to promote the Triple Alliance of 1790. The ultimate consequences of that alliance, forced upon the British by the necessities of self-defence, were to draw the Treaty map of Southern India as in the main it still remains, and to bring the British into close alliance "*) not only with Hyderabad but also with the Peshwa. If the Peshwa had been in reality w r hat he professed to be, the sovereign of the Maratha nation, the further extension of alliances might have been avoided at least for a time, and the Company would have gained what they sorely needed, quiet rest and breathing time to consolidate their power in the South. But the settlement of the Madras Presidency was no sooner completed, than a fresh demand was made on the British to undertake the establishment of order and settled Government in the Presidency of Bombay. Thus step by step, and still much against their will, the Governor-Generals were compelled to accept their destiny, and to take up the dominion and responsi- bilities which awaited them in India. Meanwhile, fresh experiences and ideas were being gained which inevitably led to an alteration in the aims and forms, as well as in the extent, of their Treaty obliga- tions. But for the present the Company and its officers at least professed adherence to the general outline of their policy, namely, the avoidance of any in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 81 political obligations which were not immediately required. 30. From the Bengal and Madras Presidencies, Thesitua- the course of events now passes on to Bombay, where Bombay, the Treaty of Bassein involved the British in war First with the three leading states of the Maratha con- war . federacy, and in an alliance with another. Ever since its cession to the Company in 1668, Bombay, notwith- standing its magnificent harbour, had disappointed expectations. The headquarters of the British had been moved from Surat to Bombay in 1687, but the future fortress with its five gates and strong ditch was not yet constructed. The defence of Bombay by sea was first undertaken. In 1730 a "firm peace and friendship " was established with the Sar Desai or ruler of Sawantwari, with a view to attacking by sea I and land Kanoji Angria, the piratical chief of Kolaba. ; In 1733 an offensive and defensive alliance was con- i eluded with the Abyssinian dynasty, which had been established at Janjira as Lord Warden of the Ports by the Mughal Empire. In 1739 the first treaty with the Peshwa restricted British sovereignty over the river of Mahim to the limits imposed upon the Portuguese. The same treaty bound the English to arrest and deliver up any slaves that escaped from the Peshwa's jurisdiction. The Peshwa's passes were also required for the Company's boats. In 1756 Clive wrested the fort of Gheria, or Vijayadrug, from the pirates, and it was given to the Marathas in exchange for Bankote, the first foothold gained by the British on the mainland of Bombay. In 1766 Kolhapur was forced to agree to the suppression of piracy. In 1771 the British reduced the piratical Kolis of Taraja, and made it over to the Nawab of Cambay. In 1775 the factories in Sind, established in 1758, were closed G 82 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. owing to the treatment they received from the Native Government. These transactions illustrate the diffi- culties against which the expansion of Bombay had to contend by sea. By land the position of the British community was still less secure. The town of Bassein on their northern frontier, and the Island of Salsette, which was an inseparable part of Bombay, were coveted possessions which the authorities longed to acquire. In this state of affairs the opportunity of a disputed succession at Poona tempted the local Government, as similar occasions had tempted the rival Companies in Madras, to secure by diplomacy what they were unable to take by arms. Eagoba, or Kaghunath Kao, one of the sons of Baji Eao Peshwa, having got rid of his two nephews, aspired to be Peshwa ; and, in 1775 as the price of a British alliance, he promised to hand over to the Bombay authorities Bassein, Salsette, and the islands of Caranja, Kennery, Elephanta, and Hog Island in Bombay harbour, and to secure for them the Gaikwar's share in Broach. The treaty was dis- approved of by the Governor-General, and replaced by another in 1776, called the Treaty of Purandhar, which dissolved the alliance with Eagoba. But Salsette, Caranja, Elephanta, and Hog Island were left in British occupation, while Bassein with the other acquisitions was to be restored. It is unnecessary to enter into the details of the first Maratha war, or the convention of Wargaon, because, after a reversion to the alliance with Eagoba, the Treaty of Salbai in 1782 eventually revived the Treaty of Purandhar ; and thereafter the politics of Poona were governed by th< course of events in Mysore of which an account hi just been given. In the North also the Bombay authorities en- in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 83 deavoured, with similar want of success, to extend their authority. The Gaikwars of Baroda thoroughly realised the fact that the Peshwas desired only to weaken them ; and when the succession to the Baroda state was disputed on the death of Damaji one party invoked the aid of the British, whilst another paid the Peshwa a liberal succession duty for His Highnesses support. The Treaty of Salbai revoked the engage- ments which the Bombay authorities had made, and from the confusion of disputes regarding successions and the intrigues which followed, it is only necessary to divert attention to the convention of March 15, 1802, which was embodied in the Treaty signed at Cambay on the 6th of June 1802. By that agree- ment Anand Rao Gaikwar was admitted into the Protectorate, and the assistance of the Company was granted to him in settling the claims of his mercenaries. The British thus acquired an absolute control over Baroda, and the Treaty of Bassein, dated 31st December 1802, which confirmed their arrangements, guaranteed the Company against interference in the settlement of their pecuniary claims against the state. The position j reached in 1802 was therefore as follows : The Gaik- l war was already dependent upon the British. The three other principal Maratha states Gwalior, Indore, and Nagpore were jealous of each other, and although each of their rulers was impatient of the sovereignty of the Peshwa, he had no desire to see it pass into other hands. The British authorities were still straining to extend their possessions along and beyond the coast-line ; but the principle was by this time established that the Government of India, and not the local Government, must take charge of any further negotiations with the Court of Poona. 31. Whilst the Treaty of Bassein was the neces- 84 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. The sary corollary to British treaties with Hyderabad, the Maratha second Maratha war was the immediate outcome of war, and the treaty itself, and the campaigns which resulted Central were prosecuted with equal vigour in the South and India. j n ^ e North. Sindhia of Gwalior and the Bhonsla Kaghoji of Nagpore in vain united to defeat the results of British diplomacy. The victories of Assaye on the 23rd of September 1803, of Argaon in November, and of Laswari in the same month, and the surrender of Gawalgarh, led to the Treaty of Sarje Anjengaon, dated the 30th of December 1803, with Gwalior, and the Treaty of Devgaon, dated the 17th December 1803, with the Nagpore state. By the first-named treaty, Sindhia ceded territories to the Company, engaged to employ in his service no foreigners whose Government might be at war with the Company, and renounced all claims upon the Emperor. He also took the first step towards a subsidiary alliance with the British. In the two following years these arrange- ments were further developed. The provisions of th< Treaty of Devgaon with the Nagpore state wei similar. Undeterred by the fate of Sindhia or thi of the Eaja of Nagpore, Holkar, whose army glutted with spoil collected by it in the North, soug] an alliance with the Afghans for the overthrow of tl Company. His successes against Colonel Monson' force, and his daring attempt to capture Delhi, wei avenged at the battle of Deeg, but since Sindhia beg* to waver in his engagements to the Company, t] Maharaja of Indore was unwilling to make peac At length, failing to induce the Sikhs to take part ii his affairs, Holkar was chased across the Beas, on banks of which he signed the Treaty of Eajpur Gh* on the 24th of December 1805. The terms of treaty were rather more onerous than those impos Ill THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 85 on Sindhia by the treaty of 1803, but if due allow- ance is made for the military expenditure which the Maratha chiefs had forced on the Company, their engagements with all three of the Maratha rulers were remarkable for their moderation. Alwar and Bhartpur were admitted into alliance with the British Government in the course of this campaign. The Peshwa was granted a share in the territories acquired from Sindhia and Eaghoji Bhonsla under the par- tition Treaty of Poona, dated the 14th of May 1804, an arrangement which secured to the Com- pany his confirmation of their title to their recent acquisitions. The Nizam also received a share by a separate treaty. Thus the Company was true to the principle of the Triple Alliance of 1790; and although the Mysore wars and the Maratha war had ended in building up their rule both in Madras and in Bombay, these results were neither contemplated nor at the outset desired. The wars they waged were wars of defence, and the terms they exacted after inflicting crushing defeats on their adversaries were conspicuous for their generosity. To the end of the period under present review, relations with the Poona Court con- tinued satisfactory, and Central India may now be left in order to glance at the course of events occur- ring on the North-western frontier of the Company's dominions. 32. During the proceedings of the second Ma- Punjab ratha war, Holkar after his defeat at Deeg sought the affairs> help of Eanjit Singh, who had, on his forcible acqui- sition of Lahore from its ruling Sardars, already assumed the title of Kaja in 1799. By the Treaty with Sindhia of the 30th of December 1803, the British had acquired possession of Delhi and Agra, and this expansion of British dominion left dive's 86 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. arrangement with Oudh out of date. The power against which the British had now to provide was not the tottering and divided Maratha confederacy but one approaching from the mountain passes in the North-west, and the buffer-state must be shifted from Oudh to Lahore. No doubt Holkar had foreseen this result, and represented the danger to the Court at Lahore. In the operations against the Marathas, the Malwa i Sikhs, south of the Sutlej, had taken part against the British, but the families of Jind and Kythal had subsequently joined the Company. In 1808 the chiefs of these two sections became alarmed at the intervention of Kanjit Singh in the affairs of the Cis- Sutlej states, and earnestly appealed to the British Kesident at Delhi for help. Thus, on either side of the growing Sikh power the Company had cause for disquietude and intervention. Once more a fear of French intrigues, which had operated so power- fully to extend the red line of British dominion on the map in Southern India, was to exercise a similar influence in a new direction. The victories of Nelson had given to the British the command of the sea, and citizen Tipu had waited in vain for the French ships. But aggressions overland still remained open to the inveterate enemies of England, and it was natural that the overthrow of Prussia and the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807, by promoting friendship between France and Russia, should turn the thoughts of Lord Minto to the North-western Frontier of India. Ambassadors were despatched to Persia and to Peshawar, whilsl Sir Charles Metcalfe was deputed to visit the cou] of Ranjit Singh at Lahore. As Metcalfe proceeded on his way, the Raja of Patiala, chief of the Phulkian house, pre-eminent in the misls or confederacies the Malwa Sikhs, earnestly represented the danger to in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 87 which the Cis-Sutlej Sikhs were exposed by the un- scrupulous ambition of Ran jit Singh. But the Envoy could only decline with politeness the keys of the city, which the Raja offered to him as a token of submission in return for protection. His instructions were to offer an alliance of offence and defence to Ran jit Singh against the French, and the intrusion of Cis-Sutlej affairs into the discussion would have complicated matters, and aggravated a potentate whose ambition contemplated the annexation and absorption of all the Malwa, as well as the Manjha Sikhs. Ranjit Singh, saw his opportunity, and on his part demanded, as the price of his adhesion to an alliance against the French, the Company's formal recognition of his sovereignty over all the Sikhs both north and south of the Sutlej. While Metcalfe was referring to Calcutta for instructions, the astute ruler of the Punjab proceeded without a moment's delay against Faridkot and other of the Phulkian states, taking the British Envoy with him as an unwilling spectator of these aggressions. This action precipitated a crisis. Professions of indifference and of easy contentment with the established policy of the ring-fence satisfied no one. The authorities dare not ignore so public an affront ; they and their allies could not but perceive that the policy of non-intervention was bearing its natural fruit. Metcalfe accordingly withdrew from the camp of Ranjit Singh, and in due course was instructed to remind the Raja of Lahore that during the Maratha war he had himself suggested the Sutlej as the boundary of the Punjab, and that the British, having conquered the Marathas, had taken, and in- tended to maintain, the Cis-Sutlej chiefs under their protection. The ruler of the Punjab was, therefore, required to remove his army to the north of the river. 88 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. The issue of peace or war trembled in the balance. On both sides preparations were made for the latter contingency, but, after mature deliberation, the good sense of Eanjit Singh, and his appreciation of his own difficulties on the one hand and of the Company's power on the other, induced him to evacuate Faridkot and to withdraw his troops. On the 25th of April 1809 he signed the Treaty of Lahore, by which the British undertook to abstain from interference with his subjects north of the Sutlej, whilst he agreed to respect the territories of the Sikh chiefs south of the river. The Cis-Sutlej states were then formally in- cluded in the Protectorate map of India. This treaty, which was practically forced upon Lord Minto, as much by the old scare of French aggression as by the bold policy of the ruler of the Punjab, fitly closes the first period of the policy of non-intervention. It was, however, a treaty of equal alliance, and not, as in the case of the Maratha states, an engagement of sub- ordinate isolation. It left the Maharaja of Lahore free to work his will on the principalities north of the Sutlej, and it imposed no restriction on his military force. It thus gave faithful expression to the policy inaugurated by Olive, but it carried with it the seeds of further interference with the country powers. Endeav- 33. The irresistible force of necessity drove the toaUid Company's officers so far ahead of their instructions interven- from home and their own wishes that, in reviewing alliances. the growth of dominion and ascendancy between 1757 and 1813, one is apt to overlook the fact that they persistently exercised the greatest self-restraint, and frequently refused to include states in the Treaty map. Outside India there was nothing to be gained by inaction, and the Company's position was estab- lished in Penang in 1786, in Burma in 1795, in Ill THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 89 Ceylon in 1796, and, as opportunity offered, along the littoral of the Persian Gulf and Arabia. But the rulers of India, mindful of the policy laid down in 1793 by the Act of 33 George III. cap. Hi., persistently refused protection to the princes of Rajputana, and even after defeating Sindhia they bound themselves by their treaty, dated the 22nd of November 1805, not to enter into treaties with Udaipur, Jodhpur, and other states, except Bhartpur and Alwar. Bikanir, Bans- wara, and Bhopal sought protection and were refused it, whilst several engagements negotiated by the authorities in Bombay were disallowed. In Bundel- khand the petty chiefs were required to renounce all claim to the British protection. Partabgarh and Jaipur were cut adrift from their alliances notwith- standing the earnest protest of Lord Lake. Almost I the whole of Rajputana, which now encloses 128,918 ; square miles of protectorate, 1 and much of Central j India, which now occupies 77,395 square miles, re- ' mained unwritten on the Treaty map. Sind was most indistinctly traced on the map by the short and vague j treaty of the 16th of November 1809. This instru- ment claims attention, inasmuch as the treaty of alliance which Captain Seton negotiated in the pre- ceding year was not ratified because it went too far in the direction of a protectorate. In Punjab and Kashmir the Sikhs were left to consolidate empire. Nepal was released from its treaty obligations. When Lord Wellesley left India, his successors used their best endeavours to revert to the policy of the ring-fence ; but events were too strong for them, and the settlements which Lord Hastings undertook were the inevitable result. Before, however, a fresh 1 The area is taken from vol. iv. chap. iii. of the Imperial Gazetteer of India. 90 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. chapter is opened, this light sketch of the first period of Indian treaties must be completed by a brief account of their form and substance, and by a passing reference to the subsidiary treaties. The forms 34. Some idea of the substance of the treaties, general concluded in the period preceding 1814, will have substance b een gathered from the account just given. The treaties of treaties negotiated by Lord Wellesley anticipated to the period. ft cer ^ am extent, both in matter and form, the engage- ments of the Governor-General, who deserves the title of the Treaty-maker, Lord Hastings. But generally the point of view from which the British regarded the Native Princes, to whom they offered alliances up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, was that of equal and independent states. The terms and the forms of negotiation were reciprocal. Keciprocity \ was not, however, expressed in the affected terms of equality which Clive employed. For instance, his treaty with Siraj ud daula, concluded on the 9th of February 1757, a week after the recapture of Calcutta was signed and sealed by the Nawab " in the presence of God and his prophet," whilst Colonel Clive on the 12th of February declared "in the presence of God and our Saviour" the adherence of the English to the articles of the treaty. With Jafar Ali Khan the declaration of the Company's agreement was made "on the Holy Gospels and before God," whilst he swore "by God and the Prophet of God." In the treaty with Kolhapur, concluded on the 12th of January 1766, for the suppression of piracies, the British agreed in return for similar concessions not to entertain in their service the subjects of Kolhapur, and to restore any fugitive slaves to it. In 1792 the Maratha version of another treaty with the same state was treated as the original, whereas in later times the in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 91 English document was referred to as authoritative, in the event of any dispute as to the meaning of the parties. When the Triple Alliance against Tipu Sultan was in 1790 reduced to writing, reciprocity was the spirit in which it was drawn. Due attention was to be paid, in the event of acquisitions, " to the wishes and convenience of the parties " ; a representative of each signatory was to reside in the army of the other, and " the representations of the contracting parties to each other shall be duly attended to." If peace was judged expedient, " it shall be made by mutual consent." Gradually both the spirit and the form of the Company's engagements changed, and before the close of the first period of their intercourse with the Native states their mutual relations stood as follows. The Company had advanced from the position of primus inter pares to an assertion of superiority. It required its allies to surrender their rights of negotia- tion with Foreign nations and with states in alliance with the Company, but it still left them with full powers of dealing with certain other states in India, which were specially named, as in the case of the Eajput and Sikh states. It recognised their right, except in Oudh and a few other cases, to maintain I such armies as they pleased, and only sought to com- pensate the balance of their military organisation by subsidiary forces placed under the Company's control. With the internal sovereignty of the states, except under special circumstances as in Kutch, the Company not only did not pretend to have, but it formally dis- avowed, any manner of concern. Its external policy was dictated by military necessity and fear of French intrigue. It therefore placed restrictions on the rights of its allies in making war. or alliances, and 92 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. imposed on them certain military obligations, and the duty of excluding from their service British subjects and the subjects of European powers at war with the English. But, as yet, the principle of sub- ordinate isolation and co-operation was not unre- servedly asserted. The Peshwa's sovereignty was impaired, but not formally resigned, and so far as it was consistent with the limitations placed upon the independence of the country princes, the forms and spirit of an international tie were still preserved. Old-fashioned methods survived in negotiations with the king of Oudh to a later date than in the case of other chiefs. In this respect the paper addressed by Lord William Bentinck, on the 31st of October 1831, to the King, the one remaining sovereign in India to whom were still accorded full diplomatic honours, stands out in marked contrast with other treaties or engagements of that date. The reiteration of the words "reciprocal" and "mutual" throughout the document is evidently designed as a set off against the tone of ascendancy in which even the king of Oudh was then addressed. It will suffice to quote a few sentences from this correspondence which recalls the flavour of the earliest treaties negotiated by the Company. " In these days of auspicious commencement and happy close, while the sound of rejoicing has gladdened the firmament, a meeting has been arranged at a fortunate moment and under favourable circumstances between the heads of the two exalted Governments, on the terms of reciprocal friendship, and in all cordiality, with reference to the relations established of old between the two states, and many interviews have been held with mutual satisfaction ; the rosebuds of our hearts on both sides having expanded." "Your Highness may derive in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 93 satisfaction from the assurance that, agreeably to the relations of friendship as settled by reciprocal engage- ments." " All the authorities will study to maintain the relations which exist as established by mutual engagements so as to display to the world the standards of the mutual good faith and cordiality between the Governments." The same note was struck seven years later in the treaty of the 26th of June 1838. " Each party shall address the other on terms of equality," was the sixth article of that tripartite agreement, which reads like a leaf taken out of the treaties of the preceding century. 35. The subsidiary forces, to which Lord Wei- Treaties lesley devoted his particular attention, mark not only the pressure of common defence, which was never forces, relaxed before the administration of Lord Hastings, but also the contrast between a policy of non-inter- vention and a policy of union. The system of subsidiary forces and that of Imperial service troops stand in marked contrast to each other, with an interval of a century between them. In each case the military policy is suited to its historical environ- ment. The first treaty which introduced the plan under which the Company engaged " to have a body of their troops ready to settle the affairs of His Highness's Government in everything that is right and proper" was the Hyderabad Treaty, dated the 12th of November 1766. At that moment His Highness was contemplating the invasion of the Carnatic. With the Carnatic, Tanjore, and Oudh somewhat similar arrangements were made. To Travancore in 1795 the Company agreed to furnish three battalions of Sepoys, besides European artil- lery and Lascars, and laid down rules as to the manner in which requisitions for their services were 94 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. to be made. Lord Wellesley succeeded in extending the system to Mysore in 1799, to Baroda in 1802, and to Poona and Gwalior in 1804. Indore, Cochin, and Kutch were included in the scheme by his successors. The troops so provided by the Company were paid for by the states for whose protection against foreign attack they were intended. But inasmuch as punctuality and good faith were not conspicuous in the acts of the Native chiefs, security for the payment of the troops was obtained by the cession to the Company of territory yielding the requisite ways and means. Engagements of this character were not popular with the states concerned, but they were characteristic of the period. The allies looked upon the troops as a menace to their inde- pendence, whilst their subjects felt the continual pressure of a force that might be used to suppress their revolt against misrule. The timely assertion of the duty of protected states to contribute according to their resources towards the cost of common defence as a condition of protection, and to keep their own forces down to a point which would disturb neither their own government nor their neighbours, would have rendered the subsidiary treaties unnecessary. But Indian society was not yet prepared for that principle. In the same way, a policy of union and of encouraging the states to maintain a small force of their own, ready to take the field in line with the Imperial troops, would have been premature in the atmosphere of mutual distrust which prevailed in the first period of British intercourse. The whole history of the Mysore wars explains why the Company was gradually forced into an attitude of mistrusting its allies. The scheme of subsidiary forces thus illustrates the essential characteristics of a period during which in THE POLICY OF THE RING-FENCE 95 wars were frequent, the ascendancy of the British only imperfectly established, and large tracts of ill- defined foreign territory lying on the other side of the Company's boundary fence left blank on the Treaty map. CHAPTER IV THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION Material 36. A period of history is now entered upon during the^reaty wn i cn the Treaty map of India was completely ma P altered, and the main features, with which the pre- and sent generation is familiar, were introduced. The British protectorate was extended by Lord Hastings, and his successors in office up to 1857, to all parts of the country lying south of the Himalayan wall, and enclosed between the spurs and chains thrown off from that mountain range and the seas that wash the shores of India. But this was not the only change. The large, indefinite blocks of Foreign territory left by Lord Minto, with no external frontiers delimited and no internal divisions fixed, were now brought under elaborate settlement ; and the multitude of principalities, which still claim separate and direct relations with the British Government, were classified and protected. No doubt can be thrown on the depth and sincerity of the convictions entertained by Lord Cornwallis, the chief advocate and director of the policy of non-intervention. But had he lived to see the outbreak of the Pindari war, or the collapse of the imposing system of rule, rather than of govern- ment, created by the genius of Eanjit Singh, he must in the end have admitted its failure. When 96 CH. iv THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION 97 Lord Cornwallis returned to India in 1805, he was given the opportunity of reviewing his theory by the light of the changes introduced by Lord Wellesley ; but at that time he was unwilling to modify his views. He objected to the chain of subsidiary alli- ances which Lord Wellesley had forged, on the ground of the responsibility they involved for defending and laboriously propping up what he called impotent or unruly princes. He found fault with the extension of British alliances as retarding the natural develop- ment of stronger organisations, and he was prepared to view with satisfaction the absorption of the smaller chiefships in large kingdoms ruled by independent sovereigns in international relations with the British Government. In this policy he miscalculated the conditions of Asiatic society, and overlooked the consideration that Empires must rest on moral foundations. He forgot that the civil wars which had disturbed the country for so long had left rulers without any sense of faith or responsibility, and the ranks of society without discipline or cohesion. If order could be restored by force, it could only be maintained by a succession of competent rulers ; whilst the development of good and progressive government required the counterpoise of a Church, nobility, or free institutions, of which, except in the Punjab, hardly any germs existed. If despotism was the only possible form of Native government, it was essential that it should be beneficent ; but the immoral influences of the Zenana, and of a Court surrounded by flattery and intrigue, were destructive of a wholesome " tone of empire," and opposed to the ddea of any duty or mission. Alternations of violence and weakness, with a continuity only in repressing the growth of social or political organisation amongst H 98 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. the people, were not calculated to realise the dream of Lord Cornwallis, that strong and friendly nations might be created beyond the territories enclosed by the Company. In 1813 Central India, with its 145 chiefs who now have engagements with the British Government, and Kajputana with its 20 sovereignties, filled an undefined vague space on the map, within which ''stronger organisations" were left to absorb and consolidate. The results we shall presently see in re- viewing the outburst of the Pindari war. The country beyond the Sutlej was already the scene of conquest and reconstruction. Multan had been attacked, although it was not taken until after 1813; Kangra and the Hill Districts had been conquered, if not then annexed to Lahore ; and most of the Sikh Misls north of the Sutlej already acknowledged the iron rule of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Before his death on the 27th of June 1839, the Sikh Empire was an established fact built up on intrigue, treachery, and severity, but held together by a strong tie of religion which was wanting in the Pindari hordes, and which in the case of the Maratha confederacy was weakened by caste. Yet the Punjab state could not survive the imbecility of Kharak Singh the Maharaja's son, the vices of his grandson Nao Nihal Singh, and the debauchery of Maharaja Sher Singh. No better field for the realisa- tion of Lord Cornwallis's dream could have been selected than the Punjab. The experiment of ; strong organisation was tried, under every conditioi of success, in a tract of country where the Company's frontier was defined by a river, and at a time wh< the house of Delhi and the Marathas were redu( to impotence, while Afghanistan was occupied wi1 its own affairs. But the policy of non-interventioi iv THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION 99 and of avoiding political settlements broke down in the north, as it did in the centre of India, with the result that the whole map of India was filled in with protected states, and the area was parcelled out into a vast number of principalities both large and small. 37. The decisive events which occupy the largest A general space in the chapter of history opened in 1814 and closed in 1856, are the Pindari war and the Sikh wars. But it is convenient, before giving an account of them, to cast a rapid glance at the general setting of events prior to the Mutiny, so far as they bear upon the subject of political intercourse with the Native states. Excluding two short interregnums, nine Governor-Generals held office in this period. Lord Hastings, who negotiated more treaties than any other ruler of India had even discussed either before or after 1813, held the reins of Government for ten eventful years, which witnessed the Nepal war, the so-called Pindari war, and the last Maratha war. He rescued from the wreck of the Peshwa's sovereignty a new principality of Satara, whilst out of the rest he 3uilt up the Presidency of Bombay, to which Sind was afterwards added. Lord Amherst, who succeeded him, carried the British protectorate across the Bay of Bengal, and by the Treaty of Yandabu, dated the 24th of February 1826, brought Avan and Burmese politics within the field of the Company's control, laintia had been protected in 1824, and by the Avan treaty Manipur was recognised as outside the sphere rf Avan politics. The Governor -General's inter- 'erence in the disputed succession at Bhartpur iccentuated a principle which was recognised in the -ase of Indore in 1844, and which was prominently ecalled to public notice after the Manipur disaster in vtarch 1891. Lord William Bentinck followed, and ioo THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. at first sight his long administration, famous for its administrative and internal reforms, seems to require attention only in connexion with his intervention to terminate gross misrule in Mysore in 1831, and with his annexation of Coorg in 1834, " in accordance with the unanimous wish of the people." But in reality his tenure of office contributes an important chapter to Indian political history. He not only abolished suttee and other barbarous practices, but he thereby added a new set of political duties, which, derived from the law of nature or the requirements of civilisa- tion, affected British relations with every Native state. From his time certain Eastern customs were officially proclaimed as intolerable, and states which claimed union with the British Government in the interior of the Empire were pressed to take the same view of them. At the outset this obligation was made the subject of special agreement, but in all cases the law of custom and usage has now engrafted on the political theory of the Indian Empire the] principle that British protection involves the abandon- ment of inhuman practices condemned by the common sense of civilised communities. Lord Auckland's intervention in Afghan affairs lies beyond the scope of a review of the relations subsisting between the British Government and the states in the interior of India ; but Lord Ellenborough, who succeeded him, annexed Sind, leaving, however, within the British province the Native state of Khairpur. He also brought to a final issue the question of Sindhia's right to maintain an army at a strength which might prove a source of danger himself and of embarrassment to his neighbor Beneath the policy of isolation the principle began be observed that each separate state was one of iv THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION 101 family, and that a common defence and a common welfare were objects deserving of attainment. Upon Lord Hardinge, who was appointed in 1844 to the post of Governor-General, devolved the conduct of the first Sikh war, which ended in the admission of the Lahore state into the Indian protectorate. But the final collapse of Kanjit Singh's fabric of empire, which had seemed so splendid a proof of the sagacity of those who had advocated a policy of in- action, was absolute ; and a measure which might have succeeded in 1809 was in 1845 rendered ineffective by the hopeless ruin of the country of the Five Rivers under its own native Government. It was too late to correct the evil without an entire change of adminis- tration. The Council of Regency was as impotent to restrain the military power of the Sikhs as the successors of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh had proved themselves to be. It fell to the lot of Lord Dalhousie to avenge the murder of two British officers at Multan, to crush the Khalsa, and annex the country. To the Provinces of Arakan and Tenasserim, acquired by Lord Amherst, he added Pegu as the fruits of the second Burmese war ; and inspired by his experience of Pun- jab administration with a firm conviction that the good of the people could only be advanced by the direct rule of the British Government, he did not hesitate to annex Satara, whose Raja died without male issue in 1848, Nagpore, where the last of the Bhonslas died under similar circumstances in 1853, and Oudh, whose rulers had failed to act up to their solemn engage- " ments and, in the words of the Governor- General, had i carried on an administration " fraught with suffering to millions." The period under review fitly closes with these i annexations, which w r ere the final legacies of a policy 102 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Lord Hastings' adminis- tration. of non-interference and of misapplied theories as to the " independence " of the Indian allies. Had the British Government interfered before 1856, as it has frequently done since the Mutiny, and punished grave misrule, as it does now, by the deposition of the incompetent ruler and the temporary attachment of his state, there would have been no necessity, in some of these instances at any rate, for punishing a breach of engagement by annexation. Other considerations than the suffering of millions might have compelled the paramount power in performing its duty of common defence to occupy territories, such as Sind, exposed to invasion. But for misrule in the interior of the Empire a less drastic remedy than escheat would have served all purposes and been less open to misconstruction. 38. This brief outline of the historical framework, in which the political engagements of the period end- ing in the Mutiny were set, will repay fuller examina- tion. In particular the administration of Lord Moira, better known as Lord Hastings, deserves attention, not merely because it extends through the ten most important years in Indian history, but because a new departure was taken by him. Opposed as he evidently was to annexation, he felt that the proper position of the states in the interior of India was one_ of isolation and subordinate co-operation ; and at the same time he realised the fact, that it was the duty of the paramount power to make a political settlement in the distracted areas of Native territory, and not to I leave India to stew in its own juice. He had no faith in the dream of Lord Cornwallis that the stronger organisations would incorporate the petty states and become good neighbours of the British ; whilst at the same time he did not, with Lord Dalhousie, hold that iv THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION 103 the good of the people required annexations. In the rest of this chapter the progress and results of his administration will be sketched. The Burmese and Afghan wars, under the policy of isolation which he established, could not affect the protected states within the frontiers of India, and their influence on the political history of British India needs no minute inquiry. On the other hand, the annexations, com- menced by Lord Bentinck and completed by Lord Dalhousie, as well as the downfall of the Sikh rule, led to the application of a new principle to the con- duct of political relations, and these events will be considered in a separate chapter. 39. The Earl of Moira had hardly assumed office The Nepal when he was called upon to settle a difficulty on Treat 7- the Northern frontier, which the pacific dispositions of his predecessors had studiously avoided. Lord Wellesley, under the pressure of reaction against the vigour of his policy, had in 1804 dissolved his alliance with Nepal, and thus escaped the alterna- tive of enforcing its terms. From that time constant violations of the frontier of the Company's ally, the Wazir of Oudh, were met with unavailing protest, until the hardy hillsmen, emboldened by impunity, and mistaking the leniency of their neighbours for timidity, annexed a British Zemindari, from which they were necessarily evicted by a British force despatched by Lord Minto. Then followed other aggressions ; but, anxious to avert hostilities, the Company agreed to the appointment of frontier Com- missioners to settle the various boundary disputes wliich during the past few years had grown into a long list. Their decision was adverse to the Nepal state, which, notwithstanding, evaded restitution. This left Lord Hastings no option but to support by 104 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. force of arms his just demands. The campaign which followed was in no sense discreditable to the Gurkhas, and it even encouraged them to prepare for a renewal of hostilities ; but it also served to convince them that their strongholds were not inaccessible to the Company's troops, and that it would be imprudent to push to extremes the forbearance of the British. The Treaty of Segowli, drawn out on the 2nd of December 1815, was accordingly, and after some hesitation, executed on the 4th of March 1816. Apart from the territorial cessions secured by it, the engagement excluded the intervention of Nepal in the affairs of Sikkim, forbade the employment or retention of British, or Foreign European, or American subjects in the service of the Gurkha Government without the consent of the Company, and provided that accredited ministers from each state should reside at the Court of the other. The treaty was one of mutual amity, and although it imposed restrictions upon the sover- eignty of the ruling prince in regard not only to his foreign policy, but also as to his employment of Europeans, it granted reciprocity in the matter of accredited ministers, and generally presented a con- trast to the engagements of subordination which Lord Hastings was soon to take from the states in the interior of India. The Nepal State, in fact, by reason of its peculiar relations to the Tibetan Government and its geographical position, stands outside the category of the dependent protected states of India. During the whole course of subsequent negotiations with it this distinction has been strictly observed, whether in the matter of jurisdictory arrangements made in 1839, and of extradition in 1855, or in the manner in which, in 1860, a portion of the lands surrendered by the Segowli Treaty was finally restored. iv THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION 105 The exceptional status of this outlying territory is emphasized by the very different provisions of the treaty with Sikkim, dated the 10th of February 1817, which naturally flowed from the arrangement with Nepal. The Kaja of Sikkim was obliged to surrender to the Company his sovereign functions of declaring war or making treaties, and to submit all his disputes to the arbitration of the Company. 40. Having settled affairs on the Northern fron- The tier of India, Lord Hastings was at last free to devote himself to the serious complications in Central India and Rajputana which threatened the Company's do- minion. Once more history was to repeat itself. Self- defence had, in 1790, compelled the British to conclude the Triple Alliance against Tipu Sultan, after a bitter experience of previous invasions of their territories, and when his attack on the Company's ally, the Raja of Travancore, indicated a fresh attempt to wrest from them dominion. The ultimate consequences of Tipu's and his father's implacable hostility to the British Company were, as we have "seen, the creation of the Madras Presidency as it still exists, and a series of alliances with Mysore, Hyderabad, the Peshwa, the Gaikwar, and other chiefs of the Maratha confederacy, drawing with them entanglements which would have ended sooner in annexation or political supremacy, if public opinion in England had not held back the Indian authorities. Self-defence was again the irresis- tible motive for action, but on this occasion public opinion did not stay the hand of the Indian authori- ties. The lesson taught by a succession of imperfect settlements and renewed conflicts in Southern India was too fresh in the public mind to be forgotten. Accordingly the consequences which flowed from the Pindari war were more decisive and far-reaching than 106 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. those that had followed the wars in the Carnatic. The Pindaris, unlike the Marathas or the Sikhs, were united by neither social nor religious ties. They were a community of human jackals, who herded together attracted by the love of plunder and murder. From all quarters appeals were made to the Company for protection. Even while the Governor- General was engaged in the Nepal war, the Pindaris had crossed the Narbada river, passed the valley of the Tapti, and returned along the Godavari laden with the spoil of defenceless villages in the Hyderabad state. In 1816 they appeared in Masulipatam, and their course was marked by the violation of women and the most brutal excesses. They inspired such terror in the minds of the people that the inhabitants of Guntur set fire to their houses and perished in the flames they had themselves kindled rather than fall into the hands of cut-throats so accomplished and desperate. From India lying outside the protectorate, from its protected allies, and from its own annexed Districts, the British Government received the most piteous appeals for help. The universal outcry com- pelled statesmen to review their policies and amend their worn-out phrases. It was soon recognised that the Pindari outbreak of savagery, dignified by th< name of a war in history, was intimately connectec with the policy of the ring-fence, and could not b( suppressed without an abandonment of the principle of non-intervention. It was the product at compound interest of the Company's repression of disordei within its border, and of its policy of unconcern be- yond its own possessions. The knot tied by Lord Cornwallis and his school must be undone before the Pindaris could be hanged as they deserved. 41. Lord Cornwallis, as has been shown, was iv THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION 107 prepared to see the smaller states absorbed by stronger The organisations. Central India and Rajputana were now destined to be the theatre of his grand experi- states.out- ment. By article viii. of the Treaty of Mustafapur, alliance! concluded with Sindhia on the 22d of November 1805, the Government of India engaged "to enter into no Treaty with the Rajas of Udaipur, Jodhpur, and Kota, or other chiefs, tributaries of Sindhia, situated in Malwa, Meywar, or Marwar," and " in no shape whatever to interfere with the settlement which Sindhia may make with those chiefs." By the Treaty with Holkar, concluded on the banks of the Beas on the 24th of December 1805, whither Lord Lake's victorious army had driven Jeswant Rao Holkar from across the Sutlej, the pacific Sir George Barlow had engaged " to have no concern with any of the Rajas situated to the south of the Chambul." Finally, the spirit of subsisting engagements with the Peshwa at Poona recognised his sovereignty ; for, in the Treaty of Bassein, dated the 31st of December 1802, the preamble referred to the "several allies and dependants " of the two Governments ; while, in article xiv., the British power half apologised, and sought confirmation, for its treaty with the Gaikwar, which " was meditated and executed without any intention that it should infringe any of the just rights or claims of His Highness Rao Pundit Purdhan Bahauder." Again, by the partition Treaty of Poona, dated the 14th of May 1804, the head of the Maratha confederacy acknowledged the sovereign title of the Honourable Company to the forts, territories, and rights of Maharaja Sindhia, which had already been "ceded by the Treaty of Sarje Anjengaon" after the crushing defeat of his forces by General Wellesley. Thus the Company had recognised the rights of its io8 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. allies to make what it was pleased to call " settle- ments," and had tied itself hand and foot by these several engagements. It had practically marked off a large tract of territory in the centre of India as lying outside its diplomatic action, and reserved as a playground for the forces of intrigue and disorder until its treaties were amended. It was, then, no matter for surprise that the soldiers of fortune, and the cut-throats and banditti of India, driven from the provinces governed by the British, or from the pro- tected states in which a civilised influence had been established, should gather round the carcass in Central India, and join the standards of Amir Khan, Chitu, or any other leader who could promise them the spoils of civil war and the plunder of districts enriched by peace. The Pindari and the last Maratha wars were thus indissolubly connected. The robber gangs who dared to raid upon the Company's territories and their allies could not be attacked without invasion of the area deliberately excluded from the protectorate. No partial settlement would avail. Order must be re- stored in the centre of India, and when established it could not be maintained without the recognition, nay more, without the creation of protected and isolated sovereignties. Gwalior and Indore were already written large on the Treaty Map of India. But Alwar, Dholpur, and Bhartpur, situated in Eastern Kajputana, in the neighbourhood of Agra, were the only Kajput states inscribed in the Treaty Book; and it was now necessary to write in the rest of the Kajput houses, and to parcel out the map of Central India. As the Emperor of Delhi's claims to confer titles had been abolished, so now the fiction of the Peshwa's authority must be summarily disposed of. IY THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION 109 The Maratha confederacy had been broken by Abdalif at Panipat, but it was about to receive a greater blc , from the diplomatic, as well as the military, power of the Merchant Princes. The Pindari disturbances were the occasion, rather than the cause, of the in- evitable revolution, which was to shatter the policy of non-intervention, and to establish British supremacy in the heart of the Empire, as it had already, under the same stress of self-defence, been consolidated in the south. 42. Negotiations were first opened with the The course Head of the confederacy at Poona. On the 13th of June 1817, His Highness the Peshwa concluded with settlement Mountstuart Elphinstone a treaty by which he con- Maratha firmed the Treaty of Bassein, undertook to deliver up P wers - Trimbukji, renounced all claims against the Gaikwar, and ceded lands in lieu of the Contingent. But the important clause for present purposes is article iv., by which he recognises " for himself, and for his heirs and successors, the dissolution in form and sub- stance of the Maratha confederacy, and renounces all connexion whatever with the other Maratha powers, whether arising from his former situation of executive head of the Maratha empire or from any other cause." The states of Kolhapur and Sawantwadi, in Bombay, and the four great Maratha states of Gwalior, Indore, Nagpore, and Baroda were thus formally detached from the confederacy. Of them the most powerful was undoubtedly the state of Sindhia, and to his capital Lord Hastings, at the head of a powerful force, turned as soon as the close of the monsoon enabled him to move. On the 5th of November 1817 Sindhia signed the Treaty of Gwalior, which was ratified within twenty-four hours in camp by the Governor- General. " Whereas the British Government and i io THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP, ir r aharaiah All Jah Dowlut Kao Sindhia Bahadoor are aliK _ , tually actuated by a desire to suppress the preda- '' "oower of the Pindarees, and to destroy and ent the revival of the predatory system in every ib of India," it was agreed that the two parties should pursue a concerted line of action. British garrisons were to be admitted into the forts of Hindia and Asirgarh, a contingent of 5000 horse was to be furnished at the Maharaja's cost, and his troops were to occupy certain fixed positions. Above all, the restrictions upon British intervention in Kajputana were withdrawn, and it was declared " that the British Government shall be at full liberty to form engage- ments with the states of Oudeypore, Jodhpore, and Kotah, and with the state of Boondee and other sub- stantive states on the left bank of the Chambul." While this treaty was being signed, another for the consolidation of the Company's territories and for military co-operation was concluded with the Kegent of Baroda. On the same eventful day the Peshwa at Poona shot his last bolt, and after a treacherous attack on the Resident, was defeated at Kirki on the 5th of November 1817. A few months later he was deposed and became a mere pensioner of the British Government. Appa Saheb, Raja of Nagpore, undeterred by this example fell on the Residency at Nagpore, and notwithstanding the immense disparity between the two forces was brilliantly defeated at the battle of Sitabaldi. On the 6th of January 1818 he was forced to sign a provisional agreement by which he was allowed to retain his throne until the pleasure of the Governor-General was known ; and meanwhile he was obliged to leave the administration to ministers in the confidence of the Resident. On the same day Holkar signed the Treaty of Mandasor after a crush- iv THE POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION in ing defeat at Mehidpur, and transferred to the British Government his supremacy over the Rajput chie r He was also obliged to recognise the engager ' T er concluded with Amir Khan, to which attention m ^ now be drawn, and to accept a position of subordinai isolation. 43. By these means Lord Hastings had for the The time isolated Sindhia, who was obliged by the an a k ave devolved on the Native states through the channel of the Koyal prerogative, is not large, but it includes the right of t,he King's Viceroy to recognise successions, to assume the guardianship of minor princes, to confer or withdraw titles, decora- tions, and salutes, to sanction the acceptance of viz THE PRICE OF UNION 197 Foreign orders, to grant passports, and to recognise or appoint consular officers. The Gaikwar, who was charged with an attempt to poison Her Majesty's re- presentative at Baroda, was indicted on a charge of " breach of the condition of loyalty under which he is recognised as ruler." It was the prerogative of the Queen -Empress to recognise His Highness, and also Her Majesty's prerogative to appoint her repre- sentative. An attack upon the Kesident would have been a breach of the obligation of loyalty. There are other duties, owed by the Native chiefs, which flow from the combination of the royal preroga- tive and Acts of Parliament, such as the obligation to extradite foreign criminals. With the sanction of Parliament, the Crown has agreed to surrender certain fugitive accused persons to Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, and other nations. The treaties have been published in the Gazettes of India, and if the accused finds shelter in a Native state, that state is held bound to surrender him to the British authorities without any express engagement on that behalf. Other obligations flow from the action of Parlia- Acts of rnent. It must not be supposed that a statute of Parliament can confer jurisdiction over or apply to foreign subjects or their rulers in respect to acts done by them beyond the limits of British dominion. Its influence, however, is none the less felt because it is indirect. It can effectively control and command British officials, as well as British subjects, even in foreign countries, and this control inevitably reacts on those with whom they have dealings. An instance of a restriction, imposed in 1797 on the Native princes by the British Legislature, is supplied by Statute 37 Geo. III. cap. cxlii. s. 28. " Whereas," so runs the Parlia- ment. IQ8 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. law, " the practice of British subjects lending money or being concerned in the lending of the same, or in transactions for the borrowing of money for, or lend- ing money to, the Native princes of India has been productive of much mischief, and is the source of much usury and extortion : and whereas the whole- some orders of the Court of Directors of the United Company of Merchants trading to India have not been sufficient to restrain and repress the same : and whereas it is highly desirable that such practices should be prevented in future," it was ordained that, from the 1st of December 1797, no British subject was to lend any money, or be concerned in raising any money for Native princes without the consent of the Court of Directors or the Governor in Council ; and any person so doing might be prosecuted for misde- meanour, whilst security for moneys so lent was rendered void. When Parliament had thus declared a practice undesirable, and had assisted the Company in suppressing it, its action within the limits of its own internal jurisdiction imposed a corresponding obligation on the princes for whose benefit British law had imposed restrictions on its own subjects and servants. The protected sovereigns of India, in whose interests a misdemeanour was created, became bound not to abet a crime even without the conclusion of any treaty or engagement with them for that purpose. Accordingly, we find the principle of this legislation extended into the dealings of political officers with Native states. The protecting power expects all ruling chiefs to report any loans which they may desire to negotiate with British subjects, or in the open market in British India. It goes a step farther and declines to allow the smaller chiefs to encumber their states beyond their own lifetime, or to make vii THE PRICE OF UNION 199 any charges upon them beyond their own life interests therein, without the sanction of Government. When in former days improvident rulers tried to defeat the benevolent intentions of the legislature by borrowing money on their own account from money-lenders, residing outside the jurisdiction of British Courts, the Directors in 1838, and again in 1856, forbade their political officers to assist in the recovery of such loans unless both creditor and debtor asked for their inter- vention a condition which went far to reduce inter- ference to arbitration and to impose caution on lenders. In 1854 they ruled that the agents of Government should not recognise any debts incurred by the predecessors of a ruling chief without his con- currence and not subsequently recognised by him. Thus the support of the Political agent to the recovery of certain loans advanced within the Native states was withheld, and when, during a minority, the state fell under British management, the settlement of claims against the revenues of the minor chief proceeded on the basis of recognising his predecessor's disability to encumber the state beyond his own life. Again, even the spirit of British legislation must exercise some influence on its protected allies. The British Parliament has repeatedly expressed its con- cern for religious toleration, and although the treaties of the states in the interior of India are silent on the point, it is expected that rulers enjoying British pro- tection will conform to leading principles which are written in large characters on the Statutes of the realm. The law of British India protects persons changing their religion from the loss of civil rights, and in the Queen's Proclamation of 1858 the royal will was expressed " that none be in anywise favoured, none molested or disquieted by reason of their religious 200 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. faith or observances." If then the courts of a Native state deprive a Hindu of his rights over his infant children, or refuse him justice in a civil suit, on the ground of his change of faith, the protecting power is bound to interfere on behalf of its own subjects resident in that state, and is justified in protesting against the application to the rest of the inhabitants of a system of intolerance publicly condemned by the Suzerain. The law of It may appear fanciful to give prominence to a natural , f J f . ..* , justice. law ot nature as a source of obligation devolving on the Native states from the incident of their subor- dinate union with the British Government. But although at one time the Company appealed to a law of religion, and argued with the states from their own scriptures, they preferred at a later date to condemn certain practices as " opposed to principles of natural justice and humanity." The appeal to religion is open to retort, and an authorised version of the Hindu scriptures has never yet been published by authority. Moreover, experience has proved that in such matters the paramount power must take the re- sponsibility of declaring the duty to humanity and simply enforcing it. Accordingly, the elaborate argu- ment used on the 25th of February 1812 to the Jam of Nawanagar has not been repeated. "From the com- mencement it was a custom in our Jhareji caste not to preserve the lives of daughters. On this both Governments, after expounding the Shaster on this subject, and pointing out to us the way of the Hindu religion, stated that it is written in th * Brumhu Vywurtuk Pooran,' that whoever commi this act his sin is great, equal to killing an infant the womb, and killing a Brahmin, so that killing a child is equal to killing 100 Brahmins." " The punishment written for this sin is that the person who L1\S he t vii THE PRICE OF UNION 201 commits it will remain in a particular place in Hell for as many years as there are hairs on the person of the said woman, after which, when he is born again, he would become leprous and be subject to paralytic strokes." The painful enumeration of these horrors and punishments after death did not stop infanticide, and the contrast between policies in the first and in the third period of Indian treaties is marked by the simple proclamation issued to his Zanzibar subjects on the 16th of December 1872 by the late ruler of Kutch: " It has come to our knowledge that you carry on at Zanzibar the trade of buying and selling in slaves. This is a most horrible thing, and by the desire of the Honourable Government to put a stop to this prac- tice we have before this time issued proclamations." Accordingly, acting upon this "desire," the Eao of Kutch announced his intention to confiscate the possessions of his subjects if they persisted in the trade. It is unnecessary here to multiply instances of obligations imposed on Native states for the suppres- sion of inhuman practices, such as " cutting off ears and noses," "extracting eyes," "mutilating," "im- palement," besides suttee, infanticide, and slavery. In a few cases the particular duty has been expressed in engagements, but in general the obligation exists by reason of the British connexion, and these horrible practices have been punished, when inflicted by ruling chiefs, as " contrary to the principles of justice and humanity," without any reference either to their own religious works or to their treaties. Direct agreement naturally constitutes the most Direct important source of obligations, although it does not supply the full volume of them. Even if the whole body of Indian treaties, engagements, and sanads with all the Native states were carefully compiled, 202 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. with a view to extracting from them a complete catalogue of the obligations or duties that might be held to be common to all, the list would be im- perfect. With some of the larger states, whose con- nexion commenced at the beginning of last century, and has since then passed through a succession of his- torical incidents and changes, the body of obligations j expressed in writing is large, but even here it is not i wholly complete, as a summary of British engage- ments with the Gwalior state would show. The f Maharajas Sindhia have at various times bound jl themselves and their successors as follows : First, to jj be loyal to the Crown ; secondly, to surrender all their jj rights of negotiation to the British Government, to i have the same friends and foes, and to leave it to i; that Government to protect Gwalior from foreign invasion and serious internal disturbances ; thirdly, to ! render certain specified aid to the Imperial army, and [ to limit the strength of their own army ; fourthly, to | employ no Europeans or Americans, and no British subjects without consent ; fifthly, to admit the respon- sibility of the paramount power for the administration of Gwalior during a minority, and its prerogative of re- cognising successors to the rulership; sixthly, to protect the Imperial mails and assist in the construction and maintenance of Imperial communication ; seventhly, to respect the settlements mediated with other chiefs and petty chieftains ; and lastly, to suppress preda- tory associations or bodies of plunderers. In addition to these obligations set forth in solemn engagements \\ it must also be remembered that so far back as 18< a perpetual friendship was agreed upon, and in 18< the mutual interests of the two parties were declai to be inseparable. On the other hand, notwith- standing these vague allusions to a common welfare, vii THE PRICE OF UNION 203 the British Government has in its treaties declared that it will not interfere in the administration of the Maharaja ; and yet it is certain that the state of Gwalior is not exempt from the duties for breach of which the Gaikwar was tried by a public Commission on which Sindhia himself sat. Again, attention may be called to another set of agreements with a ruler not inferior to the Maharaja of Gwalior. The Nizam of Hyderabad has agreed to surrender deserters from the British army, to grant extradition of certain criminals, to recognise British jurisdiction over Europeans, and to perform various neighbourly offices which one country has a right to expect from another whose frontier marches with it. Sindhia would not, by reason of the silence of his own treaties on this point, dispute the right of the British Government to expect from him similar concessions, any more than he would refuse to co-operate in putting down suttee, slavery, and female infanticide, merely because he has not, in the same way as the Kaja of Patiala, undertaken formally to do so. The late Sindhia was never backward in recognising the full measure of co-operation implied in the general terms of the treaties of " perpetual union " accepted by his soldierly ancestors. But the student of Indian history must search elsewhere than in these documents for an assertion of many of the services which the Gwalior state renders to the union as the price of the protec- tion and partnership which it has received. This proposition applies with still more force to weaker states than Gwalior, since in their case written engagements have been reduced to the smallest dimensions, and long-established custom, rather than ; treaty, expresses their rights and duties. Usage, the fifth source of obligations, performs a usage. 204 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. I double function. It amends and adapts to circum- stances duties that are embodied in treaties of ancient ! date, and it supplies numerous omissions from the cate- gory of duties so recorded. The British Government occupies two distinct positions towards its protected! allies. For them it arbitrates and settles differences^ or disputes with their neighbours as an impartial and J disinterested judge. But it also has interests of its own to protect ; and the contiguity of its own terri- tories, which was referred to in the first chapter of this work, compels it in the performance of its duty to its own subjects to insist, if necessary, upon thetf neighbourly assistance of the friendly sovereignty on its border. To some extent arrangements are intro- duced by the action of the local officers which after standing the test of time and experience harden into customary law. By such means convenient practices -I for extradition or for the pursuit of criminals have! gradually become consolidated into rules ; and when- 1 ever a fresh law has been introduced into British 1 India which required co-operative action by a state embedded in British territory, some addition has necessarily been made to the rules of conduct which have regulated the relations of that state with the British Government. If, for instance, ferries ply across a river between a British village on one side and a Native state's village on the other, the laws o1 British India for the collection of tolls and thf security of the public against accidents would become inoperative without the adoption of co-operativr measures by the Native state in respect of the landing- place and the part of the river that lies within itr jurisdiction. There is not a railway line in India : nor an Imperial artery of communication by road which is not cut into sections by the necessity fo:i vii THE PRICE OF UNION 205 traversing pieces, or whole states, of foreign territory. The maintenance and protection of such roads, the proper distribution of stations or toll bars, the exercise of jurisdiction where offences are committed on journeys, and the provision of resting-places for travellers and beasts of burden, require a full under- standing between the local officers and subordinates of the British Government and those of the states concerned. Combined measures of this character do not, in many cases, rest on written agreement bearing the authority of the supreme Government, but upon arrangements concluded by the officers on the spot, which, from long usage and the acquiescence of both Governments in them, acquire the force of compact. In short, usage is the most considerable of the five affluents to the volume of rights and duties which have been considered. 76. When the main source of duties is of such Duties incalculable value, it may perhaps seem to be an ^i e l e r s impracticable and useless task to endeavour to supply evidence, any answer to the question What does the Union cost to the paramount power and to the states ? If the account must always be kept open, if the treaties are full of indefinite liabilities and reservations, and finally, if so many streams of obligation on both sides are ever pouring into the reservoir, it may be argued that the union of subordinate states with a powerful Suzerain presents nothing but danger to the states and temptation to the British Government. To this view, however, must be opposed the fact that several hundreds of states retain so large a degree of sovereignty, and that the British power is pledged to their preservation. The line drawn in practice between what a state may grant or refuse as a matter of comity or agreement, and what it is its 206 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP, j duty to accord, is very distinct. If the Government of India claims an obligation, or exercises a right, it J seems clear from the testimony of Blue-Books which | bear on the subject that it takes pains to prove its case. The evidence on which matters of right, as distinguished from matters of comity, rest, are the treaties and engagements of the states, well-estab- j lished usage, and the legitimate inferences which I have been drawn in leading cases, and may yet be- drawn from the actual relations which exist between ;i the parties. The affairs of the Native states are either foreign or domestic, or again they are either* of imperial or of local concern. A fairly accurate view of the relations subsisting between the country sovereigns and the paramount power can be obtained by the study of documentary evidence and proof of usage. Parliament has declared, in Statute 21 and; 22 Vic. cap. cvi., that " all Treaties made by the said* Company shall be binding on Her Majesty." In the application of these written documents to actual: circumstances, the principle of "extensive application" may properly be applied. As the author of the*!! Pandects has observed : " Neque leges neque Senatus Consult a it a scribi possunt ut omnes casus, qui ; quandoque inciderint, comprehendantur : et ideo de- his, quae primo constituuntur, interpretatione (aut consuetudine principis) certius statuendum est." But the most extensive interpretation of Indian treaties and compacts, with the accretions to them of the decisions passed in leading cases, and with the output of usage, still gives to the Native states a marked advantage in comparison with the price which great nations have paid for similar advantages. This result must mitigate the apprehensions to which the con- siderations set forth in this chapter might otherwise . vii THE PRICE OF UNION 207 give rise. Notwithstanding the danger of adding new rights and duties which are not recorded in Indian treaties, and of modifying the interpretation of such documents by overt acts or an uniform course of usage, the fact remains that the price of British protection, even if it cannot be reduced to a final statement of account, is exceedingly moderate, whether viewed in relation to its benefits or to the analogous circumstances of other countries. 77. In presenting a general view of the rights The profit and obligations which emerge from the relations of the states to the British Government, one must take into account the four positions in which the paramount power is placed. It has undertaken the responsibility for imperial defence. It has become the sole medium of communication and arbitration between the states and foreign powers, and between one state and an- other. Whilst affirming its desire to perpetuate the native sovereignties, it has asserted a right to the exercise of jurisdiction, to a greater or less extent, in the interior of every Native state. Lastly, it is charged with the duty of preserving the general tranquillity of the Empire, and must take action where the public peace is threatened. There are t states which by special agreement have parted with some of their sovereign rights even in matters con- cerning their internal administration, but from this view of the general obligations and duties of the Indian sovereigns exceptional conditions, resting as 1 they do on unimpeachable evidence of agreement or fact, may be excluded. Before the general disabilities or obligations of the states are further examined, a brief sketch of their . rights may be given, and the profit side of the ' account will be found instructive. To all the united ; 208 THE NATIVE 'STATES OF INDIA CHAP. states, no matter whether they be classed as allied, tributary, or protected, protection is guaranteed. Histories of India pass over with little comment the full significance of the benefit to India of protection by sea. Indian treaties, however, supply the omission. At no period of its Native history was India, with its long seaboard and its wealth of navigable rivers, able to provide for its own defence. It has been shown that the first connexion of the Company with Kolhapur in 1766 resulted from an expedition against that country for the suppression of piracy. Earlier still was the conclusion of an offensive and defensive alliance with Sawantwadi, in 1730, against the piratical chief of Kolaba. The Mughal emperors could only pretend to secure the peace of the seas by giving territories on the shore to the Abyssinian settlers in Janjira, who were made admirals of the Muhammadan fleet. The Marathas failed utterly to keep down piracy. The rivers of India were infested with boats from which a perpetual warfare was maintained on the river-borne traffic, and blackmail was levied on the villages that could be reached from the banks. If a wider view is taken of the defence of India, the navies of European powers were constantly found engaged in warfare with the Company's vessels, until at last they were chased from the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal. Before the establishment of the British power the mastery of their own seas never rested with the native rulers of India. The Company not only cleared the Indian seas of pirates at their own cost, but they also extended their pro- tection of Indian shipping by the acquisition of Ceylon and more distant islands, and by a whole network of engagements with the maritime states on the coasts of Arabia, Persia, and even Africa. MI THE PRICE OF UNION 209 The defence afforded to India against her territorial neighbours fills even a larger space in histories of India. The massacre at Delhi and Meerut, when in 1398, the streets were made impassable owing to the heaps of the slain, afforded proof of the incapacity of King Mahmud to withstand the invasion of Tamer- lane. Again in 1739 the Persian invader, Nadir Shah, repeated the massacre, and carried off plunder estimated at thirty-two millions of pounds sterling. On the North-western and the North-eastern frontier of the Empire not so much as an attempt to keep the peace of the border districts was made. When the Sikhs were consolidating their power, some sort of protection was afforded by sterner methods which only tended to demoralise the country. Thus the Chief of Chamkanni held a grant of land subject to the condition that he should annually produce a specified number of Afridi heads. Kaja Ghulab Singh protected his frontier by letting slip his Dogra troops upon the Murree hill villages, and paying sixpence a head for each hill man who was killed. The civilised but more expensive method pursued by the British, who with their military outposts also placed dispensaries for the treatment of the savage frontier people, and offered them lands and canal water for cultivation, was unknown in the eighteenth century. With the establishment of peace and order, both on the seas and on the frontiers of India, the benefits conferred on the protected states are by no means exhausted. The subjects and rulers of the states share in the advantages, but not in the cost, of the expensive harbours and docks with which India is equipped. The system of railroads, and to some extent that of canals and tramways, supplies their wants. The colleges and schools of British India p 210 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. educate their subjects and train their public servants ; and enactments, like Act XIV., 1869, which reserved certain patronage for subjects of the Queen, have been repealed in the more liberal spirit of the present age. To these considerable benefits which the states derive from union with the British Government must be added the moral support which their rulers derive from the experience brought home to their subjects that British troops are ready to maintain and restore order, if necessary, in the protected principalities. Yet no equivalent contribution is made to the revenues of India for such material advantages. For the tribute which appears in the accounts of India is, in many cases, a set-off against claims relinquished by the Company without reference to any duties of protection. Thus, by the Treaty of Poona in 1817, the Company acquired the Peshwa's right to the tribute of Kathiawar, and by the Treaty of Bassein they acquired " his rights to Chowth " from Cambay and other states. These were tributary payments, which simply represented the Maratha share in the territories which paid them. In one notable instance the policy of the British in regard to tribute has been clearly indicated. The state of Bariya, in the Eewa Kanta Agency of Bombay, was at an early date, in = 1803, brought under the protectorate. In 1824 a tribute of 12,000 rupees was imposed upon it by agreement, expressly in return for protection. The tribute might have been raised under that arrange- ment after six years, but policies changed, and by an agreement dated the 12th of September 1892 the tribute was left with the Kaja for expenditure upon public works on the condition that he abandoned transit duties. In other cases, payments are made for specific services rendered, as by the state of MI THE PRICE OF UNION 211 Kutch, which contributes towards the cost of a British regiment stationed at Bhuj. But even that obligation was associated with liberality ; for so long as the Rao contributes to the British force which upholds his authority, he is excused from an annual payment of 88,000 Ahmedabad Sicca rupees which he owes for the town and district of Anjar, ceded to his ancestors in 1822. To sum up, it may be said that the native states of India receive protection against foreign foes and aggressions, the right to enjoy any commercial or political benefits secured by the diplomatic action of the British Government, and a share in the commerce, railways, and other resources of British India without any equivalent charge. 78. What, then, is the return which they make The loss ! for these substantial benefits ? They are bound to be loyal to the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland. They have given to the protecting power a blank cheque against their resources in the event of serious necessity, whilst in ordinary times some have under- taken to pay for troops, and all have accepted the obligations of assisting the imperial army in such a manner as will be described at greater length in the next chapter. They have parted with their rights of negotiation and communication with each other, and in all interstatal disputes or agreements they must submit to the settlement which the paramount power dictates. They have agreed not to employ Europeans 1 without the consent of the British Government, and 1 have parted with their jurisdiction over them. In matters of imperial and vital concern, they accept the duty of subordinate co-operation, provided that their ; internal sovereignty is not under ordinary circum- '-. stances invaded, except where the British Government 212 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP, has acquired by special engagement, or usage, a control over their internal administration. This reservation is all-important, and the position may be put in another way. The right of extraordinary intervention by the paramount power in the internal affairs of the country princes is indefinite, although well understood. But except in cases where a chiefs sovereign rights have been specially ceded or lost by him, the British Government requires co-operation as a matter of duty only on grounds of general policy, where the serious interests of the whole Empire, or the public safety, are at stake. Beyond that, it generally asserts no claim or obligation on the part of the state to conform to its own view of general welfare, although it may use its influence to secure a willing co-operation. Contrast 79. It is here that the heavier obligations of the betwa United States of America offer their main contrast American ^ fa e position established in India. In matters of . states. common defence and rights of negotiation the free j states of America have felt the advantage of corporate J action, and resigned their sovereign authority in favour of the Federal Government. They have even I done more, for they have armed the central Govern- ment with powers of taxation and with a federal court and executive. But the declared objects of their union go still farther. They extend to matters of common welfare, and they require the surrender by the several states of very extensive powers, which in India still belong to the sovereignties of the allied princes. For instance, the supreme Government in America has not merely control over all measures that concern peace and war, and foreign relations, or com- merce among the several states ; it also regulates the fiscal systems of the states themselves. The Consti- tution provides that no tax or duty shall be laid on vii THE PRICE OF UNION 213 articles exported from any state, nor preference given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another ; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. Again, no state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspec- tion laws. In India such an assertion of control would, it seems to me, not be justified by existing compacts without the free consent of the states. This view is supported by the fact that when the Indian Government entered into arrangements with the Portuguese in respect to their Indian possessions at Goa, Damaun, and Diu, the participation of the Native states on the Portuguese frontiers in these measures was expressly made to depend on their communication of a wish to become parties to the commercial treaty. The protection of the imperial mails, and the reservation of some control over the railway and telegraph systems, are measures which concern imperial defence almost as much as the common welfare. Accordingly, the British Govern- ment, like the Federal authority, imposes obligations on the protected states in that respect ; but it does not reserve to itself, as the American Con- stitution reserves to Congress, the exclusive right to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and to fix the standard of weights and measures. An occasion may be conceived when the regulation of the currency throughout the Empire might become a vital and imperial concern ; but the British Govern- ment has not yet asserted an obligation on the part of the states generally to accept a single currency or uniform standard of value. In the same way, the i 214 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. subject of copyright and patents, notwithstanding the important interests concerned, has not been treated in India as one for intervention in the internal affairs of the country princes. Even the postal system is only partially accounted a matter of imperial con- cern, while the judicial proceedings of each state are not accorded the public faith and credit which they acquire under the Constitution of America. For the latter purpose it would be necessary to invest a central legislative authority with the power, which is possessed by Congress, of prescribing by general laws the manner in which public acts, records, and proceedings should be proved, and the effect thereof. The explanation of these differences lies in the distinction between the objects which the United States of America and the British Government in India have in view. " To establish justice and promote the general welfare " was as much the intention of the western states as "to provide for the common defence." The Company in India, on the other hand, repeatedly assured their allies that they would not interfere in their right to govern as they pleased. It is true that the phrase was not always couched in the uncompromising terms of article x. of the Treaty of Mandasor with Holkar, which ran thus : " The British Government hereby declares that it has no manner of concern with any of the Maharaja's children, relations, dependants, subjects, or servants, with respect to whom the Maharaja is absolute." But non-intervention was in very many cases promised in one way or another, and the promise was kept till it led to annexation in some instances, and to the silent but effective qualification of the clause generally in every instance. The exact extent of the qualification will be seen vii THE PRICE OF UNION 215 hereafter, but it is still the practice, and indeed the duty, of the British Government to confine its inter- ference in the internal administration within the narrowest limits. The former pledges have never been withdrawn ; they have indeed been strengthened in the spirit, if not in the letter And since my oath was ta'en for public use, I broke the letter of it, to keep the sense. Of the guarantees given by the Company in the first period of their intercourse against intervention, it may truly be said The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 80. Objection may be taken to the use of the Categories words obligations and duties. It may be argued that tions. lg these services which the states must render are imperfect obligations resting on no sanction. There is, it is true, no supreme court or federal executive to enforce obedience. On the other hand, the power of the British Government is unquestioned, and it is necessary to draw the line between services which by treaty, usage, or the necessary conditions of protection, the protected states of India have agreed to pay and those which they can render or withhold according to their pleasure. The position of the British Govern- ment is not primus inter pares, but paramount, and it has never lacked the force to maintain its rights and compel obedience. It has never shirked its own duties which correspond with the rights of the states. Its duty is not only to protect, but to give strength and vitality to the Native sovereignties, allowing them full scope to develop their own systems of adminis- tration. It must rely to a large extent on the argu- ment that not merely the interests of British territory but the solid interests of each protected sovereign are 216 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. VII bound up in the common good of the United Empire. But there are duties which it has the right to enforce, and those duties may be considered under five heads : obligations for the common defence, obligations in regard to external relations, obligations affecting internal administration, the duties of loyalty to the Crown, and certain jurisdictional engagements. Each of these limitations on the sovereignty of the Native states will be considered in the following chapters. CHAPTEK VIII OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 81. THE duty of a sovereign to put forth the full The exact energies of his state for the defence of his subjects against aggression or conquest is not weakened by the not yet fact that he has entered into combination with other states for the common defence. There is nothing unfair in holding that, in the event of war, all the states of India are under an obligation to " furnish troops according to their means at the requisition of the British Government," as the treaties negotiated by Lord Hastings expressed it, and at all times to render such assistance to the Imperial army as may be necessary. Equal states that have entered into similar unions have agreed to even more than this. They have usually undertaken to limit their own armaments in time of peace, and to contribute to the cost of the measures of defence or offence taken by the central authority. The sixth of the Articles of Confederation between the States of America declares that, " No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defence of such state or its trade ; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state in time of peace, except such number only as in the 217 218 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. judgment of the United States in Congress assembled shall be deemed necessary to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state ; but every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp-equipage." Kegulations are made regarding the appointment of officers to raise land forces when required. The subject of contribution to charges of war is thus dealt with : " All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state/' Again, under the Constitution of the 29th of May 1874, article xviii., every Swiss is liable for the defence of his country. The Confedera- tion enacts all laws affecting the organisation of the army, and watches over their execution in time of peace. It not only controls the " corps de troupes des Cantons et tous les Suisses astreints au service militaire," but in the event of danger it has the right " de disposer exclusivement et directement des hommes non incorpores de toutes les autres ressources militaires des Cantons." The brief review which has been given of gradual growth of the British protectorate in Indi suggests the reasons why the precise liability of eac state for its share of military defence has never b worked out in similar detail. In the first period intercourse the triple alliance against Tipu Sultan afforded many instances of the difficulties of combined vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 219 action, although the combination included only two allies of the Company. Nothing could prevent the Marathas from either holding back their forces, or else employing them for their own objects. The alliance united for "a common purpose" two inveterate foes, whose purposes were not the same and whose fighting forces, divided by race, religion, and prejudice, could not heartily work together. If the progress of the union has largely tended to soften racial jealousies and religious antipathies, it has still left one source of ineradicable difference between the several states. The population of Baroda, for instance, is essentially un war like, whilst that of a Sikh or a Kajput state supplies serviceable recruits. A common military organisation between communities so variously con- stituted must always be difficult of attainment. In the next period of intercourse the Company had nothing to fear from a French invasion : and since it was engaged in the work of political settlement and general disarmament, its desire was to reduce the military forces of the state rather than to undertake the task of organising a general scheme of defence, The violence of Sindhia's idle troops at Maharajpur in 1843, the inability of Kanjit Singh's successors to prevent the Sikh Khalsa from invading British India, and finally the collapse of the system of contingents, led to the conclusion that the problem of military co-operation had better be left alone until India had quieted down. Under these circumstances the para- mount power has hitherto been content with its indefmitive claim upon the resources of the states in case of emergency, instead of assessing the precise share which each of them must contribute, whether in arms or money, for the defence of the Empire. 82. There are, however, various obligations, due 220 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Origin and by the states in times of peace as well as of war, which of tiTe^^ nave Deen clearly defined by agreement or usage. Be- subsidiary fore they are discussed, it is necessary to explain one main- apparent inequality in the burden of defences laid tamed by U p 0n the allies. Irrespective of the common obliga- states. tion that devolves upon all, there are some states which at various periods have undertaken to maintain subsidiary forces, contingents, local forces, or Imperial service troops, more or less available for Imperial de- fence. An examination of the origin of these various contributions tends, however, to mitigate any sense of unfairness in the treatment of the princes who supply them. In some cases these charges represent a return for special services rendered by the British to the states, and in other cases they are due to a generous and spontaneous impulse of particular rulers, who have desired to testify to their loyal attachment to the union by keeping a military force ready for its defence. The circumstances under which the sover- eigns of Oudh, and Nagpore, and the Maratha govern- ment at Poona undertook to support subsidiary forces have been shown in the sketch of history given in the third chapter ; and, since the states have lapsed or been annexed, the arrangements are no longer of practical interest. Of the eight existing states which entered into subsidiary treaties, two were offered, after violating their engagements and suffering crushing defeats, the penalties of war in the shape of an assignment of territory for the support of subsidiary forces ; two received from their British ally territories which were charged with the cost of similar forces; two more obtained military assistance that saved them from ruin at the modest cost of an annual payment in future ; whilst in the two remaining principalities the present ruling house was established vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 221 in power by British arms, and has been maintained there by the presence of British troops. The origin of the subsidiary forces in the first two of these states in Central India will be gathered from the following account. It was shown in the third chapter that the Treaty of Bassein negotiated with the Peshwa in 1802 was bitterly resented by Sindhia, who promptly joined the Eaja of Nagpore in an attempt to defeat its object. The victories gained by Sir Arthur Wellesley, "that Sepoy General" as Napoleon contemptuously called him, over the Marathas at Assaye, Argaon, and Ahmednagar in the second Maratha war, compelled Sindhia to sue for peace, and to cede certain territories to the Company, which he did by the treaty of Sarje Anjengaon, signed on the 30th of December 1803 by Wellesley. Its 15th article contained a clause whereby, on condition that Sindhia agreed to a general defensive alliance, the Company undertook to supply six battalions of infantry, together with the necessary artillery and stores, to the Maharaja, defraying the cost from the territories just acquired by conquest. In the fol- lowing year, it was agreed that " the subsidiary force will, at all times, be ready on the requisition of the Maharaja to execute services of importance, such as the care of the person of the Maharaja, his heirs and successors, the protection of the country from attack and invasion, the overawing and chastisement of rebels or exciters of disturbance in the Maharaja's dominion ; but it is not to be employed on trifling occasions." By another article, the force was fixed at a strength of not less than six thousand regular in- fantry, with the usual proportion of artillery, to be stationed near the frontier of His Highness. Sindhia, however, never availed himself of the force, but he 222 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. preferred that the British should keep the district acquired by conquest without maintaining an army under their own command on his frontier. When the Pindari war compelled the Company to make further arrangements, the Maharaja undertook, in 1817, to furnish a contingent of 5000 horse from his own troops to act in concert with the British force. These he engaged to have regularly paid and properly equipped, and allowed the British authorities to inter- cept certain payments and tributes which they held in trust for him. Subsequently, territories were ceded in lieu of the cash assignments, and in 1844 the strength of the contingent was raised. But after the mutiny of the contingent, fresh territorial changes were made and additional lands conferred on the Maharaja, whereon the British Government engaged, on the 12th of December 1860, "to keep in the place of the late contingent force a subsidiary force con- stantly stationed within His Highness the Maharaja's territories, the whole expense of which shall not be less than 16 lakhs of Company's rupees per annum." The subsidiary arrangement with Holkar grew u under almost similar circumstances. After the def< of the Indore troops at Mehidpur, the Treaty Mandasor, dated the 6th of January 1818, was co eluded by Lord Hastings. Mulhar Rao ceded part his territories acquired by conquest ; and "in consider, tion of the cessions," the British Government boun itself " to support a field force to maintain the intern tranquillity of the territories of Mulhar Rao Hoik and to defend them from foreign enemies ; this fo shall be of such strength as shall be judged adequa to the object." The force became merged in the United Malwa contingent which mutinied in 1857. Holkar's contribution was capitalised, and the duties vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 223 of the force as defined in the Treaty of Mandasor are now undertaken by the Imperial army. In the case of the next two states, Hyderabad and Mysore, the cost of the subsidiary forces was met not from territories belonging to those states, over which the British had acquired, as in the case of Indore, rights of conquest, but from territories taken by the Company from their enemies and conferred upon their allies. The Nizam had originally acquired from the Company the right to a small subsidiary force in 1766, as part of the price of his cession of the Sarkars. But after various changes the two battalions grew to four and six, and finally the force was fixed at a strength of eight thousand infantry and one thousand cavalry (the maximum still retained in the Treaty of 1853), for the payment of which, in 1800, His High- ness ceded territories conferred on him under the Treaty of Seringapatam, which closed the third Mysore war in 1792, and under that of Mysore which, in 1799, followed the conclusion of the fourth war and the defeat and death of Tipu Sultan. This last treaty imposed on the revived Hindu principality of Mysore specific duties of defence, including the receipt of a military force " for the defence and security of His Highness's dominions," for which an annual cash payment of seven lakhs of star pagodas was to be made. Cochin and Travancore became liable for subsidies as the price of military aid which they received from the Company. The state of Cochin was conquered by Haidar Ali, but at the close of the third Mysore war the tributary connexion of Cochin with Tipu Sultan was transferred to the Company. Within a few years the Company was compelled to send a force to restore order, and the Raja undertook to pay the cost of 224 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. subsidiary troops, a charge which was afterwards fixed at two lakhs of rupees. Travancore was also extricated from the clutches of the Sultan of Mysore, and, in 1795, the Eaja engaged to pay a sum equi- valent to the cost of three battalions of Sepoys, together with a company of European artillery and two companies of Lascars. The conditions on which the troops were to be requisitioned and furnished were carefully detailed. In 1805 the force was increased, and finally the annual subsidy due by Travancore on this account was fixed at eight lakhs of rupees. In Baroda and Kutch the necessity for the presence of a subsidiary force was not caused by foreign foes but by dynastic troubles, and internal disturbances which the Native princes could not quell without British help. Anand Rao Gaikwar, the weak-minded son of Govind Rao, was unable to main- tain his lawful rights against his half-brother Kanoji, who after his usurpation and deposition still kept up a vigorous struggle for the succession to Baroda. In these circumstances the Maharaja's minister, Raoji Apaji, undertook to subsidise a British force, and ceded territories for the purpose. In 1805, and again in 1817, additions were made to the force, and on the latter occasion His Highness agreed " in case of war to bring forward the whole of his resources for th( prosecution of the war," and to maintain an effectr contingent of 3000 horse at his own cost to act wi1 the subsidiary force when needed. Anand Rao thi secured his position by his alliance with the Britis] and on his death in 1819 he was succeeded by brother, who reigned until 1847. The usurper Kanoji was deported by the Company to Madras. In Kutch also the Company furnished a subsidiary force in 1819, viii OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 225 K^ " at the desire of Rao Shri Desal and the Jareja Bhayad," in order to uphold the authority of the infant Rao, who was elected by the Jareja nobility as their sovereign after the deposition of Rao Bharmalji. The Kutch state was treated most generously in the matter, and its annual contribution towards the cost of the troops was reduced eventually to something less than two lakhs of rupees (British currency). The Company reserved to themselves power to withdraw or reduce the force, " when the efficiency and strength of the Rao's authority may admit of its being done with safety " ; but so long as the British regiment remains at Bhuj and the full subsidy is paid, an annual payment due from the Kutch state of 88,000 Ahmedabad Sicca rupees, on account of the district and fort of Anjar, is remitted. 83. The subsidiary forces, which are still main- obstacles tained under the treaties referred to, represent there- tomilitar y * co-opera- fore special services rendered by the Imperial army tion. to particular states more or less at their cost. The troops detailed for duty in the principalities concerned are a detachment of the Imperial army, which is stationed in a suitable position for the protection of those states or of their ruling families. The latest definition of their use is contained in the treaty of the 21st of May 1853 with the Nizam, which recited the important fact that " in the lapse of time many changes in the condition of princes and neighbouring states have taken place," and describes the subsidiary force as " for general defence and protection," adding that " it shall be employed when required to execute services of importance, such as protecting the person of His Highness, his heirs and successors, and reduc- ; ing to obedience all rebels and exciters of disturb- ance in His Highness's dominions ; but it is not to be Q 226 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. employed on trifling occasions, or like Sebundee to be stationed in the country to collect revenue." It is of course available for important service in any part of the Empire, as is every other subsidiary force, since the defence of the whole Empire involves the defence of each member of the union. The Company's treaties for subsidiary forces reflected another idea, namely, mistrust, if not of the fidelity, at least of the efficiency of the armies of the Native states. The experience of the British in the first Mysore war, when their ally the Nawab of the Carnatic was an encumbrance rather than a help, and, in fact, in all the wars which occurred while the sub- sidiary treaties were being negotiated, told uniformly in one direction against the value of the Native state forces. The growth of this conviction is illustrated by many clauses in Indian treaties, of which the engagement with Oudh, concluded at Lucknow on the 10th of November 1801, furnishes a good example. An invasion of Northern India by Zamaun Shah seemed imminent, and the Company had undertaken to augment the force placed at the service of Oudh if the necessity arose. Accordingly, as a condition precedent to this increase, it was stipulated "that His Excellency, retaining in his pay four battalions of infantry, one battalion of Nujeebs and Muwattees, two thousand horsemen, and to the number of three hundred Golundauz, shall dismiss the remainder of his troops, excepting such numbers of armed persons as shall be necessary for the purpose of the collections, and a few horsemen and Nujeebs to attend the persons of the aumils." In every part of India Southern, Western, and Eastern the danger of an armed undis- ciplined rabble had made itself felt. Useless in the field, as was shown by the British successes at Plassey vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 227 and Kirki, purchased in the former case at a loss of 36 killed and 36 wounded, and in the latter of 86 killed and wounded, the overgrown military establish- ments had in Baroda, Palanpur and elsewhere, pro- duced chronic disorder in the internal administration. In weighing the reasons which induced the Company to prefer subsidiary to auxiliary or contingent forces, these proofs of the practical worthlessness of most of the Native state armies are the first factor of importance which must strike the student of Indian treaties. Other considerations must not be overlooked. In matters of combined defence, the attainment of success depends not merely on the delegation of control and direction to the central power, but also on cordial co-operation and a perfected harmony of system. Whilst the memory of repeated conflicts and race antagonism between Marathas and Eajputs, or Hindus and Muhammadans was still fresh in the minds of these classes, the cordial and effective co-operation of ven the parties to the Triple alliance against Tipu Sultan in 1790 could not be secured. To have at- tempted on a larger scale the union of only one dozen of the leading states for their common defence would then have been a hopeless task. Even if the elements of mutual mistrust and antagonism had been removed, a further obstacle would have remained in the tradi- tions of Indian warfare, which were unsuited to the conditions under which a civilised power waged war. The sovereigns of India took pride in the number of their irregular horsemen, and their troops were jealous of British guidance. The strong will of Sindhia or of Ranjit Singh compelled their armies to submit to European generals, but under their weaker successors the clamour of their troops to be rid of the severity 228 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. of an effective system and discipline became irre- sistible. The soldiers who fought for the Native state thought more of their opportunities for plunder and murder than of the triumph of the cause, for which their employers used them. Thus, for many reasons, the provision of a scheme of general defence, in which the Native state troops might take their place in the Imperial military system, proved impracticable, and the Company preferred either to accept subsidies where their own troops were required by their allies, or to content themselves with obtaining a somewhat vague assurance that, if necessity arose, the protected states would assist, according to their means, at the requisition of the British authorities. Failure of 84. Some practical experience of methods of menTof 611 military co-operation was gained by accepting from contin- a few states their offers of contingents or auxiliary forces. The results only confirmed the wisdom of the Company's decision. In Baroda, Hyderabad, Bhopal, Kotah, Jodhpur, Gwalior, and other states, the experi- ment of requiring certain selected states to keep ready a body of their own troops, commanded, equipped, and paid by British officers, was tried, and with single exception abandoned. In 1805 the Gaikw* undertook to furnish troops to act with the Briti* forces on any great emergency, and in 1 8 1 7 he furth< agreed to bring forward the whole of his militai resources in the event of war, and to maintain contingent of 3000 effective cavalry ready at an; time for service with the subsidiary force. Varioi proposals were made for the reform of this contingenl but it proved most inefficient for even the ordin* duties of civil administration. By an agreement the 8th of September 1881 it was abolished altogethei and in its place a body of civil police is now em vni OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 229 tained for service in the Tributary states of Gujarat. In the same way, the Eajput state of Jodhpur, in 1818, undertook to furnish a contingent of 1500 horse for imperial service, while it formally admitted its liability to place the whole of its army at the disposal of the British Government when required, except such portion as was needed for the internal administration. The obligation was eventually com- muted to the payment of a fixed contribution, which was applied to the support of the Erinpura irregular force. The Kotah contingent created in 1838, the Bhopal contingent which the Nawab willingly offered in 1817, and for the support of which he had received lands, and, finally, the Gwalior contingent which Sindhia engaged to furnish in 1817, one and all mutinied in 1857. The Kotah contingent thereafter became merged in the Deoli irregular force, the Bhopal force has become a military police corps known as the Bhopal battalion, whilst the Gwalior contingent was converted into the Gwalior subsidiary force. The United Malwa contingent, which was supported from the fund contributed by Indore, Jaora, and Dewas, in commutation of their Treaty obligations to supply certain quota of troops, also proved faithless in the Mutiny, and its duties are performed by regular troops. The ruler of Palanpur undertook, in 1817, to maintain 250 horse to preserve his country in peace and order, but they were so inefficient that by the agreement of 1890 they were converted into civil police. In Kolhapur the condi- tion of the Native army called for interference in 1829. Its strength was limited to 400 horse and 800 infantry, besides certain garrisons ; but when - the administration was undertaken by the British in 1838, the whole establishment was reorganised, and 230 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. on the restoration of the Eaja to power in 1862, His Highness was required to keep up a regiment of infantry under British officers, and to contribute to the support of a detachment of the Southern Maratha Horse until that force was finally disbanded. From this account, it will be seen that in various parts of the country the Company endeavoured with- out success to solve the problem of military co-opera- tion by requiring some of their allies to maintain contingents or bodies of the Native state troops ready for service, instead of taking from them subsidies out of which a British force was equipped, and supplied by the Company. But with the exception of the Hyderabad force none of these contingents proved efficient or weathered the storm of the Mutiny. The Hy- 85. The history of the Hyderabad contingent is derabad ' f . . . Tl contingent important trom two points of view. It presents a an excep- solitary instance of successful experiment, and it led rule. to a final settlement of the liability of His Highness, the Nizam, for the common defence. In examinin the historical framework of the treaties with Hyder bad stress was laid on the position of parties in t Deccan. The Marathas had shown at Kharda the ability to inflict serious injury upon, if not to cru the Muhammadan state in the Deccan. From Haid AH and Tipu Sultan the Nizam had no less to fear, an without the protection of the Company the Hyderab state could not have preserved its integrity. Exce on two occasions, the rulers of that important princi- pality in the Deccan had adhered loyally to the British alliance, and although the Nizam, in 1766, engaged to support a subsidiary force, he also agreed to " assist the Company with his troops when required." In 1800 His Highness undertook to sup- plement the subsidiary force by six thousand infantr vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 231 and nine thousand horse of his own troops. Nor was this all. He also promised " to employ every further effort in his power for the purpose of bringing into the field as speedily as possible the whole force which he may be able to supply from his dominions." His force proved, however, hardly more efficient than the contingent supplied by other states. After the mutiny of one of the corps in 1813, two regiments of Keformed troops were raised, and they were armed and equipped like the Company's troops. Financial difficulties ensued, and the Nizam was obliged to borrow funds from the Company for the payment of the contingent. By the Treaty of the 21st of May 1853, Lord Dalhousie made a final settlement of the liability of the Hyderabad state towards Imperial defence. The strength and duties of the subsidiary force were set forth, and as an auxiliary force the " Hyderabad contingent " was constituted. " It shall consist of not less than five thousand infantry, and two thousand cavalry, with four field batteries of artillery. It shall be commanded by British officers, fully equipped and disciplined, and controlled by the British Government through its representative the Kesident at Hyderabad." The services of the con- tingent in time of peace were detailed, and in the event of war the subsidiary force, joined by the contingent, was to be employed as the British Govern- ment might think fit, provided that two battalions of Sepoys were left near the capital of Hyderabad. Then followed the special agreement that, " Except- ing the said subsidiary and contingent forces, His Highness shall not, under any circumstances, be called upon to furnish any other troops whatsoever." Thus, as in the case of Mysore, the military liabilities of Hyderabad have been commuted and fixed, but 232 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. notwithstanding this settlement both these states have of their own will loyally offered to maintain regiments of cavalry for Imperial defence. For the payment of the contingent the Assigned Districts in Berar now held under a permanent lease from the Nizam by a treaty concluded by Lord Curzon were handed over to the Company. The Hyderabad con- tingent by these arrangements became to a large extent detached from the control of the state and associated with the British subsidiary force. It rendered excellent service in the Mutiny, and affords the solitary instance of one solution of the difficult problem of military co-operation for the general defence. The 86. The truth of the argument, recited in the impSiaf P^amble of the Treaty of 1853, "Whereas in the service lapse of time many changes in the condition of princes and neighbouring states have taken place," has been confirmed by the rapid movement of events in recent years. Once more the problem of militar co-operation has forced itself upon the attention o the British Government and its allies. The idea expressed in the new experiment of providing Imperial service troops marks a change from the policy o mistrust and isolation which prevailed in the earli periods of British intercourse. The states whic have come forward with spontaneous offers of militar co-operation are welcomed in the new spirit of unio That the experiment may not have to be put to th extreme test of war with a Foreign power is muc' to be hoped. But should the need arise, there i no reason to question the value of these troops i the day of trial. Infantry, cavalry, and transpo corps are all alike highly commended by their inspec ing officers, and so far as any of them have yet 1 vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 233 tested by occasional service in the field, their conduct has justified the confident hopes of Lord DufFerin and Lord Lansdowne who did so much to promote the success of the scheme. At present a combined force of some 21,000 men is maintained by twenty-seven states, and rulers of other states are anxious to con- tribute their contingents. These Imperial service troops are furnished by the states of Hyderabad, Kashmir, Patiala, Nabha, Jind, Kapurthala, Baha - walpur, Faridkot, Indore, Alwar, Jodhpur, Bhartpur, Bikanir, Jaipur, Gwalior, Rampur, Mysore, Bhopal, Bhaunagar, Junagarh,Nawanagar,Idar, Janjira, Khair- pur, Maler Kotla, Sirmur and Tehri. As compared with the former military establishments of the Native states the new plan secures both efficiency and economy, efficiency, because the officers lent to the states will ensure the uniformity and the harmony of organisation and equipment required by the general system of Imperial defence, and economy, because larger bodies of inefficient levies will be disbanded. It is at least deserving of notice that the measure which is now being tried is that which under a different policy was rejected by the Company in 1788. But when the Governor of Madras informed the Raja of Travancore in that year, that "it is contrary to the system now laid down for the management of the English Company's affairs to lend their officers to command any troops except such as are actually in their own pay and under their own authority," the policy of non-intervention held full sway, and the idea of uniting every Native state in India with the British for the defence of the Empire had not taken root. 87. The account given of the various measures adopted for securing military co-operation, by means 234 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Various of subsidiary forces, contingents, local forces, and ofmSary I m P er i a l service troops, is a necessary introduction obiiga- to the consideration of the obligations of the pro- tected princes in respect to the common defence. These obligations fall under two categories, according as they concern a state of war or a state of peace. Under the second category the duties of the allies may be divided into those which affect their own military arrangements and those which are directly or indirectly rendered to the Imperial army. As in- stances of indirect co-operation, measures for secur- ing regular communication by telegraph, railway, or post, between all parts of the Empire will require consideration. Unlimited 88. The rights of the Imperial Government, liability of wnen war i s threatened or commenced, may be states in . time of inferred from the language of the treaties, from the ordinary conditions attached to protection, and from the analogy of other states united for their common defence. The express agreements with Hyderabad and Mysore, which, in the former case, accept the present contingent "as an equivalent for the larger body of troops to be furnished in war," and in the latter case "relieve the Maharaja of the obligation to keep troops ready to serve with t British army when required," are the exceptions whi prove the rule. The rule itself is clearly express in treaties with the larger sovereignties, and by principle of " extensive interpretation " becomes ordinary condition of protection obligatory on other members of the union. The obligation, posed on Gwalior by the Treaty of the 27th February 1804, to provide not merely a continge " if a war should unfortunately break out between the contracting parties and any other state or pow war. vni OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 235 whatsoever," but also " to employ every further effort for the purpose of bringing into the field the whole force which he may be able to supply from his dominions, with a view to the effectual prosecution and speedy termination of the said war," is free from any ambiguity or reservation. The Maharaja of Indore, in his treaty, dated the 6th of January 1818, undertook " to lend his utmost assistance by the employment of his troops, or in such other manner as may be requisite." The Nawab of Bhopal added to his promise of a contingent an assurance that " Whenever required, and when necessary, the whole of the Bhopal forces shall join the British army, excepting such a portion as may be required for the internal administration of the country." A single quotation affords a type of the duties accepted by the whole of Rajputana when admitted by Lord Hastings into the protectorate. " The troops of the state of Udaipur shall be furnished, according to its means, at the requisition of the British Government," is the short but comprehensive article of the treaty, dated the 13th of January 1818. The Kutch and Baroda states are under similar obligations. At a later date in Indian history, when the state of Kashmir was created, the Maharaja agreed in 1846 "for him- self and heirs to join with his whole military force the British troops, when employed within the Hills or in the territories adjoining his possessions." No one who looks down the century and a half of years which have rolled by since the victory at Plassey can fail to find, in every period of Indian treaties, clear evidence of the obligation imposed upon the states to assist the Company to the full extent of their resources in time of necessity. The Viceroys have in this respect followed the precedent set by the Governor- 236 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Generals who preceded them. The Patiala Sanad, given by Lord Canning on the 5th of May 1860, went almost beyond the terms of the Sanad dated the 22nd of September 1847. Its sixth clause ran thus : " If any force hostile to the British Government should appear in this neighbourhood, the Maharaja will co-operate with the British Government and oppose the enemy. He will exert himself to the utmost of his resources in providing carriage and supplies for the British troops according to the requisitions he may receive/' It is indeed an essential duty, correlated to the right of protection, that the protected state should co-operate to the full measure of its resources in repelling a common enemy. Even where equal states have united for the general defence, they have surrendered to the central authority supreme authority in disposing of their several forces. The twenty-two Swiss Cantons, under the impulse of their strong centrifugal tendencies, have revised their Constitution five times since the Constitution oi the 12th of April 1798 was passed. According the Constitution, dated the 29th of May 1874, th< duties of providing for military instruction and arm* ments devolve on the Confederation, although th< Cantonal authorities are charged with their equi] ment. The cardinal point in their arrangemenl is the right of the Confederation to dispose of th< army and military material. The Cantonal authority prior to 1874, supplied contingents, but their troo] are now directly incorporated in the federal army, an< their soldiers swear allegiance to the central power citizens of Switzerland and not as subjects of tl Cantonal states. It is not, however, necessary to look outside Indian history for proof that to the right of prote< vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 237 tion is annexed the corresponding duty of providing for the common defence. The state of Datia was, with others of the Bundelkhand states, at first brought into partial union with the Company, and then, after an interval of fourteen years, into the protectorate. Its two treaties of 1804 and 1818 reflect the different obligations attached to its altered relations in respect of the common defence. The position of Bundel- khand, south of the Jumna, and interposed between the Company's territories or system of alliances, and the three Maratha states of Gwalior, Indore, and Nagpore from which danger then threatened, com- pelled the Company, even in a period when the policy of non-intervention prevailed, to enter into treaties with Datia and Jhansi. Accordingly, when by the Treaty of Bassein and its consequent terri- torial arrangements, Bundelkhand was, in part, ceded by the Peshwa to the British, General Lake at once concluded an engagement with the ruler of Datia in March 1804. The document recited a profession of the Raja's allegiance to the Peshwa as well as to the Company ; and after imposing on him the usual restrictions on the employment of Europeans and on the exercise of his power of negotiation, it affirmed his right to be " in reality the Commander of his own troops." In the fourth article his military obligations were fully described. His co-operation was limited to the countries contiguous to his possessions, and to times of war or disturbance. If, however, it was needed by the Company for quelling disorders in British territories, then the expenses were to be borne by the British Government. With the fall of the Peshwa a new condition of affairs was created. The Treaty of the 31st of July 1818 recited the undertak- ing of the British to protect Datia territory against 238 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. all foreign enemies, and repeated the assurance in another article. " In consideration " of the liberality with which the Eaja was treated, " and the protection and guarantee afforded to the Raja's territory, the Raja hereby binds himself to employ his troops, whenever required to do so, in co-operation with those of the British Government, on all occasions in which the interests of the two states may be mutually concerned. On all such occasions the Datia troops shall act under the orders and control of the Com- manding officer of the British troops." Another article required him to furnish supplies, or hand over positions to British troops whenever they might enter his territory. A similar obligation was imposed on Samthar, to whose ruler an alliance had been refused in 1804. The interest of these documents lies in the contrast which they present to the earlier treaty, and in the expressed and direct connexion which they establish between the right of protection and the obligation to render the fullest co-operation in time of war. General 89. This examination of the general and unliniil ITto the n lia kility incurred by the protected states for tin strength common defence in times of war, where the liability state** 1 nas n t been expressly commuted, prepares the wa] armies. f or a consideration of the obligations of the protect< states in times of peace as well as of war. Th< restrictions upon their sovereign powers in the militai department of their own administrations which th< rulers of the larger states have expressly acceptec and which all others have by tacit consent or long- established usage similarly admitted, affect the strengtl of their armies, their system of recruitment, th< fortifications, and their armaments. It has already been seen that Lord Ripon, in the instrument whic] vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 239 he gave to Mysore, imposed the following restriction : 1 The military force employed in the Mysore state for the maintenance of internal order, and the Maharaja's personal dignity, and for any other purposes approved by the Governor-General in Council, shall not exceed the strength which the Governor-General in Council may from time to time fix." The principle of limita- tion was not only made clear in the treaties with Oudh, but also in the Treaty of Gwalior, dated the 13th of January 1844 : " Whereas the British Govern- ment is bound by Treaty to protect the person of His Highness the Maharaja, his heirs and successors, and to protect his dominions from foreign invasion, and to quell serious disturbances therein, and the army now maintained by His Highness is of unneces- sary amount, embarrassing to His Highness's Govern- ment, and the cause of disquietude to neighbouring states, it is therefore agreed that the military force of all arms hereafter to be maintained by His Highness, exclusive of the contingent, shall at no time exceed " the limits then fixed. In 1860 this treaty was abrogated, and a bare clause substituted for it which fixed the strength of the army of Gwalior. To the lessons taught by the battle of Maharajpur had since been added the Sikh wars and the events of the Mutiny, and no chain of argument was needed to justify an obvious precaution. At the same time Lord Ellenborough's treaty of 1844 claims attention, since it set forth the reasons which warrant a restric- tion upon the armaments kept up by the states of the Indian Empire. The threefold interests of the British Government concerned with the defence, first, of British India, secondly, of the rest of the states in subordinate alliance with the paramount power, and finally, of the particular state itself which can rely 240 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. upon British protection, all contribute to confer upon the British authority the right to settle the strength of the military establishments maintained by each one of the protected princes in the interior of the Empire. In these circumstances, it seems hardly necessary to reproduce other clauses of Indian treaties concluded with Indore in 1818, with Cochin in 1809, with Tonk in 1817, or with Kolhapur in 1826, which deal with the same subject. From the published correspondence, which at various times has been laid before Parliament, it seems that the following principles are generally applied. The armies of the Native states must not exceed in time of peace what is required for the maintenance of the reasonable dignity of the Chief, the enforcement of internal order, and the requirements of the special engage- ments which they have entered into with the British Government. Restric- 90. In regard to the system of recruitment it recruit 8 10 a PP ears fr m the same published records that no ment. system of passing the population generally through the ranks is permitted, and that recruitment is to be confined to the population of the states themselves. From the earliest period of its intercourse with the principalities, the British authorities introduced into their treaties clauses restricting, or prohibiting, the employment of foreign mercenaries, Arabs, Abys- sinians, or Vilayatis. The Company found soldiers of fortune commanding bands of plunderers an< carving out for themselves principalities by the aic of hired troops. Their determination to put do 1 the profession of swash -bucklers and freebootei would have been fruitless without the co-operatioi of their protected allies. The official Gazettes, eve] to a late date, bear testimony to the persistence of the vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 241 evil against which they had to contend. A Procla- mation, dated the 7th of September 1852, appeared in the Gazette of the Government of Bombay, which introduced a system of passports to "prevent the peace of Native states being endangered by the immigra- tion of Foreign adventurers seeking military service within those territories." By its Act III. of 1864, the Indian Legislature conferred power on the Execu- tive Governments in British India to deport foreigners, and the state of Hyderabad is assisted in restraining the influx of Arabs into it by the co-operation of the British authorities. On the western side of India the evil consequences arising from the employment by Native states of lawless and strong-limbed foreigners have been repeatedly experienced. The Gaikwar was made a prisoner by his own Arab troops in 1802, the Raja of Dharampur suffered the same indignity at a later date, and the disturbances which occurred in AH Rajpur in 1883 were directly traced to the immi- gration of Vilayatis. In some Native states, as in Malia, the descendants of alien soldiers have settled in the country, and still enjoy inconvenient concessions and privileges which fear extorted from a former ruler of the country. In Hyderabad, the Arabs domiciled in the Nizam's dominions were strong enough to maintain their exemption from the ordinary tribunals of justice until 1872 ; and in many parts of India, where states have fallen under British management for any reason, the first measure, taken in the interests of public tranquillity, has been the dismissal or reduction of troublesome foreign mercenaries. In consequence of these experiences the British Govern- ment has asserted by treaty in numerous cases, and by usage in others, the general right to forbid or restrict the recruitment of foreign soldiers. R 242 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Restric- 91. The right of the supreme Government in fortmca- India to issue directions regarding fortifications and tionsand material of war has been frequently asserted. It is ments. naturally correlated to the duty of protection which the British owe to the dependent states, and it results from the surrender by the Indian chiefs of their rights to make war. Since, then, the protected allies require no forts except for internal tranquillity, and no large accumulations of material of war, any hostile equip- ment of forts or collection of arms would either indicate mistrust or offer a temptation to the lawless classes. For the peace of its own districts, for the removal of a source of danger to neighbouring states, and for the safety of the state in which arms and ammunition are being stored, the Imperial Govern- ment must fulfil its accepted responsibilities by inter- vening to arrest the progress of fortification or by regulating the manufacture and traffic in arms and ammunition. Not only did the experience of the Mutiny illustrate the danger arising from the exist ence of unnecessary forts which formed rallying-poinl for the rebels, but even since then the constant revive of religious animosities, over the slaughter of kine caste disputes, has enforced the need for dismanl ling forts and controlling stocks of ammunition an< firearms. The Mysore instrument only repeats this respect what other states in India have eith< expressly or tacitly admitted, when it embodies article vii. the obligation that the Maharaja " shi not, without the previous sanction of the Governo] General in Council, build any new fortresses strongholds in the said territories." Again as arms it proceeds : " The Maharaja shall not, withoi the previous permission of the Governor-General Council, import, or permit to be imported, vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 243 ammunition, or military stores, and shall prohibit the manufacture of arms, ammunition, and military stores throughout the said territories, or at any specified place therein, whenever required to do so." In the case of those states which were conquered in the Maratha wars or other campaigns, the regulation of their military equipment was as inevitable a con- sequence of defeat as it was in the case of the French possessions. To the restitution of the French factories and establishments, the condition was annexed by the twelfth article of the Treaty of Paris, dated the 30th of May 1814, that " His most Christian Majesty, wishing to do his utmost to avoid anything which might affect their mutual good understanding, engages not to erect any fortifications " in the establishments, and not to keep any greater number of troops than are required for the preservation of order. Most of the Native states of India are land-locked, but, where any of them possessed access to the sea, the Company either acquired control over their ports, as over Porbandar in 1809, or imposed restrictions on their trade. Thus the Kutch state engaged in 1819 " that no foreign vessels American, European, or Asiatic shall be allowed to import into the territory of Kutch arms or military stores. The Honourable Company engages to supply the wants of the Kutch Government in these articles at a fair valuation." The principles which have been applied to all members of the union in this respect are based on the condition common to all, that arms of pre- cision and an accumulation of cannon are required neither for internal safety nor for the exigencies of common defence. Only arms of a suitable kind, and in such quantities as, in the opinion of the British Agent, are really needed, are supplied. If the quantities 244 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. are not trifling a statement of them is required by the Government of India, which either supplies them from the public arsenals on payment or expressly authorises their purchase in the market through the agency of the Political officers. No factories for the manufacture of arms or ammunition are permitted without express sanction ; and since the Native states are under an obligation not to keep a larger force than is either necessary or fixed for them, a restric- tion upon their military equipments is but a logical and reasonable extension of the same principle. British 92. The services which the King's allies are o^u^ation re( l u i re d ^ render to the Imperial army, charged and can- with the defence of their states no less than of the British territories, fall under five heads. They com- prehend the grant of rights of passage and occupa- tion of forts, of rights of cantonment, of assistance in the matter of supplies, and, fourthly, of the extra- dition of deserters. Lastly, the British Government must preserve its lines of communication between its forces scattered over the Empire, and it requires, therefore, control over the railway system, the tele- graph system, and postal communications, as bein| vitally connected with the common defence. As the first of these obligations, a precedent is supplie by article v. of the Convention between Greal Britain and the powers of Austria, Kussia, an< Prussia, which was signed at Paris on the 5th oJ November 1815. "In order to ensure without re- striction to the inhabitants of the United States oi the Ionian Isles the advantages resulting from th< High Protection under which these states are placed, as well as for the exercise of the rights inherent ii the said protection, His Britannic Majesty shall hav< the right to occupy the fortresses and places of th< vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 245 states, and to maintain garrisons in the same." So long as the principle of general protection, with all its consequences, was not accepted by the Company, it acquired by special agreement the right of passage or cantonment for its troops. Thus, by the treaty of the 5th of October 1812 with Kewa, a condition of limited protection was established. In fact, the third article expressly laid down that the Eaja " shall not possess a claim to the aid of British troops for the support of his authority within the limits of his dominions." Accordingly, by a special clause, it was stipulated that : " Whenever the British Government shall deem it expedient to send its troops into the dominions of the Kaja of Eewa, or to station or canton a British force within the Kaja's territories, for the purpose of guarding against the advance or intercepting the retreat of an enemy, it shall be com- petent to the British Government so to detach its troops." The Treaty of Poona, dated the 13th of June 1817, contained several clauses in article xii. on the same subject. When, however, the Protectorate map included the Cis-Sutlej states, the principle of allowing free passage and cantonments to British troops was so obviously implied in the extended right of protection that it was unnecessary to stipu- late for what had become a self-evident duty. If more than this was required, it was, of course, ob- tained by special agreement or direction. Thus the^ San ad or patent, dated the 22nd of September 1847, and presented to the Maharaja of Patiala in the Punjab, was silent as to the grant of a passage which was too obvious a duty, but it required the Chief to render a more precise co-operation. " His Highness en- gages to have made and to keep in repairs, through his own officers, the military roads through his territory 246 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. for the passage of British troops, of a width and ele- vation to be determined on by the Engineer officer." " His Highness will also appoint encamping grounds for British troops at the different stages, which shall be marked off/' In the same way, when the Kashmir state was conferred on Ghulab Singh, it was not deemed necessary to express an obvious obligation, although in article vi. of the treaty of 1846 the contingency of the employment of British troops within the Hills or adjoining territories was referred to. It is important to observe, in passing, that the silence of Indian treaties is often as instructive as their expressed terms. For the interpretation of any one of the collection, a study of the whole body of them, as w r ell as of the facts of history which surround them is essential. Where, on the contrary, the occupation of particular forts was required, not in the interests of general defence, but as a special punishment, the intention was declared in express terms. Thus in the Kolhapur Treaty, dated the 15th of March 1829, the admission of British garrisons into the forts of Kolhapur and Panalla was required " as security for future good conduct." The bare grant of a right of passage to British troops, or of a right of cantonment with its essential accessory of full jurisdiction, is a necessary complement to the rights of war and defence which devolve on the paramount power, and requires no tedious justification. It is only in the case of Mysore that circumstances gave occasion for a genen summary of all obligations both general and par- ticular ; but in the relations of other states much necessarily left to inference. The instrument oi transfer requires the Maharaja not only to allow can- tonments " whenever and wherever the Governor- General in Council may consider such cantonmenl vni OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 247 necessary," but also " to carry out in the lands adjoining British cantonments in the said territories necessary sanitary arrangements." The latter obliga- tion must be regarded as a special accretion to the general principle. 93. The next right which the British Govern- Rights of ment may claim from all the states of India is ^ S p**_ ncc similarly capable of extension by special agreement. curin g A L r x JJL T 1 supplies. A certain measure 01 assistance to the Imperial army every sovereign, protected by it, must necessarily render. Supplies, especially forage for horses and transport animals, cannot always be carried, and the force which occupies a cantonment or position in foreign territory cannot be kept in an efficient state without relying on the co-operation of the ruler of that country. Within the cantonment British jurisdiction accompanies the force just as it accom- panies a maritime army or a ship of war into a foreign port, but outside the limits of the canton- ment, the municipal law of the state can alone assist the Commissariat or other British Departments. In the earlier days of the British protectorate, the Com- pany's allies, as the Gaikwar in 1805, the Nizam in 1800, the Peshwa in 1817, Holkar in 1818, the Rao of Kutch in 1819, and the Nawab of Bhopal in 1818, undertook either to supply " such quantities of grain and Benjarees as his resources may afford " ; "to store grain in the frontier garrisons " of Hyderabad ; to "furnish pasture lands" ; to exempt from duties "grain and all other articles of consumption and provision and all sorts of materials for wearing apparel " ; to allow "all supplies bondjide for the use of the Company's troops to pass through the Rao's territories free of Rahdari duties" (a concession which on the 31st of October 1828 was abused, and therefore surrendered 248 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. by the Government of Bombay) ; or " to afford every facility to the British troops in obtaining supplies, and all articles of supply required for them shall be purchased in and pass through the Nawab's territory free of duty." The general obligation is, however, limited to that which is expressed in the Sanad of Mysore, " to give every facility for the provision of supplies and articles required for the troops," whether in cantonment or in the line of march, and to levy no taxes on them without the consent of the British Government. Thus all supplies are paid for at a proper rate, except where sometimes concessions have been specially granted as an act of favour for the appropriation of grazing lands to the use of cavalry regiments or batteries of artillery. Right 94. The obligation of the Native princes to sur- extrad? render their own subjects deserting from the British tion of army is a duty which they owe to themselves, as deserters. . ,. , -i-i m / i being directly concerned in the efficiency of the force maintained for their common defence. On the other hand, while the now abandoned Extradition Treaty between Portuguese and British India, based on the Lisbon Treaty of 1878, was made effective by the passing of the Indian Act IV. of 1880, the Portuguese Government was not bound to surrender its o^ subjects when deserters. But the Portuguese had n< interest in the discipline or efficiency of the Britisl army. With the protected states the circumstan< are different, and thus, without express engagement, long-established custom has vested in the paramounl power the right to claim the extradition of its military deserters from any Native state. Difficulties ma] arise where a deserter from the British army hi previously deserted from that of a Native state, t< whose jurisdiction he has returned after his desertioi viii OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 249 from the Imperial army. Again, the deserter may have committed an offence against the law of the state in which he seeks a shelter. It is incumbent on the military authorities to avoid as far as possible enlisting a deserter from a Native state army ; but if such a one is enlisted and subsequently deserts, his extradition to the British Government is invariably granted. If, on the other hand, a British soldier whether on furlough or a deserter, commits an offence against the Native state law, he can be punished according to law, and surrendered as a deserter if his extradition is still required after he has carried out his sentence. In dealing with extradition, the sovereigns of native states are very rarely restricted by laws of extradition, and even where occasionally a state has applied in general terms the provisions of the British Act, the law is introduced by the fiat of executive order, so that the same authority can readily make any necessary modifications. 95. In dealing with the subject of railways, imperial telegraphs, and postal communications, it is evident over rail- that the maintenance of an Imperial control can be ways, tele- justified by considerations of common welfare as well and postal as of common defence. The protected princes of India have not, however, entrusted to the Supreme Government a general commission to promote the common welfare in the same sense or to the same extent as they have done where matters of common defence are concerned. But it is clear from the analogy of Nations (for the greater includes the less) and from the terms of Indian treaties, that an intimate connexion between secure communications and military defence must exist, and was always present to the minds of the high contracting authorities. The Swiss Confederation reserves to the Central authority the communi- cations. 250 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. right to legislate for the construction and working of railways. To the Federal Government in America are entrusted matters concerning the post office and post roads. In the early days when Indian treaties and engagements were being forged there were neither telegraph nor railway systems. Thus provision for them was not made. But the protection of the roads was from the first an object of solicitude to the Company. The agreements taken from the Kathiawar chiefs, after intervention in 1807, expressly protect the highways, and guarantee the traffic against moles- tation. In June 1813, the Maharaja of Rewa agreed " to allow dawks to be established through his terri- tory by the officers of the British Government in any direction that may be deemed necessary, to compel his feudatory chiefs to do the same, and to punish them in case of opposition." In 1829, the Raja of Satara ceded part of the road leading from Mahab- leshwar to the top of the Paur pass, in order that the British communication between Bombay and the Hill station might be preserved. Even with states which remained outside the protectorate and retained their independence the Company concluded agree- ments for the security of communications. Thus, b] the treaty of the 26th of December 1832 with Ranjit Singh, navigation on the Indus and Sutlej regulated " with a view to promote the genen interests of commerce." When, after the transfe of Indian administration to the Crown, the union the whole Empire was completed, the improvemenl of interstatal communication became a matter oi increasing importance. The bridge over the Chaml led to negotiations with both Gwalior and Dholpur and several engagements between 1855 and 188; settled the question of Sindhia's contribution tow* vin OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 251 the expenses of the road to Agra. In 1859 the Maharaja of Gwalior granted to the British Govern- ment the land required for railway purposes in Nimar, and the Sanads given to Jind and Patiala by Lord Canning in 1860 indicate the growing obligations of the day. " The Eaja, as heretofore, will furnish at current rates through the agency of his own officers, the necessary materials required for the construction of railroads, railway stations, and Imperial roads, and bridges. He will also freely give the land required for the construction of railroads and Imperial lines of road." The military operations of the Mutiny had convinced the authorities that certain lines of com- munication were of " Imperial " concern, and required the co-operation of their protected allies. Finally, the Mysore instrument, which in 1881 brought up to date all obligations both general and special, required the Maharaja to "do his utmost to facilitate the construction and working of lines of telegraph," to " grant free of charge such land as may be required for the construction of railways, and transfer plenary jurisdiction within such lands." At the same time, the limitations which the supreme Government in India has imposed upon itself in the demands which it makes upon the states for the maintenance of Imperial communications, indicate the care with which matters of common defence are distinguished from those of general welfare. The exclusive right of the British Government to main- tain and manage all lines of telegraph or telephone which take public messages has been repeatedly affirmed. Its consent is required before private lines are constructed in the Native states, in order that the Imperial monopoly may be preserved before such lines are set up. In regard to railways which are 252 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. not isolated in a Native state, and which form part of the Imperial system of railway, or part of a continuous line of such system, the cession of jurisdiction is in- variably required. The main lines of British railways have for the most part been constructed at no other cost to the states which derive immense benefit from them than the free cession of the requisite strip of land, and a guarantee that no duties will be levied on the materials of construction, or on the goods carried j by the railway, or in transit from other states or i territories to it. It frequently happens that a line of railway passes through the jurisdiction of several states besides that of the British Government, and even in times of public tranquillity a constant break of jurisdictional gauge would prevent through-booking, give rise to interminable disputes where goods are lost or injured in transit, and endanger the lives of passengers. Where the passage of troops is concerned, or the sudden requirements of the public peace and general defence involve prompt movements, graver interests are involved ; and the military responsibilities which the paramount power has undertaken could not be fulfilled without its assertion of the right of control and jurisdiction over all through lines of railway. From the earliest days, and when as yet India was not covered with a network of railways, the protection of the Imperial mails carried by road was a general obligation that devolved on the states. The obligation is not weakened by the mere fact that the mails are conveyed by rail instead of by dawks or posts. The idea of the responsibility of rulers or of communities for loss of property due to a defective discharge of public duties was familiar Hindu law before the British advent. The Compan; vni OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE 253 laws embodied the popular idea in their regulations, which imposed on village and local communities fines for losses due to gross neglect of duty or connivance with robbers. The mail robbery rules, which were last revised in 1885, give to the Native states every opportunity of rebutting the presumption of blame which attaches to them for the loss of Imperial mails in transit through their territories. Where the blame is brought home to them, compensation and penalties are exacted. By these means communication between the various parts of the Empire is preserved, as far as possible, against a risk of interruption or collapse which would materially weaken the capacity of the Imperial Government to discharge the duties of common defence which it has undertaken. CHAPTER IX OBLIGATIONS AFFECTING EXTERNAL RELATIONS The states 96. WHILST the entire liabilities and duties of the tadr/nter Native states other than Hyderabad and Mysore national in the matter of the common defence have not been defined, so that the cheque which the pro- tecting power holds against their resources in time of war remains still a blank, their obligations in regard to external relations admit of no doubt. The sovereigns of the principalities enclosed within the frontiers of the Empire do not exercise individu- ally any independent action in negotiations either with foreign powers or with each other. In this the most important limb of international life thej possess no vitality whatsoever. Their position this respect presents a contrast to that of some the united organisations to which they have b< compared in the preceding chapters, and to the stal that lie outside the union. The sovereign Princes Germany, by the Final Act of the 15th of May 182( were permitted, under the organisation of the Nations League, to accredit and receive resident plenipote] tiaries for the superintendence of their separal international relations with non- Germanic powei The Swiss Cantons cannot enter into alliances wi1 each other on political matters, but they may con- 254 CHAP, ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 255 elude, according to article vii. of the Confederation, conventions relating to administrative matters, justice, and legislation, and in special cases certain treaties with foreign powers under article ix., provided that they do not invade the rights of other Cantons or the constitution federate. The semi-sovereign " United States of the Ionian Islands," under the convention of the 5th of November 1815, received commercial agents or consuls charged exclusively with the care of commercial relations accredited to those states, and subject to the same regulations to which similar agents are subject in independent states. The ex- ternal state of Nepal, although in alliance with the British Government, concluded a Treaty of Peace on the 24th of March 1856 with Tibet. But the rulers of the Native states in the interior of India have not a shred, or semblance, of contractual authority left to them. They cannot enter into a treaty of extra- dition with their neighbours without the intervention of the British authority ; they cannot receive com- mercial agents ; they are even unable to allow Euro- peans or Americans to enter their service without the consent of the paramount power ; they have no direct intercourse with the consular agents or representa- tives of foreign nations accredited to the Govern- ment of India ; and they cannot receive from foreign Sovereigns Decorations or Orders except under the regulations prescribed for British subjects. They have, in short, no official relations with other pro- tected states of India ; and even where the interests of two or more of them are identical upon any par- ticular question, their representations to the supreme Government would be conveyed in separate me- morials, and not in a joint petition. The sole representative of the Native states in their intercourse 2 5 6 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Evidence of the general with foreign nations, or with each other, is the British Government. 97. The first part of this disability has been recognised by Parliament, and the second both by disability, convention and by an unbroken course of action pursued by the Governments of India. The principle affirmed in a previous chapter of the necessity for reading all Indian treaties together, and of the value of established usage as a source of rights, is in respect to rights of negotiation confirmed by the highest authority. Not more than fifty -five engagements with the existing states of India, which number about 680, expressly prohibit correspondence or negotiation with. other powers or states. But the extension of the disability to the rest is justified by the identical character of their relations, by long-established usage, and by the fact that the arguments, which induced the Company to impose even on its favoured allies the loss of independence in external affairs, apply with greater force to the later additions to the pro- tectorate. Extracts from a few of the leading treaties will suffice to indicate the grounds of this policy. In the Treaty of Hyderabad, dated the 12th of October 1800, article xv. runs as follows: " As by the present Treaty the union and friendship of the two states are so firmly cemented as that they may be considered as one and the same, His Highness the Nizam engages neither to commence, nor to pursue in future, any negotiations with any other Power wha ever without giving previous notice, and enterin into mutual consultation with the Honourable Com- pany's Government." The next article went still farther, and after a recital of the fact that " mutual defence and protection against all enemies are estab- lished," it declared that, " in the event of any ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 257 differences arising, whatever adjustment of them the Company's Government, weighing matters in the scale of truth and justice, may determine, shall meet with full approbation and acquiescence." The Treaty of Burhanpur with Sindhia, dated the 27th of February 1804, enforced a similar isolation in the 8th and 9th articles, but the words were qualified to cover negotia- tions " with any principal states or powers." For at that date the policy of the ring-fence was in the ascend- ant, and Kajputana lay outside the protectorate map. When, however, under altered conditions, the Treaty of Mandasor was concluded in 1818 with Holkar, who ruled over the neighbouring Maratha state of Indore, article ix. expressed the change in these terms : " In the event of differences arising, whatever adjust- ment the Company's Government, weighing matters in the scale of truth and justice, may determine, shall have the Maharaja's entire acquiescence. The Ma- haraja agrees not to send, or receive, Vakeels from any other state, or to have communication with any other states, except with the knowledge and consent of the British Resident." When as yet the Peshwa had not resigned his sovereignty, and whilst Sindhia and the other Maratha states still professed allegiance to him, the Head of the Confederacy subscribed, in 1802, to article xvii. of the Treaty of Bassein, by which he engaged " neither to commence nor to pursue, in future, any negotiations with any other power what- ever without giving previous notice, and entering into mutual consultation with the Honourable East India Company's Government." The spirit of the policy of subordinate isolation was expressed in the numerous treaties negotiated by Lord Hastings, of which the Udaipur Treaty, dated the 13th of January 1818, is a suitable illustration. " The Maharana of Oudeypore s 258 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. will not enter into any negotiation with any chief or state without the knowledge and sanction of the British Government ; but his usual amicable corre- spondence with friends and relations shall continue." The next article continued : " The Maharana shall not commit aggressions upon any one, and if by accident a dispute arise with any one, it shall be sub- mitted to the arbitration and award of the British Government." Private correspondence was not always exempted. In the year following the conclusion of the treaty just noticed Lord Hastings created the Satara state and imposed upon His Highness not only the obligation "to forbear from all intercourse with foreign powers, and with all Sirdars, Jaghiredars, Chiefs, and Ministers, and all persons of whatever description who are not by the above articles rendered subject to His Highness's authority," but even the further duty of sending his communications on matri- monial or other private matters with persons not so subject to his authority, " entirely through the Poli- tical agent." The caution was added, that "this article is a fundamental condition of the present agree- ment." The two agreements with Kolhapur, that dal October 1812, which bound His Highness to submil his differences to the adjustment of the Company and that dated October 1862, which contained thi article, " that the Kaja's Durbar should send its coi respondence with other Courts through the Politic* agent," indicate not merely a failure on the part that state to act up to the spirit of the earlier aj ment, but the general alteration which the course years had introduced into British relations with states at two widely differing periods. The obligatioi imposed on Mysore in 1881 explains the existii position of all the states : " The Maharaja shall abstaii ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 259 from interference in the affairs of any other state or power, and shall have no communication or corre- spondence with any other state or power, except with the previous sanction and through the medium of the Governor-General in Council." It is hardly necessary to justify by argument the position of inaction in which the Native states are, as a matter of fact, placed not only by the treaties quoted, but also by the extension of the disability to other states without treaties, and by the interpretations which long usage has grafted upon the clauses of the earlier treaties. The re- sponsibilities of the supreme Government would be dangerously enlarged if even the 261 more important princes of India were permitted to enter into transactions with foreign powers. For all interna- tional purposes, at any rate, the whole Empire, including the protected states united to it, must be regarded as one Nation represented by the British Government. That such is the fact was recognised by Parliament in 1876, when in its Statute 39 and 40 Vic. cap. xlvi. it described the present state of affairs in these terms : " Whereas the several Princes and states in India, in alliance with Her Majesty, have no connexions, engagements, or com- munications with foreign powers." The Statute was confined to negotiations with foreign nations, but for a similar declaration of the incapacity of i the states to negotiate with their neighbours, the other protected states in India, a reference can be made to the declarations of the Indian Government published in correspondence presented to Parliament. The disability is indeed so well established that it has been accepted by writers of International law, as by Twiss, who writes in Section 26 of his Treatise 260 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. on the Rights of Nations in Time of Peace : " The Native states of India are instances of protected de- pendent states, maintaining the most varied relations with the British Government under compacts with the East India Company. All these states acknowledge the supremacy of the British Government, and some of them admit its right to interfere in their internal affairs, insomuch as the East India Company had become virtually sovereign over them. None of these states hold any political intercourse with one another or with foreign powers." Obiiga- 98. The consequences of depriving the rulers of tluTstates Indian principalities of those powers of negotiation both and legation which form an essential part of a full within ar complement of sovereign attributes, must now be their own considered. It is convenient to deal first with their jurisdic- . . tions. relations to foreign nations or independent states, leaving for a later stage their relations to other Indian states as incapable as themselves of entering into relations with external powers or states. Inasmuch as to every duty belongs a corresponding right, the duty of subordination in all international concerns, owed by the protected states to the British Govern- ment, can be examined in the light which thai Government owes to its allies in the matters of pr< tection abroad, passports, and the exercise of th< right of legation. The protected princes of Indi* enjoy the benefits secured, and must accept the liabilities incurred by the diplomatic action of th< Crown. The fourth section of the Statute 39 and 41 Vic. cap. xlvi. put the matter in these terms " Whereas by certain Orders of Her Majesty in Council made by virtue of an Act made and passed in the Session of Parliament holden in the sixth and sevent] years of Her Majesty's Eeign, chapter xciv., whic] ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 261 Orders are dated respectively August 9th, 1866, and November 4th, 1867, it is ordered that the provisions of such Orders relating to British subjects shall extend and apply to all subjects of Her Majesty whether by Birth or Naturalisation, and also to all persons enjoy- ing Her Majesty's protection in the several dominions mentioned in such Orders respectively : it is hereby declared and enacted that, for the purposes of the said Orders in Council, or of any Orders in Council, which Her Majesty may hereafter think fit to make by virtue of the said Act of the sixth and seventh years of Her Majesty's Keign, chapter xciv., all subjects of the several princes and states in India in alliance with Her Majesty, residing and being in the several dominions comprised in such Orders respec- tively, are and shall be deemed to be persons enjoying Her Majesty's Protection therein." The section just quoted was repealed by 53 and 54 Vic. cap. xxx vii. section 18, a statute which also enacted that where any order in Council made under it extends to persons enjoying Her Majesty's pro- tection, " that expression shall include all subjects of the several princes and states in India." The position, therefore, is this, firstly, that in foreign countries where an offence is created, as for instance in regard to the slave trade, the subjects of the Native states become liable together with British subjects to the consular courts established for the trial of such offences. This involves no serious derogation from the internal sovereignty of the princes of India. For it is obvious that the existence of local juris- diction and of certain attributes of sovereignty, within the defined territorial area of a lordship or principality, is compatible with an eminent over- lordship ordinarily suspended within the said area, 262 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. whilst active and exercised outside the limits of the Native state. But a further result has still to be considered. The semi-sovereign prince must not only suffer the paramount power to exercise foreign jurisdiction over his subjects abroad, he must also co-operate by action taken within his own domestic jurisdiction. It has already been seen that when parliament forbade British subjects to advance certain loans to Native princes, its legislation required corresponding action by the princes themselves. So, too, the diplomatic acts of the King-Emperor entail co-operation in the Native states by their rulers, and such was the case when the slave trade was dealt with by the statute of 1876. Kutch subjects trade with Zanzibar, and whilst there enjoy His Majesty's protection. When the traffic in slaves was prohibited, they were obliged to conform to the prohibition. But still slave-traders might escape to Kutch, and ceasing " to reside or be " in Zanzibar, they .might revert to their status of subjects of Kutch, and avoid the penalties to which they were liable so long as they remained under British juris- diction as well as protection. The Imperial authority must, therefore, pursue them to Kutch, and the immediate sovereign or lord over Kutchi subjects oul of Zanzibar must give effect to the decree of his over- lord. Accordingly, on the 24th of April 1869, the of Kutch informed his subjects " that the perpetrators of the slave-trade would " be punished- there according to the law there prevailing, and you will also be con- sidered as criminals, liable to punishment here in nr domain." In December 1872, a further Proclamatioi warned Kutch subjects that, " He who, in spite this, shall follow this trade, or in any way abet assist in the same, shall be punished severely by th< ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 263 Honourable British Government, considering him to be their own subject, by virtue of the power given them for the purpose, and this Durbar will confiscate all his property in Kutch." Other obligations in the matter of recruitment and extradition will be noticed in their proper place. They illustrate the principle that the Native states, by parting with their rights of negotiation, have not only conceded to the British Government the right to protect and govern their subjects when resident or found abroad, but have also obliged themselves, within the area of their own jurisdiction, to assist the Imperial policy, and to give practical effect to the engagements which the British Government enters into with foreign powers in its capacity of International representative of the United Empire of India, 99. Abundant instances may be cited of the Protection protection accorded by the King's Government to g^ ative the persons and property of the subjects of the several subjects states of India when resident in or visiting foreign u n er countries. The British Government has acquired and ^' e ^ ties or r-i-i Orders in exercises abroad in several non -Christian countries a Council, personal jurisdiction over its subjects, just as in the Native states of India it exercises jurisdiction over Europeans residing or being there. To this jurisdic- tion the subjects of Native states are entitled. Thus, in 1873, the Sultan of Maskat, in the Persian Gulf, agreed that " subjects of the Native states of India who may commit offences within the Maskat dominions shall be amenable to the Political agent and Consul's Court in the same way as British subjects." He further agreed that the words " British subjects," in all treaties between the English Government and his state, " shall include subjects of Native Indian states." In the same way, by article 9 of the 264 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Yarkand Treaty, dated the 2nd of February 1874, it is provided that " the rights and privileges enjoyed within the dominions of His Highness the Amir by British subjects under the Treaty, shall extend to the subjects of all Princes and states in India in alliance with Her Majesty the Queen ; and if, with respect to any such Prince or state, any other provisions relating to this Treaty or other matter should be desirable, they shall be negotiated through the British Government." The Queen's Order in Council, making provision for the exercise of jurisdiction in the dominions and de- pendencies of Zanzibar, dated the 29th of November 1884, applies to all subjects who may be British by birth or naturalisation, and also to all persons enjoying British protection in the dominions of the Sultan. The British Consul is accordingly required to keep a register of " all Natives of British protected states in India who may claim British protection." Unfortunately it is not always possible to secure for the subjects of Native states residing in or visit- ing some dominions of the British Empire the same privileges as are accorded to subjects of the King of British extraction, whether born within the United Kingdom or in the colonies and oversea dominions of the Empire. If those dominions in the exercise of their own legislative powers choose to make a distinc- tion between European and Asiatic subjects of the King, their power to do what they will with their own country's law cannot be questioned. But it is a fact that the position of the subjects of Native states therein is the same as that of the Indian British subjects of the Crown ; and it may certainly be added that if the Native states possessed the power of negotia- tion, they would not be able to alter the position of their own people in the dominions referred to. ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 265 100. The protection of the subjects of the Native Protection states in foreign territories is not confined to consular pas sports jurisdiction or to matters for which treaties specially J^Jsuiar provide. The subjects of the protected states are officers, granted passports when they proceed abroad on busi- ness or pleasure. These passports are useful as a protection in the event of war, and entitle their holders to official assistance in case of necessity. They certify that " the bearer is a subject of the state of ... a state in India in subordinate alliance with Her Majesty, and as such is entitled to Her Majesty's pro- tection." Should there chance to be no representative of British authority in the country visited, the pro- tection of British subjects delegated to any Foreign Government would be extended to the Native sub- jects of the Indian states in their character of pro- tected British Indian subjects. The maritime states of India are few in number, but Kutch boats visit Africa and Mozambique in certain seasons. The Portuguese authorities at that port require that crews should carry articles of agreement and lists of crews. Accordingly, persons engaged as crews on Kutch vessels appear before the Political agent at Bhuj, and on arrival at any port where there is a British Consul they deposit their agreements with him, correct them and the lists if necessary, and seek his intervention if any dispute arises. The principle that the British Consul at Mozambique is the proper representative of Kutch interests and Kutch subjects is thus publicly asserted. Again, it rests entirely with the Crown to receive in India the accredited agents of Foreign Governments, and to annex to their reception such conditions as it thinks fit. The Consular agents of Foreign Governments have no direct communication with the rulers of the protected states, and if such 266 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. agents require from the Native sovereigns any assist- ance or satisfaction, they must address themselves to the British Government which has exclusive charge of the foreign relations of every Native state. Con- versely, when the Native state of Junagarh has had reason to complain of aggressions from the Portuguese colony at Diu, and has desired a settlement of its disputes with the Portuguese authorities and their Indian subjects, the Government of Bombay has represented the interests of His Highness the Nawab, and conducted the negotiations on behalf of its ally. Obiiga- 101. Inasmuch as the Native states, by the in n fronT delegation or surrender of their rights of negotiation the source and legation, have obtained for their subjects the pro- interna- tection and diplomatic services which are rendered to tionai British subjects either by the courtesy of nations or action. J f / by express treaty, it is obvious that they must loyall fulfil all the conditions that are usually or special! attached to the privileges so granted by other nations. Whilst enjoying in foreign countries the status o: British protected persons, the subjects of the sever states of India must conform to the laws and rules o conduct that apply to them. Their rulers also bound by obligations in return for the consideratio extended to their subjects. If they enjoy the frui of the diplomatic action of the King's Government they must share the liabilities and obligations whic flow through the central power from the friendl intercourse of nations. Three instances of sue obligations may be given, affecting respectively the treatment of foreigners in their principalities, the surrender of fugitive criminals, and recruitment time of war. These duties are samples of those whic flow from the source of international engagement, and must not be regarded as an exhaustive list ; for it is ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 267 obvious that in this respect the account of the price which the protected princes pay for the union cannot be closed so long as their rights of negotiation are being continually exercised for them by the supreme power. S 102. The duty which a nation, or independent ' . tion over state, owes to its own subjects extends to tneir pro- Europeans tection in foreign countries ; and European nations ^ ericang have long recognised the obligation to see that their in the subjects are not deprived of life or liberty outside st atel. e their territorial jurisdiction, except by due and proper process of law. Christian states attach to certain principles of their legal systems so paramount an importance that they are unable to regard a departure from them as a "due and proper process." If the courts of a country attribute to the oath of a Muhammadan a greater value than they give to the oath of a Christian or other person professing another religion ; if they protect the person of a Brahman by sanctions refused to others ; or if they punish the slaughter of an animal as a crime not less heinous than manslaughter, a Christian country feels justified in interference. Accordingly, the civilised powers of Europe have asserted against various non- Christian countries a right to try or punish their own subjects resorting to such countries according to the spirit of the society and jurisprudence to which they are accustomed. The arguments in favour of the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction over persons, under what are termed Capitulations, were lately stated by the Italian Government, in a published document, in these terms : "En effet les Capitulations ont eu pour origine la necessite d'opposer au droit musulman 1'Empire du droit chretien pour les sujets des Puissances europeennes residant dans les Etats 268 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. musulmans. Elles presupposent centre le peuple ayant la domination territoriale et ceux pour lesquels elles ont ete stipulees une difference sous le rapport de la religion, des coutumes, des lois, et des usages." When the country to which Capitulations apply falls under the protection and control of a Christian Government, or when, as in Siam, a system of justice and procedure is introduced which is wholly accept- able to the nation enjoying foreign jurisdiction, the necessity for them at once ceases. Thus, England adopted this view in the case of Tunis ; and, in 1888, Italy asserted the same principle in regard to Mas- sowah. Supposing that the Native states of India possessed International life, it cannot be doubted that European powers would insist on the trial of their subjects, residing or being in them, according to systems of law which they are accustomed to regard as civilised. The British Government which shields the states from the diplomatic fetters forged for Egypt by the rivalry of European powers, is bound to satisfy other nations that their subjects will be justly treated. From another point of view its interference is justified. The larger ' states of India by treaty, and the rest of them by tacit understanding and usage, have agreed not to employ Europeans without th< sanction of the British Government. Some have agreed not to permit the subjects of Western nations to reside in them without permission. The law oi India empowers the Governments of the provin< to deport foreigners, and the supreme Government, which has equipped itself with such exceptional powers and has imposed on its allies these restrictions, can give complete effect to its 'Imperial policy onl] by requiring the Native states to co-operate with it. ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 269 The assertion, therefore, by the British Government of the right to try Europeans and Americans for offences committed in the Native states is perfectly reasonable and necessary. It is reasonable, because Parliament has armed the Indian Legislature with the power of legislating for British subjects in Native states, and a protection which Parliament accords to British European subjects is equally due to other Europeans and to Americans. It is necessary, because the British Government refuses to foreign nations the right of making treaties or Capitulations with the protected sovereigns of India, and therefore it should provide by administrative measures a system of justice to which Foreign powers can take no excep- tion on behalf of their subjects. As to the general policy of assuming full jurisdic- tion over the subjects of American or European powers when residing in the Native states no difference of opinion is likely to arise ; but the provision of a remedy is a more difficult matter. Parliament, as Lord Campbell remarked in 1843 in the case of the ship Guiana, " has no general power to legislate for foreigners out of the dominions and beyond the jurisdiction of the British Crown." In another case, Papayanni v. the Eussian Steam Navi- gation Company, it was held that an authority to administer jurisdiction over the subjects of a foreign nation could not be conferred upon another nation by the country which had municipal jurisdiction over them. But in India both difficulties are solved. Since the Native states, no longer independent, have parted with their diplomatic rights, it is the British Government which entrusts to itself on their behalf the required jurisdiction. The aid of Parliament or of the Indian legislature is not needed, since the 270 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Governor - General in Council by cession, or other lawful means, exercises jurisdiction by means of his political officers within the protected states, and the Native sovereigns are relieved of all difficulties. It is not even necessary to consult the states on the subject of each case as it arises, since any diplomatic representations arising out of such trials would be addressed to the British Government, which answers for the Native states in all international concerns. It may excite the surprise of those who have studied the Mysore instrument of transfer to find that the somewhat extended obligations of the Mysore Government make no direct mention of the European subjects of foreign nations, although they expressly reserve plenary criminal jurisdiction over European British subjects, and prohibit the employment of any person not a native of India. But they contain a clause which compels the Maharaja to conform to the advice of the Government of India in the ad- ministration of justice, and ample security is thus obtained for the disposal of any difficulty which may arise in connexion with the trial of a foreign European subject. On the other hand, the under- taking of the Government of Hyderabad, dated the 10th of July 1861, which dealt with the descendanl of Europeans whose status in British India is thai of Statutory Natives, included all Europeans. Hi Highness the Nizam then notified that, " Whe] many Europeans, foreigners and others, descendanl of Europeans, and born in India, are resident in the territory of His Highness the Nizam, and as disturl ances arise amongst themselves and the in habit anl of the said territory, it is hereby made known thai in the event of any dissension or dispute ari* ing among the classes aforenamed within the saic ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS! 271 territory, except those employed by the Sirkar and its dependants, the Kesident at Hyderabad, or other officer whom he may consider it desirable to vest with the same, shall be empowered to inquire into and punish any such offences." A jurisdiction which the premier state in India has thus expressly conceded over the domiciled descendants of Euro- peans to a British Court would not be challenged elsewhere. 103. Elsewhere the subject of extradition will be Obiiga- fully discussed, but in dealing with the obligations ex^^t owed by Native states to foreign powers some mention foreign must be made of their duty to surrender foreign fugitive offenders. The British Government frequently has occasion to procure the extradition by the native chiefs of suspected offenders who have broken British laws. As charged with the foreign relations of each state in India, it may also be required to procure for one state the extradition of its fugitive offenders from another state in which they have sought an asylum ; or having entered into an engagement with foreign nations it may be called upon to perform a like service on the requisition of such nations. Thus, by a Treaty with Germany, dated the 14th of May 1872, the British nation has agreed to surrender a fugitive criminal charged with obtaining money or goods by false pretences. By Her Majesty's Order in Council, dated the 25th of June 1872, legal effect is given to the treaty, and the provisions of the fugitive offenders Acts have been brought into operation. It sometimes happens that the accused, having fled from Germany to India, escapes from British India into the foreign jurisdiction of a Native state. In such a case, although the Acts of Parliament cannot reach the Native state, and although no special treaty subsists 272 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. between the Native state and the Indian Government on the subject, the Government of India would properly require the surrender of the accused taking refuge in a protected state and demand his extra- dition. The source of obligation so devolving upon the Native state is its connexion with the British Government and its delegation to the Government of all rights of negotiation. The duty which the British Government has incurred of surrendering the accused to Germany is not discharged without the co-operation of the protected states, with which the German Government can enter into no convention on the subject. If the hand of British law cannot directly reach the offender outside its own jurisdiction, the state which harbours the fugitive must produce him on British soil where he can then be dealt with according to law. Obiiga- 104. Another instance of diplomatic obligation tjons in j s suggested by the legislation of the British Parlia- the matter , i . c <* T TP of recruit- ment on the subject ot ioreign enlistment. It the foreign 01 " Native states must perform their share of Imperial service. duties in time of peace, they must equally render co-operation during the stress of hostilities. When the paramount power, which represents them in foreign relations, is neutral in time of war, i1 obligations of neutrality necessarily affect the stal of India, which must not supply arms, ammunition, or recruits to either of the belligerents. In 187< Parliament passed the Statute 33 and 34 Vic. cap. xc., an Act " to regulate the conduct of Her Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign states with which Her Majesty is at peace." Illegal enlistment, illegal shipbuilding, and illegal expeditions were defined and prohibited. The Act was to be proclaimed in every British possession as ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 273 soon as possible, and to come into operation on the day of such proclamation. It was accordingly pro- claimed in India in 1871. Soon afterwards the law of India was shown to be inadequate to secure the due observance of the Imperial Act. The Statute of Parliament operates only in time of war, and it was found that Pathans and other warlike classes of India were recruited for foreign service before hostilities were declared. The Indian Act IV. of 1874 accordingly empowered the Governor-General in Council to prohibit recruitment in India for the service of foreign states. Enlistment can thus be prevented in time of peace, or in anticipation of the outbreak of war. But neither Parliament nor the Indian Legislature has power to legislate for terri- tories not subject to His Majesty, and the only means of enforcing the legislation referred to, in the Native states, is by the co-operation of the princes in subordinate alliance with His Majesty. That co- operation the supreme Government in India has the right to exact. Similar obligations have at tunes devolved on the Native states in connexion ^ with the proceedings of the Brussels Conference, and with the regulations adopted by European nations for the suppression of the slave traffic in Africa. They illustrate the duties which the protected states owe to the central power of the Indian Empire, and they must be taken into account as part of the price they pay for the privileges of union and British protection. 105. The Government of India also represents Disability the states in their intercourse with each other, in t f a ^ to interstatal as well as in international transactions, negotiate The states are isolated in regard to their neigh- ea( bours as completely as they are in regard to foreign nations. They cannot declare war on each other, T 274 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. nor can they make treaties with each other or negotiate exchanges of territory. In the same way, no American state can, as a commonwealth, politic- ally deal with or act against any other state. Such liberty of intercourse and negotiation as is reserved to the Cantonal authorities in Switzerland is sub- ject to strict limitations by the federal Compact. If, then, serious differences arise between two Indian states, it is their duty to convey the earliest intima- tion of the facts to the supreme Government in order that it may effect a settlement. This obliga- tion is expressed in their engagements in the case of those states whose policy has been most aggressive, but it is a duty which devolves upon all, irrespec- tively of treaty, by reason of their relations with the British Government. The state of Kutch has main- tained for more than a century an aggravated quarrel with the Kathiawar states of Morvi and Nawanagar. Its treaty, dated the 13th of October 1819, contains a clause that " The Kao, his heirs and successors, engage not to commit aggressions on any Chief or State, and if any disputes with any such Chief or State accidentally arise, they are to be submitted for adjustment to the arbitration of the Honourable Company." Whenever, therefore, the chronic dis- putes of Kutch and Morvi have entered into an acute phase, the British Government has promptly appointed Commissioners to examine the facts, and has declared and enforced its decision. The Rao of Kutch has been assured by one clause of his treaties that the British Government will not interfere in his internal administration, but, where this assurance conflicts with the obligation to accept the adjustment of Government in any interstatal dispute, temporary interference with his administra- ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 275 tion of his Kathiawar interests must of necessity be exercised. The history of British relations with the Native states supplies numerous instances of the rigid application of the principle, that all interstatal disputes must be settled by the supreme Govern- ment, and that one state must not intervene in the internal troubles of another. The Company sought to introduce a new era of peace and to blot out old animosities, but the task was one which presented many difficulties. Thus the ruler of Jodhpur, with which state the Marquis of Hastings concluded a treaty of subordinate co-operation in 1818, entered the British protectorate smarting under resentment at the treatment he had recently received from Jaipur, and at the support given to his rival by some of the nobles of his state. It was to be ex- pected that, when his own position was strengthened by British protection, he should endeavour to use his authority against those who had shown dis- affection to him. The British Government, how- ever, interfered ; and in 1824 the Maharaja was called upon, and agreed to restore the estates con- fiscated by him to certain chiefs, " although they are not fit objects of mercy, nevertheless, in order to please the British Government." Others, who were not admitted to favour, organised a rebellion against the Maharaja, using Jaipur as a basis of hostile operations, not without the support of that state which had been unable to resist the temptation of causing trouble to its ancient foe. Severe notice was at once taken of the conduct of Jaipur, and not long afterwards the British authorities took the extreme step of intervening in the administration of both these states. In other principalities the force of 276 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. the dynastic jealousies and traditional quarrels which the Company inherited from the past was not spent when the Crown assumed responsibility for Indian administration. In 1866 and again in 1873 the Maharawal of Banswara incurred the severe dis- pleasure of the Viceroy. On the former occasion he trumped up a false charge against his feudatory chief of Khushalgarh, for which he was fined and punished by a temporary reduction of his salute. On the latter occasion, he attacked a border village belonging to Partabgarh, and was again punished by the continued withdrawal of his full salute. In the case of Tonk, a state originally carved out of Malwa by the great Pindari leader, Amir Khan, who was reclaimed from his predatory habits by the con- firmation of the Company to his acquisitions, the action of the supreme Government was more decisive. The grandson of Amir Khan, as the Proclamation issued by the Viceroy on the 14th of November 1867 announced, perpetrated an outrage on the person of the uncle and certain followers of the chief of Lawa. The Viceroy therefore resolved, "as a punishment of this crime," that the Nawab should be deposed and that Lawa should become " a separate chiefship, and so remain for ever undei the protection of the British Government." Kaj putana had obtained an unenviable notoriety foi scenes of disorder, and the Proclamation gave ex- pression to the "hope that the present lesson wi] not be lost upon the country, but that it wil lead, both in Tonk and throughout the Provinc< of Eajasthan, to the well-being and prosperity oi all concerned, both of those who govern and oJ the people." The punishment inflicted in this cas< for what was intentionally described as a " crime," ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 277 was no doubt intended to be more exemplary than retributive, but it serves as an illustration of the " fundamental condition," as Lord Hastings termed it in the Treaty of Satara, that all communications with other states must be made through the British Government. 106. The form into which arrangements between Form of one state and another are thrown reflects the principle arrange- that the British Government acts for the protected ments - sovereigns in their intercourse with each other, and that they can have no direct negotiations with another state. Thus, when Kutch and Nawanagar were pre- pared to exempt from export duty jettisoned goods washed from the waters of the Runn on to the shores of their respective territories, it was suggested that the object might be attained by a set of rules framed in the name of the British Government and accepted by the two states, or in separate engagements by which each state could pledge itself to the British Govern- ment to grant the exemption. Some of the more en- lightened Chiefs of India have in recent years shown a laudable desire to terminate their inherited disputes by territorial exchanges, as for instance Lunawara and Balasinore, and Bhartpur and Alwar. The framework of the arrangement concluded between the last- mentioned states affords a good illustration of the manner in which such engagements are drawn. It begins by a recital of the objects of negotiation. ' Whereas a difference of opinion has arisen between the Bhartpur and Alwar states regarding the use of the water of the Rupareil river; and whereas it is expedient, in the interests of the two states, that the matter be adjusted ; and whereas this can best be effected by a territorial exchange." After the recital comes the undertaking of the supreme Government. " The 278 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Governor- General in Council has, with the consent of the states of Bhartpur and Alwar, made the following arrangements." Then the clauses detail the arrange- ments, showing what lands each state transfers wholly, unreservedly, and in perpetuity, to the other state, and the date from which the arrangement is to take effect. Beneficial 107. There is no need to travel beyond the his- the iossof tory of modern India for proof that the Native chiefs negotia- have by the surrender of their rights of negotia- tions. . -i 1 .... & tion saved their principalities from grave dangers. The tributary obligations of the Eajput houses were rapidly and ill-advisedly concluded during the period when the Company stood on one side and left them to settle their affairs with the Marathas. The annexation of the Punjab states and large estates by Kanjit Singh was the first step taken by His Highness, when he commenced the task of consolidating a friendly buffer-state from which Lord Cornwallis anticipated the best results. By the year 1836 his claims against Sind had reached twelve lakhs of rupees, and would have been enforced by the invasion of Shikarpur if the Company had not intervened. Agreements were signed by weaker states as the readiest means foi averting an immediate danger, and with no intentioi of observing them. The suzerain states were nev< backward in issuing titles, Firmans, and Sanac provided that the claimants were prepared pay for them. From the 25th of December 177 when the Marathas conducted Shah Alam in pomp Delhi, until Lord Lake released the Emperor in 180. his paper grants were issued on the demand of keepers. The claims which a Maharaja in Westei India asserted against neighbouring chiefs of the agency were supported by ancient documents, whicl ix OBLIGATIONS IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 279 many years afterwards were proved to be interpolated and untrustworthy, although their execution was, through ignorance and fear, admitted by the descend- ants of the Thakores from whom they were extorted. At the period when the Indian states were included in the protectorate, and resigned their rights of negotiation, they were not fit to be trusted with such dangerous powers, and their surrender of their sovereign rights saved them from themselves. Public conceptions of the sanctity of interstatal obligations have greatly improved, but even in the present day partiality, pecuniary necessities, or misconception might prejudice contracts. Such influences are happily neutralised by the wholesome rule which requires interstatal arrangements to be executed through the intervention of an impartial Government, which desires only the perpetuation of Native rule and the prosperity of the King's allies. CHAPTER X OBLIGATIONS AFFECTING INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION Thephrase 108. THE princes and chiefs of India have parted tion " ga ~ W ^h many of the attributes of sovereignty, but they needs jus- jealously and properly guard those which they have retained in their own hands. They have resigned their rights of peace and war and charged the supreme Government with the duty of protecting them from foreign foes. In return, the supreme authority has the right to insist on their co-operation for the common defence. They have absolutely surrendered their rights of negotiation, confederacy, and legation, and since they are partners in the benefits secured by the international and interstatal action of the British Government, they must fulfil the obligations attached to the rights derived from such action. But, excepl in certain special circumstances for which their treati( expressly provide, they have not entrusted to th< supreme Government any right of interference their internal administrations. How comes it, then, that the whole body of the Native states hav< incurred obligations that admit of interference in th< course of their Home affairs ? The question brinj one dangerously near the quicksands of " acts of state " or " public interests," yet it cannot honestly shirked. It is one of vital concern to the Native 280 CHAP, x OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 281 sovereigns, who cling tenaciously to those attributes of the status of sovereignty with which they have not expressly parted, and it is one on which Blue-Books shed the most light. No parallel, it must be admitted, can be found in the body of Indian treaties to the commission entrusted to the Federal Constitution of America, which commences with this preamble " We the people of the United States," "in order to establish justice," "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, do ordain." On the contrary, when the leading states of India resigned their rights in matters of external policy, they reserved their control over their domestic concerns ; and the British Company gave to many of them a solemn undertaking, " that no officers of the Honour- able Company shall ever interfere in the internal affairs of the Maharaja's Government." It is true that much has happened since the Treaty of Burhanpur with Sindhia, dated the 27th of February 1804, conveyed the definite assurance just quoted. But the treaties of the Company have received a double guarantee from the Queen's Proclamation, dated the 1st of November 1858, and from Parliament, which in its Statute 21 and 22 Vic. cap. cvi. section 67, declared that " all treaties made by the said Company shall be binding on Her Majesty." The question, therefore, is not merely one of vital concern to the states : it touches the honour and good faith of the British Nation and of its Sovereign. At first sight, it would seem to be impossible to justify the heading given to this chapter, or to extricate the supreme Government from the pledges which the Company gave and the Crown has accepted ; and yet it is evident from the public records of both Houses of Parliament that intervention is exercised in the i 282 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. internal affairs of the protected princes, and is approved by the House of Commons, and by His Majesty's Government. " Of the right of the Govern- ment of India to interfere after the forcible dispos- session of the Maharaja there can be no question. It is admittedly the right and duty of the Government to settle successions in the protected states of India generally." " So far as the policy of your Government is concerned, I am glad that Her Majesty's Government have been able to afford it their full support." " Such was the reply given by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for India, on the 24th July 1891, as shown in thg Manipur papers published by order of the House of Commons in August 1891. And other Secretaries of State have cast their nets over a wider sea of interference. So much so, that some writers have refused to put any limit upon the power and right of the British Government to inter- vene in the interests of the Empire. The late Sir George Campbell, in his History of Modern India, wrote in 1852 : " It is impossible to give any definite explanation of what things we do meddle with, and what we do not." It must be confessed that if the difficult question raised in this chapter rested in that uncertain light the pledges of Parliament wou]< afford but little security to the King's allies againsl constant and unwarranted encroachment. An attempl will therefore be made to extract from the materi* available to the public some principles of conduct ii the dealings of the supreme power with the Indiai states in respect of their internal administrations. Categories 109. At the outset it is necessary to eliminal a ^ instances of interference which can be referre rights of to the two great and declared objects of the unioi ence. that have been described in previous chapters on th< x OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 283 common defence and external relations. The inter- vention which has to be justified and assorted in the present chapter belongs to that category which concerns the general welfare. The occasions which give rise to it fall under two divisions, corresponding to the motives which primarily prompt the inter- ference and create the obligation. The Government of India may interfere in the interests of a state protected by it or a sovereign recognised by it, or it may interfere mainly in the interests of British -subjects and of the Empire as a whole. An examination of the reports and correspondence laid before Parliament suggests the following six types of intervention, dictated by considerations of general welfare which mainly have in view the interests of the states. There is, first, the right to recognise successions to sovereignties and to regulate disputed successions. This right will be considered under its proper source, the prerogatives of the Crown, in the next chapter. There is secondly the right of interference to prevent dismemberment of a state ; thirdly, to suppress rebellion against the lawful sove- reign ; fourthly, to prevent gross misrule ; fifthly, to check inhuman practices, or offences against natural law or public morality ; and sixthly, to secure religious toleration. The source and extent of the obligations correlated to these six rights will be considered, and it should be noticed that they are general obligations common to all the Native states, and therefore distinct from those special or limited rights of intervention which are peculiar to certain states, and which rest upon special treaty or usage. To an examination of the latter a separate section will be given. There remains the second division of obligations, those which are enforced in the interests of the 284 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. British dominion. Two objections may be taken to this distinction. In the first place it may be argued , that the interests of the British dominion and the interests of the Native states are identical. Any measure which benefits one of the two partners in the Indian Empire must benefit the other : their interests are in fact inseparable. This is true from a general point of view, and yet, when one partner is strong and the other weak, and moreover when it rests with the former to decide whether a case for interference has arisen, it is important to examine closely the ground for any demand made upon the latter. A protected state may be required to submit to dictation where its own vital interests are involved, and of such cases six instances have just been ; given. It may further be required to join hands with its protector in fighting a common enemy, equally dangerous to both, such as devastating plague or widespread famine. And lastly, even at some loss to itself, it may have to submit to the reasonable demands of a stronger neighbouring power which has vital interests of its own and duties to perform towards its own subjects. Although the British Government is a partner with the Native states in India, it is master of its own house in British India ; and as such, it has interests of its own which it would be justified in securing by agreement or otherwise from its neighbours even if they were independent powers and not under its protection. Obligations of this sort are accepted by equal nations in their intercourse with each other, and they illustrate the grounds of interference with which our argument deals in this chapter. Examples of them are afforded by the measures taken to secure jurisdiction over British subjects, to protect the coinage of British India, to maintain an uniform OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 285 gauge in jurisdiction on railways, and to assist the proper working of the judicial system of British India in a country fissured by a variety of foreign jurisdic- tions. So much may be said in justification of the classification suggested. But another objection has still to be met. It may be argued that the proposed distinction even if it can be drawn to-day will not endure for long. For, supposing that, in the en- deavour to guard the Native states from a flood of interference, it is possible to define and specify the cases in which British interests now require interven- tion in the affairs of the protected states, who can foresee what to-morrow will bring ? The exigencies of the union and the requirements of British interests defy any limitations. Equal nations, which recognise no obligation to consult a superior before they enter into relations with other independent states, are forced by the circumstances of their inevitable inter- course with other nations to adapt their internal administration to the pressure of remonstrance. Considerable room for a similar discharge of obliga- tions requiring concerted action, and for the mainten- ance of friendly relations, must be left in the Indian system, where nearly seven hundred states are united to a superior power. All this may readily be admitted, and yet it is hoped that an attempt to find a rule of conduct through all these difficulties may give con- fidence to the protected princes and check to some extent impatient reformers. For, if once the obliga- tions of the states that arise from considerations of British interests can be subjected to the ordeal of definition and explanation, it is obvious that the protected sovereigns of India will be secured to a large extent against capricious or unjust inter- ference. 286 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. 110. At the outset, the pledges against inter- text of the ference which have been given by the Indian Govern- guarantees ments, and the interpretations put upon these en- fnter 1 - 8 gagements by those who gave them, require careful ference. attention. It was natural that, when the policy of the ring-fence was in the ascendant, the Company should abjure all intention of interference. Their assurances were genuine, and they possessed neither the wish nor the means of interfering to improve an administration for which they were not responsible. If matters became so bad that their own interests were endangered by disorders beyond their borders, as in the case of the Pindar i excesses, then the remedy was in their own hands, and it was used by them. Annexation expressed the dissolution of alliance or protectorate ; and the Company did no violence to law or good faith when they proclaimed war on Coorg or gave the king of Oudh notice that he must eith conclude a fresh agreement or quit, as a consequen of the disruption of the ties of past treaties. Bu guarantees against intervention are not confined the earliest period of Indian treaties. They find place in the later engagements and agreements con eluded both by the Company's servants and by th Viceroys who succeeded them. It becomes necessary therefore, to see what construction the parties affec have put upon these solemn declarations of non interference. Lord Hastings gave the Maharaja of Jodhpur a: engagement, dated the 6th of January 1818, th "the Maharaja and his heirs and successors sh remain absolute rulers of their country, and th jurisdiction of the British Government shall not introduced into that principality." Notwithstandin the first part of this article, the British Governmen x OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 287 interfered, in February 1824, to secure terms for the subordinate chiefs of Jodhpur who had been exiled by Maharaja Man Singh, and again, in 1839, to ensure good government. To Maharaja Holkar, in 1818, a pledge was given, that "no officer of the Honourable Company shall ever interfere in the internal affairs of the Maharaja's Government." Yet the Maharaja in 1835 himself invoked the interven- tion of the British against his mutinous subjects, and many years after that event the Marquis of Eipon effectively interfered to secure religious tolera- tion for the Canadian missionaries. The treaty with Bhopal, dated the 26th of February 1818, declared that " the Nawab, his heirs and successors, shall remain absolute rulers of their country " ; but when in 1863 the necessity arose, the ruler of that prin- cipality was informed that the article quoted by him excluded British courts of justice from Bhopal, but not the political jurisdiction over British subjects. This explanation was given when policies had changed, but it will be observed that it professed to be based upon the interpretation of the document given in 1818. And it must be admitted that phrases were in those days loosely written and more loosely understood. For example, the treaties with Kutch of the same period gave with one hand, and took away with the other what they had given. By their treaty with Kutch the Company engaged " to exercise no authority over the domestic concerns of the Rao," and declared that His Highness and his successors should " be absolute masters of their territory." The very next clause affirmed that "it is clearly under- stood that the views of the British Government are limited to the reform and organisation of the mili- tary establishment of the Kutch Government, to the 288 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. correction of any abuses which may operate oppres- sively on the inhabitants, and to the limitation of the general expenses of the state within its resources." The Company thus reserved an express right of interference ; and by other articles they insisted on " friendly intercourse," the abolition of infanticide, the treatment of their agent " with proper respect," and the preservation of the rights of certain chiefs of the Bhayad. This treaty, therefore, contains within itself very material reservations to the absolute rule of the Rao which in another clause it seemed to affirm. As it was with the older principalities so also was it with those of new creation. In bestowing the principality of Satara in the same year, Lord Hastings, in September 1819, undertook that "the Raja shall ultimately have the entire management of the country," but the article ended with th< clause : " He will, however, at all times attend, above agreed, to the advice which the Political agenl shall offer him for the good of the state, and for th( maintenance of general tranquillity." When the stal of Kashmir was created, the Maharaja was informed, by the Treaty of Amritsar, dated the 16th of Marc] 1846, that he received it "in independent charge." Two years later the Governor-General informed the Maharaja, that "in no case will the British Govern- ment be the blind instrument of a ruler's injustic* towards his people, and if, in spite of friendlj warnings, the evil of which the British Governmenl may have just cause to complain, be not corrected, a system of direct interference must be resorted to." Finally, when a Sanad was conferred on the Punjal states after the Mutiny, Patiala was assured on th< 5th of May 1860 by the first Viceroy, that " th< British Government will not receive any complaints OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 289 from any of the subjects of the Maharaja, whether Maafeedars, Jagirdars, relatives, dependants, servants, or other classes." Yet the same Viceroy had five weeks previously recorded a minute asserting the right of the British Government to step in whenever it was necessary to set right serious abuses. 111. It must then be admitted that the case The against a right of interference by the supreme Government in the internal affairs of the Native British states, as based exclusively on the text of their as com . treaties, is somewhat weakened when other clauses of .to the the same documents are looked at, when communica- states. tions formally made to them are examined, and when the interpretation of the particular articles is tested by practice and by the corresponding articles of other treaties. There is, however, still more con- clusive evidence of the intentions of one party to these contracts. No stauncher supporter of the doctrine of non-interference than Sir John Malcolm ever served the Company, and few officers have signed more treaties containing clauses against inter- ference. He pleaded eloquently against a policy of " disturbing Native states with laws which they do not understand, and introducing principles of rule foreign to their usages," as dissolving " ties which, when preserved, further our objects. By tolerating for a period what we deem misrule, and by conciliating those who possess the hereditary attachment of tribes, we may render them instrumental in reforming their adherents." But there were limits to be set to the principle of unconcern which Sir John Malcolm had himself introduced into the Treaty of Mandasor with Holkar. " We must," he wrote, " alike avoid the minute and vexatious interference which lessens their -power and utility, and that more baneful course u 290 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. which, satisfied with their fulfilling the general con- ditions of their alliance, gives a blind support to their authority, however ruinous its measures to the prosperity of the country and the happiness of its inhabitants." Lord Canning's confidence in a policy of maintaining the rights and privileges of the Native states adds peculiar force to his views on the subject of interference. In his Minute dated the 30th of April 1860 on the grant of adoption Sanads, the Viceroy wrote : " The proposed measure will not debar the Government of India from stepping in to set right such serious abuses in a Native Government as may threaten any part of the country with anarchy or disturbance, nor from assuming temporary charge of a Native state when there shall be sufficient reason to do so. This has long been our practice." It seems, then, that whatever single expressions and clauses may be extracted from Indian treaties ii favour of the absolute right of the protected sovei eigns to govern as they please, the treaties thei selves, and the parties who signed or ratified thei have persistently upheld the view, that under cert* well-understood but undefined conditions the Britis) Government has a right of interference, or, in oth< words, that the sovereigns in alliance with the Kinj are under obligations to the paramount power order and arrange their internal concerns so as render such intervention unnecessary. What th< obligations are which are common to all states, which are suggested by a consideration for the welfai of the sovereigns and their subjects, we are now in position to inquire. 112. Family jealousies equally with family affe tion have proved a potent influence in the dismembei ment of Indian sovereignties. The short - liv< OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 291 Talpur dynasty afforded an instance of the disinte- Right of gration of authority due to family disputes which $*" would have reduced Sind to the condition of Kathi- prevent . i the injury awar if an abrupt termination had not been put to their rule. The last Kalora Governor of Sind was expelled by Mir Fateh Ali Khan in 1786 ; and when state. the Province was annexed in 1843, not only was it already broken up by division into three princi- palities, but its central division of Hyderabad, or lower Sind, was shared with Fateh Ali's son by four sovereigns descended from his brothers. The burden of this dismemberment, due to family jealousies, fell after the annexation upon the revenues of India, from which pensions were bestowed on the families of the deposed Mirs. On the other hand, the Treaty Jagir of Kurundwar, in the Southern Maratha country, was suffered by the Company to be dis- membered in 1855 as a concession to sentiments of family atfection. To Raghunath Rao Keshav the eldest son of the chief, was given one share of the state, with all the rights of sovereignty that attached to the possession of the Jagir or Sarinjam as guaranteed by treaty. He was also entrusted with the management of the Inams. To the deceased chiefs grandson, Ganpat Rao, and to his younger surviving sons Vinayak Rao, and Trimbak Rao, were given their shares, and the status only of British Sardars or ! nobles of the British province of the Deccan. It was intended at first to bring the estates of the junior branches of the family under British dominion, but this intention was eventually abandoned. They were permitted to arrange for the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction under the authority of the ; British Government. The distinction, however, between their status and that of the elder branch 292 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. was marked by the grant to the latter of a Sanad of adoption, a privilege only conferred on chiefs govern- ing their own territories. In 1864 the younger branch of the Kurundwar family were finally assured that any request on their part to be allowed to adopt would be carefully considered by Government, but the guarantee of a Sanad was again refused to them. The political divisions of Kathiawar and Mahi Kanta are encumbered with disintegrated states, which have fallen from the position of sovereignties into Than a circles, as explained in a previous chapter, entirely in consequence of the partition of the public estates among the children of the chiefs. There are a few families in India, like the Kathis, who still follow the rule of equal inheritance, and nothing can prevent the ultimate dissolution of their sovereign rights except an alteration of the rule. In recent years the anxious care of the protecting power to prevent such a catastrophe has induced it to introduce the system of primogeniture into Jasdan the premier Kathi state, but in others the mischief of subdivision has gone too far, and the process has not been arrested by intei fering with local customs of succession. With th< few exceptions, however, the British Government repeatedly stepped in with authority to save tl Native states from the evil consequences of dismeml ment. Accordingly, no ruling chief is permitted bequeath his sovereignty, or any part of it, as pleases ; nor is he permitted to encumber his stal with injurious legacies. In the case of Jagirdai and Talukdars, their interest in their states has declared to extend only to their lives ; and wh< certain chiefs of Kathiawar have on their deatl beds provided for their widows, or their sons, the assignment of lands, the British Governmei OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 293 has frequently intervened in the interests of the sove- reignty to set aside the provision. This intervention is justified by law as well as by public policy. The preservation of the internal sovereignty of small states, with their attributes of jurisdiction, is incompatible with a minute subdivision of authority and means. As in the case of succession to the rulership, so in the case of partition of estates, the Hindu law recognises an essential distinction between public and private property. A tribal custom of partition has no necessary application to a species of property to which a religious or a public character attaches. Although, by Hindu law, family property, even immovable, has long since become alienable, religious property, such as the endowment of temples, tanks, and caravanseries, has retained its inalienable character down to the present day. It may be pledged or encumbered for the necessary purposes of the institution it supports, but its corpus cannot be parted with. Except to the limited extent indicated, it is placed by Hindu law extra commercium. So, too, the Hindu Shastras assign to the land tax, which is the mainstay of the public fiscal system, and to the demesne lands of the Crown, a quasi-sacred attribute, as dedicated to the perpetual maintenance of the realm and of the king. Prescription cannot transfer the property of the king. He is a hallowed person, and as Colebrook points out in chapter iv. book ii. text 15 of his Digest, the succession to his kingdom is governed by a set of rules, that differ from those affecting the devolution of private property and arise out of the special nature of the royal estate as indivisible and inalienable. The estate is sufficiently ;burdened with the perpetual obligation to provide for the series of sovereign duties and functions, just as i 294 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. the religious endowment must provide for the religious services or charitable offices to which it is devoted. This rule of Hindu law is not peculiar to that system. The Charter of the Abbey of Holyrood, dated about the year 1143, shows with what precautions the alienation of Crown Lands was surrounded in Scot- land. It runs thus : " I David by the Grace of God King of the Scots with my Eoyal authority, with the consent of Henry my son and the Bishops of my kingdom, with the confirmation and attestation also of the Earls and Barons, the Clergy moreover and the people assenting, by divine guidance, grant, and confirm in peaceable possession, to the Church of the Holy Kood Edwinesburgh as follows." Five centuries later, when Charles I. was, on the 18th of June 1630, crowned at Holyrood, Dr. Spottiswoode, Archbishop of St. Andrews, Lord Primate of Scotland, inter alia interrogated His Majesty : " Sir, will you likewise promise to preserve, and keep inviolate, the privileges, rights, and revenues of the Crown of Scotland, and not to transfer and alienate them in any way ? " To this the king replied : " I promis so to do." On grounds of public policy, the inaliei ability of the public estate and of the revenues of Native state can, without difficulty, be support< It has been shown that, when the Company allow* the petty state of Kurundwar to be divided, sov( reignty was expressly and exclusively reserved to tl senior chief. The younger chiefs exercise jurisdictic by suiferance or delegation from the British Govei ment ; and it is due to the principle noticed Section 15 of this work, " Once a Native stal always a Native state," that the shares of the junic chiefs of Kurundwar retain even the semblance Native sovereignties. But the division has be< OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 295 effected at some sacrifice of administrative efficiency ; and in other parts of the Bombay Presidency, where similar divisions have been allowed, the intervention of Government to provide for the jurisdiction and maintenance of public order has been necessarily carried to the full length of political administration, a step only short of annexation. A few examples of the intervention of the British Government to prevent divisions of states may be taken from the Annual Reports on the moral and material progress of India presented to Parliament, or from the Collection of Treaties. The earliest instance of express check upon alienation is to be found in the Sanad given in 1820 to the Eaja of Garhwal. In more recent times, the Chief of Ali Eajpur, dying in 1862, bequeathed his state in different shares to two sons. The will was set aside, and the succession of the elder son, Gangadhar, acknowledged. In 1884, the partition of the chief- ship of Katosan, in the Mahi Kanta, was prevented, although in regard to private property it was the custom of the chiefs tribe and of the Mukwana caste to distribute the patrimony on the death of the head of the family. On that occasion Her Majesty's Government expressed the opinion that the assign- ment of maintenance to a younger son of a chief was preferable to dividing the estate. In 1850 the Court of Directors refused to allow the partition of a state in Central India, and in 1848 they applied to all political Jagirs the rule, " that existing incumbents should be held incapable of charging their estates beyond their own lifetime." This order was repeated by Her Majesty's Government in July 1871 in the case of the state of Akalkot. Upon the more im- portant state of Kolhapur a temporary restriction, in 296 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. regard even to alienations of land within the state, was imposed by article v. of the treaty of the 20th of October 1862. The Maharaja of Kashmir was pre- cluded, by his treaty of 1846, from changing the limits of his territory without the concurrence of the British Government ; and in the same year restric- tions were imposed upon the Trans- Sutlej Chiefs. The Sanad, given to Suket on the 24th of October 1846, contains this clause: "The Kaja shall not alienate any portion of the lands of the said territory without the knowledge and consent of the British Government, nor transfer it b^ way of mortgage." On the other hand, in one special case, to which reference has already been made in the fourth chapter of this treatise, Kotah was saved in 1838 from the dangers of civil war by the creation of a new state of Jhalawar at its expense. But even so, when the opportunity occurred in 1899 of restoring to Kotah part of the districts severed from it, that course was adopted. This partial departure from the rule of preserving a principality from dismember- ment was the exception which proved the rule. Extension 113. It may be mentioned here that some restrk principle ti ns u P on tne acquisition of lands, as well as upoi to acquisi- their alienation, are imposed upon the chiefs of Indij land. I n s far as such fresh lands are sought at the expei of other Native states they are governed by the prin- ciples already explained, since rulers of states cannol part with the public property. But where ruling chiefs seek to acquire property by purchase in Britis] territory, the danger is apprehended that the chi< by such acquisition will place himself under Britisl jurisdiction, and so subject himself to complicatioi which may prejudice his rights and privileges as foreign sovereign. A leading chief in Central Indii x OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 297 engaged in trade in Bombay with one Cowasjee Jehanghir, and in 1866 a writ of attachment against property belonging to his state was issued by the High Court in satisfaction of a decree obtained by a plaintiff who had sued him. The Maharaja appealed to the British Government to protect him, and the principle was laid down that the privileges enjoyed by His Highness, as a ruler of his state, could not accompany him when he deserted that position and assumed the character of a trader in British India. Chiefs who desire to acquire property in British territories are therefore required to seek the advice of Government before they purchase it ; and they are given to understand that, in their capacity as posses- sors of such property, they must expect to be treated by public officers just as any other British proprietors or subjects. 114. The restrictions attached to the dismember- Limita- ment of states, or to the encumbrance of Jagirs and *{ ns u j LUG po\v6 certain other estates beyond the lifetime of their of chiefs holders, are carried still farther where an excessive l^eath provision is made for the families of a deceased ruler estates. which must be injurious to the interests of his suc- cessor. In numerous cases the assignment of villages to widows has been commuted after a chiefs death, with the sanction of the British Government, to an allowance in money. More difficult questions are raised by the assignment to younger sons of Giras or hereditary landed property, subject only to conditions of military service and tribute. Cases are not want- ing where a chief, conscious of his inability to bequeath his whole estate to, or dismember it in favour of, a particular son, has attempted to evade the spirit of the rule by either giving on his deathbed, or leaving after his death, large estates to his younger son or 298 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. sons. The practice called for interference in more than one state in Kathiawar, where the system led in some cases not only to a material alienation of revenue from the chiefs who had to bear the burden of administration, but to constant feuds between the ruler and the cadets, or Bhayad, of former rulers. The state of Chuda thus dwindled down into a sovereignty of fourteen villages with its stem less than its branches, and with its chief left without the means of support- ing his position. More than 2000 square miles, in the Province of Kathiawar alone, have fallen under British political administration from similar causes. The disintegration of Native states not only leads to the breaking down of the political system, but entails an increasing cost of supervision and control upon the British Government. It is therefore an evil which to some extent concerns the British taxpayer no less than the Native state. If the policy of administering the political agencies through their chiefs is to be maintained, it is necessary to keep the states compact and capable of supporting the cost of their administration. Adequate maintenance for the sons of chiefs can be provided from the public treasury without recourse to permanent alienations of villages and the consequent jurisdictional friction. Accordingly, the British Government, whilst it has not yet formulated any universal rule on the subjec of providing for younger sons by grants of laud, h at times interfered in the internal administration o its allies to rectify abuses and to prevent serio injury to the rights of the ruling chief. Right of 115. The second right of interference to which tionto 11 " attention must be called in this chapter for th< suppress subject of regulating successions to principalities falls properly under the heading of the Eoyal Prerogative x OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 299 arises in the event of rebellion against the authority of the recognised sovereign. So long as the doctrine of non-intervention and subordinate isolation was rigidly enforced, the Company interfered, or not, according to its conception of its own interests. It refused the invitation of the Bikanir Maharaja to reduce his nobles in 1830. Again, Hari Kao Holkar, in 1835, was denied assistance, because his own internal administration, with which the Government had " no concern," was the cause of the disturbance. The Company, in those days, preferred to wait and see whether disorder was incurable, and if so, they were ready with annexation. But with the more liberal measure of protection now accorded a larger right of intervention has been created. This inevitable right has been publicly asserted in the correspondence published in the Gazette of India, dated the 22nd of August 1891. At the same time the British Government will not lightly interfere where the rebellion can be suppressed by the responsible local authorities. Thus, in 1875, a set of Hindu devotees, called Sidhs, determined to coerce the Bikanir State by committing suicide by self-burial. The Indian Government decided not to interfere so long as the Native state could deal with the case. If the chief felt incapable of performing that duty and renewed his request for aid, and if public disturbances were threatened, and the incapacity of the state to suppress them was demonstrated, then interference would be regarded as a duty. It is now a generally accepted principle that if the protecting power steps in it must do so on its own terms. The first condition annexed to inter- ference for the maintenance of order is the request of the state for aid, supported by proof of the need for 300 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. such intervention ; or, where there is evidence that the Native state cannot deal with the disorder, the British Government will interfere of its own motion. The second condition is hardly less important. In the case just quoted, the Political agent was directed to inquire into the grievances of the Sidhs, and if he found them to be substantial, he was instructed to annex to the grant of aid for restoring order a con- dition that the Darbar would be advised to redress any legitimate grievances. Thus a second condition is annexed to interference, namely, that the British arbitration or aid, when once invoked or granted, must be accepted by the ruling chief without condition or limitation. When, in 1870, civil war was ex- pected in Alwar between the Maharao and His High- ness's Thakores, the Maharao was called upon to submit in writing his acceptance of arbitration, and an undertaking to abide by the result without any condition or reservation. A direct guarantee from the British Government to his subjects was, by this means, avoided, and the authority of their ruler was upheld, since the concessions ultimately and ostensibly proceeded from him. These principles are further illustrated by the correspondence laid before Parlia- ment in 1890 in connexion with disturbances in Cambay. On the 17th of September 1890 the Government of Bombay learnt that His Highness the Nawab had been driven from his state by a mob, who resented the oppressive administration of his minister Shamrao Narain Laud. The Nawab was at the very outset informed that his application for military assistance would be granted on the condition that " such intervention must be accepted unconditionally by the Darbar." British troops were then despatched to Cambay ; and although repeated orders were OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 301 addressed to the malcontents to disperse, and an assurance of a full investigation after their dispersal was conveyed to them, they preferred to resist the police aided by the military force. They were conse- quently dispersed, not without some unavoidable loss of life ; and after due inquiry certain reforms were suggested to the Nawab, which he was required to carry out. To assist him, and at the same time to uphold his authority, a special Agent was placed at his disposal for a fixed period ; and His Highness was requested to delegate to the Agent full powers over the administration. The letter addressed to the Nawab, on the 9th of October 1890, by Lord Harris, Governor of Bombay, contained this intimation : " The British Government has scrupulously fulfilled its obligations for the maintenance of your rights, and has accorded you its protection in times of disturbance ; but it cannot consent to incur the reproach of enforcing submission to an authority which is only used as an instrument of oppression." ;c In pursuance then of the express condition on which my Government undertook to intervene, and of the general principles to which I have called attention, I have directed Major Kennedy to proceed to Cambay in the capacity of Special Political officer." ' Your Highness will be required to invest him with all the jurisdiction and authority necessary for the performance of the duties entrusted to him." Several instances have occurred in other parts of India which have established the principle that, in the event of rebellion against the authority of a Native sovereign, the British Government will interfere when the local authority has failed, or is unable, to restore order, provided that its intervention is accepted as authori- tative, or final. Should it appear that the rebellion 3 o2 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. is justified by good cause, the measures taken will be as gentle as may be consistent with the re- establish- ment of order, whilst the necessary reforms will be introduced, even if they involve the deposition of the chief. Right of 116. The right of intervention is not confined to Son to the case of open rebellion or public disturbance. The check subjects of the Native states are sometimes ready to gross J . . * misrule. endure gross oppression without calling attention to the fact by recourse to such violent measures. Where there is gross misrule, the right, or the duty, of interference arises, notwithstanding any pledges of unconcern or " absolute rule " which treaties may contain. It is obvious that if the annexation of Oudh was justified, as the " only means of removing the reproach " to which the British Government was exposed by supporting with its arms and protection a system of tyranny, the milder interference involved in deposition or temporary administration may pro- perly be applied. There is no obligation, wrote Lord Hardinge on the 7th of January 1848 to the Maharaja of Kashmir, on the part of the British Government " to force the people to submit to a ruler who has deprived himself of their allegiance by his miscon- duct." To the late Gaikwar of Baroda Lord North- brook wrote, on the 25th of July 1875, in these terms : " Misrule on the part of a Government which is upheld by the British power, is misrule in the responsibility for which the British Government becomes in a measure involved." Any tendency that may be shown by some sections of the Indian populations to exaggerate grievances and appeal against their own Government, makes it necessary to lay stress on the condition that the misrule which justifies interference must be gross. Sir John OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 303 Malcolm, in 1830, excluded from the right of intervention to secure reform, " that right, which has often been assumed, with regard to our view of the comparative benefit that the inhabitants would enjoy under our rule from that which they enjoy under that of their own Native princes." The pub- lished correspondence of the Government of India bears abundant testimony to their watchfulness against the advocates of a policy of benevolent coercion at the expense of the recognised rights of the states. Their intervention, when called for and granted in consequence of misrule, has only been accorded where the circumstances were excep- tionally grave, and misgovernment both long con- tinued and gross. In most instances repeated warnings have been given, and in some cases, as in Baroda and Oudh, a definite period for amendment was first allowed before the ruler's authority was set aside. 117. Indian treaties bear unmistakable and Right of painful evidence of the dark side of human nature. " lter y en - tion to It was not only in the earliest period of intercourse suppress with the Company that solemn engagements were taken from the Native sovereigns with a view to the suppression of crimes and practices which shock the sentiments of civilised humanity. In the course of the nineteenth century more than one chief was deposed by the British Government for the com- mission of barbarous acts, and several Sanads issued by Viceroys of India testified to the continued necessity for guarding against any relapse to inhuman practices condemned by British opinion, but condoned, if not commended, by some sections of Indian society. Thus, in 1819, His Highness the Eao, "at the par- ticular instance of the Honourable Company, engages 304 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. to abolish the practice of infanticide, and to join heartily with the Company in abolishing the custom generally through the Bhayads of Kutch." The engagement had, however, to be renewed in 1840 by the chiefs, and there is reason to fear that this inveterate and unnatural practice has not yet been entirely suppressed. On the 4th of December 1829, Lord William Bentinck, in the teeth of strong opposi- tion from native society and warnings from the highest officials, passed a Regulation which punished suttee, or the burning of widows on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands, as culpable homicide. But for some years the practice, condemned by the law of British India, survived under the shelter of the Native states. In one of the Trans-Sutlej states, Mandi, twelve women were burned on the pyre of the Hindu Raja. On the death of Karan Singh, Chief of Ahmednagar, in the Mahi Kanta Agency of Bombay, his widow was burned alive against her will in 1835, notwithstanding the attempts of the British officers to prevent it. In 1836 his son bound himself by treaty " From this time forward neither I, nor my children, nor my posterity, will perform the ceremony of suttee." But it was not until the close of the ad- ministration of Lord Hardinge that effective measi were taken to put down this blot upon Britisl influence in the protectorate. That the Britisl Government would not now tolerate any reversioi to the practice may be accepted as certain. . Infanticide and suttee were not the only socii customs on which the British Government waged war. On the north of the Brahmaputra, in the Provin< of Assam, the Raja Purandhar Singh agreed, on the 2nd of March 1833, to " bind himself, in the adminis- tration of justice, to abstain from the practices of th< OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 305 former Rajahs of Assam, as to cutting off ears and noses, extracting eyes, or otherwise mutilating and torturing, and that he will not inflict cruel punish- ment for slight faults." The efforts of Sir Henry Lawrence in the cause of humanity are a matter of history, and an extract from a treaty, which he negotiated with the Udaipur state in 1854, illustrates the obligation under present consideration, although the particular treaty was afterwards annulled. Article xix. of the instrument ran thus : " No person to be seized on the plea of sorcery, witchcraft, or incanta- tions." Passing on to the third period of Indian treaties, we find Lord Canning imposing the follow- ing obligation on the Cis-Sutlej states. On the 5th of May 1860 the Maharaja of Patiala, the Raja of Nabha, and the Raja of Jind, engaged " to prohibit suttee, slavery, and female infanticide throughout their territories, and to punish with the utmost rigour those who are found guilty of any of them." Unfortunately the need for constant watchfulness has not passed by. A casual examination of the published Reports of the Indian Governments supplies a list of half a dozen cases in which the Indian Government has interfered since 1868 to punish the rulers of Native states for cruel acts. There is no occasion to revive the shame of such incidents by republication of the names of the states, which will readily be found in Blue-Books, but it is noticeable that in each case the British Government took action, although the particular state had no special agreement with the British authorities to prohibit the practice condemned. The supreme Government justified its intervention by the law of public morality, and not by any express convention. A recital of the offences which provoked its departure from the rule of non-interference in the x 306 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. internal affairs of the sovereign states will sufficiently explain its action. One chief ordered a subject, con- victed of theft, to suffer the penalty of having his hand and foot chopped off. The second directed the mutilation of a slave by cutting off his nose and ears. A third had two jailers flogged to death. A fourth committed an outrage of too shocking and disgusting a character to bear repetition. The fifth ordered a " barbarous and inhuman " sentence of impalement to be carried out; and the sixth, so lately as in 1890, publicly tortured a subject. These instances tell their own tale, and explain why it is incumbent on the British Government, which upholds the Native states, to reserve to itself a right of interference to check or punish inhuman practices. Right of 118. The obligation to secure religious toleration tionto 11 " is accepted not solely in consequence of the solidarity reiuous ^ re ^gi us feelings throughout the Empire, but aL toleration, in the interests of the states themselves. When i1 is borne in mind that the British Government owes it to its own subjects to secure for them religious toler- ance from Foreign potentates, its duty in India enhanced by the subordinate relations which subsi* between the Government of India and its protectec allies. Thus, with China, liberty of conscience secured by treaty ; and the engagement with Siai dated the 18th of April 1855, contains this provision " All British subjects visiting or residing in Siam shj be allowed the free exercise of the Christian religioi and liberty to build Churches in such localities shall be consented to." The Treaty of friendship an< commerce with Zanzibar, dated the 30th of Api 1886, contains article 23, which runs thus : " Subjecl of the two High contracting parties shall, within th< dominions of each other, enjoy freedom of consciem OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 307 and religious toleration. The free and public exercise of all forms of religion," and " the right to organise religious missions of all creeds, shall not be restricted or interfered with in any way." But the duty which the British Government has assumed is not confined to what it owes to its own subjects in Native states. Interference is justified, if the need arises, to secure religious toleration for the subjects of the protected states. Thus, in Gondal, bitter disputes at Dhoraji were composed by securing to the Muhammadan population the right, under certain safeguards, of eat- ing their customary food. The Jodhpur Chief under- took, on the 24th of September 1839, to exercise "no interference in regard to the six sects of religionists." In 1871, when the Chief of Rajgarh embraced the faith of Islam, an announcement was made in public Darbar that the British Government did not look to the religious professions of the chiefs of India, but to their obligations to the paramount power. If they observed their engagements, " and ruled without oppression and intolerance, there would be no inter- ference." The duty of religious tolerance was thus publicly asserted, and when the Maharaja of Indore claimed a right to enforce certain regulations against the Canadian missionaries, Lord Eipon informed His Highness that he could not permit them to be inter- fered with " in the exercise of personal and religious freedom in their own houses and on their own pre- mises." It is true that in this case the missionaries were British subjects, but the immunity against per- secution was claimed not only for themselves but for their converts and dependants. There are still a few Hindu principalities in which the civil status of Hindus embracing another religion is regulated by the ancient Laws of Menu, and a change of faith is held by their 308 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Courts of Law to deprive such converts of their rights as citizens or as parents. The law of India is ex- pressed in Act xxi. of 1850, and the British Govern- ment is constantly urging the rulers of such states to legislate for their own subjects in the same spirit of religious toleration. Until they do so, it is obvious that the paramount power must protect, if need be, \ its own subjects resident in or visiting such states , from the operation of local laws so clearly opposed to their rights as subjects of the King. other 119. The five instances which have been given interfer- of the right assumed by the supreme Government of ence are interference in the internal administration of the ID. ST)6C13*i cases united states possess two common features. The obli- Treaty. 7 gations discussed affect all the states of the Empire, and they are justified, even in the absence of treaty, by a desire for the permanency of Native rule. Thei are other obligations peculiar to certain states whicl have been created by express agreement and whicl operate exclusively in the territories to which the] expressly apply. There is no reason to fear thai they will be unduly extended to other states, and brief notice of their character will suffice. Th< numerous sovereignties in Kathiawar engaged 1807 "not to seize upon the lands of another," " neither will I purchase, at the offer of my brethren, their villages or lands." For the protection of th< Bhayad and Mulgirassias, a Court called the Eaja- sthanik Sabha was accordingly constituted under the presidency of a British officer, whose proceedings wer< " subject to the general control of the paramounl power, exercised through the Political agent in Kathia- war." When this special Court had decided a large number of cases and established a body of leading principles for the future guidance of the courts of th( OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 309 Native states, it was withdrawn in the hopes that thereafter the states concerned would judge righteously between the parties. In the large state of Kutch, the British Government extended, in 1819, its guarantee to the Jareja chiefs of the Bhayad, and generally to all Rajput chiefs in Kutch and Wagar. Apart, then, from the general obligation of the Rao, His Highness is required to give effect to this engage- ment by the constitution of a special Court for the trial of certain cases that affect the guarantee-holders. In Central India the guaranteed chiefs and Tank- hadars are protected by special rules from the juris- diction of their feudal superiors ; whilst in Kolhapur the subordinate Jagirdars are placed under British supervision, notwithstanding " the seignorial rights of " their Raja. 120. These exceptional restrictions upon internal General sovereignty go to establish the general rule of non- interference : and passing from the category of oblisra- tion to ,. i-ii j_ i -i i > enforce tions which have their origin in a consideration for British the welfare of the states, we can now proceed to i nterests: examine those duties which the British Government i. Trial of renders to its own subjects, and which cannot be per- formed without some degree of intervention in the affairs of other states. The subject of jurisdiction over Europeans and Americans, who owe allegiance to Foreign Nations, has been considered in connexion with the external relations of the Indian princes who have surrendered their rights of negotiation. British subjects, and especially those who are Euro- pean or of European origin, are made subject to the Indian Legislature by Acts of Parliament. The right which a German or an American can expect his own Government to secure for him, of a fair and proper trial, cannot be denied to British subjects. Accord- 310 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. ingly, jurisdiction is exercised over them within the Native states by British officers. In the chapter on Jurisdictory arrangements this matter will be dis- cussed at further length. ii. in the 121. Another British interest has given rise to currency, intervention in the internal administration of the Native states. The regulation of coinage is one of the objects which the United States of America have entrusted to the Central Government. In India the full advantages of free trade and free intercourse are conceded to the Native states under British pro- tection. There are no frontier stations, and no obstacles of customs examination are placed in the way of free circulation of passengers and goods, save where arms, opium, and a few special articles are concerned. These privileges carry with them some reasonable claims to co-operation. At the same time, the British Government does not appear to have asserted as yet any general right to establish uniform coinage or uniform weights and measures throughout the United Empire. The attempt was, indeed, made in Sind in 1842, where an article on the subject was introduced into the treaty presented to the Amirs. But generally and elsewhere the Government of India has contented itself with interference on behalf of the British taxpayer when circumstances have arisen in a protected state which have seriously threatened or injured public interests. Accordingly, when, in 1834, spurious and counterfeit coins were poured into the great trading centre of Bombay, the mint of Janjira, a state which lies on the other side of the harbour, was suppressed. No violence was done to the principles of international law by such interven- tion ; and the Janjira state, if it had been a nation instead of a subordinate protected state, could not x OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 311 with reason have complained. In order that it may avoid the recurrence of extreme measures of inter- vention, the British Government, which experienced at Agra a similar inconvenience from the mints of a neighbouring state, has laid down the rule, that Native state mints must be established and worked only at the capital of the state under proper control and supervision by the ruler of the state, whose coin- age must be limited to the requirements of his own territories, and of those of his subordinate Chiefs. Where mints have fallen into disuse, they are not to be revived, and the state of Balasinore was, in 1885, informed accordingly. In some states, as in Por- bandar, the British coinage has been introduced, and the tendency of the Government of India is illustrated by the 13th article of the Mysore instrument which makes the coins of the Government of India legal tender in that principality and declares that " all laws and rules for the time being applicable to coins current in British India, shall apply to coins current in the said territories. The separate coinage of the Mysore state, which has long been discontinued, shall not be revived." 122. The exercise of control over the railway m. in the system is not merely a measure of Imperial defence, ^y f but also one of common welfare. Every state in fr ee trade, India is required to cede jurisdiction over that part judicial of the common system which traverses its limits. The acts - advantages of this concession will be discussed in a subsequent chapter. The union of the whole Empire has been consolidated in recent years by numerous engagements with the chiefs for the removal of injurious restrictions on trade. In the unreserved adoption of free trade the state of Kolhapur took a leading place in 1886, and other states, especially on 312 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. the Western side of India, have followed the example. But these reforms of the fiscal system are effected by agreement, and are not introduced by the assertion of Imperial authority except where the British Govern- ment acquired from the Peshwa special rights in the matter, or where the circumstances have called for exceptional intervention. Thus, in April 1857, the Company's Government laid down the principle in Gujarat that " a tributary state cannot raise at pleasure its transit duties, this being an Imperial prerogative," and in so doing they carried out the orders of the Court of Directors dated the 4th of January of that year. When, again, the British Government was compelled to intervene in Manipur in 1892, it abolished forced labour as an act of state. There are other directions in which the Imperial authority is occasionally pressed. Thus extraditioi is demanded in certain cases from Native states whei a reciprocal surrender cannot be conceded. Th< recognition of the judicial acts of the Native stal cannot be guaranteed or enforced against other stat< so long as their systems of administration remain imperfect as they are. Yet, where the ends of justi< require the attendance of parties before British Coui the states united to the Indian Empire may be ex- pected to render ready co-operation. Cautions 123. The obligations discussed in this chapter, vafionT 1 so ^ ar as ^ey are not expressed in written engag< needed in ments, must be regarded as resting upon slipper this mg ground. Allowance must be made for the greal chapter, variety of states included in the protectorate, thei] geographical positions, and the course of Britisl relations with each one of them. Each case foj interference will admit of much difference of opinion. The full extent of British rights of intervention ii OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 313 the Home Departments of the states has never been, and never can be, defined. The theory of it is well understood, but it has never been published. When one leaves the safe ground of military and inter- national obligations, in respect of which the para- mount power has received full authority to act, one enters on the debatable ground of policy and approaches " the mysteries." If Sir George Campbell was too sweeping in his comment on the relations between the British Government and the protected states, " It is impossible to give a definite explanation of what matters we do meddle with, and what we do not," there is some truth in the application of his words to the internal administration of the states. The admission has been frequently made in these pages that neither the Company nor the Crown accepted a distinct mandate to promote the public welfare of the states in subordinate union with the government of India. It has been shown that obligations are constantly liable to be reinforced by the action of Parliament, by the exercise of the Prerogative, and by the accretion of interpretation and usage. Who can measure their volume ? In the chapter on the " Price of Union," it was suggested that the account could not be closed. Is it, then, worth while to attempt the solution of the insoluble, or the classifica- tion of obligations, and their differentiation from matters of comity ? To this question the answer may be given that the preservation of some 680 Native states by a paramount power is an extraordinary achievement. The threads which unite them must be very delicate and liable to be broken, unless mutual confidence is established and the burden of their common responsibilities equitably distributed. Success must depend on the self-restraint and modera- 314 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. tion of the protecting power, as well as on the loyal co-operation and submission of the protected states. From this point of view there is an advantage to be gained by sorting the whole bundle of obligations, distinguishing between those which the Indian princes " must clearly perform, and those other services which they may at their discretion withhold or render to the Empire. On its part the British Government loses no opportunity of taking the public into its con- fidence, and when it interferes in the internal affairs of a state it usually publishes full reasons for the policy which it pursues. From such publications the material for this chapter has been taken ; and since it is certain that the political barometer will rise and fall in the future as it has in the past, and that time and public opinion will make fresh calls upon the King's allies, it seems expedient to search history for an explanation of the principles which have hitherto guided the government of India in this part of its difficult task. By such means a continuity of policy may be maintained, and impatient reformers may be led to appreciate the difficulties as well as the advantages of the changes which they may advocate. As regards the rulers of the states, they must remember that they cannot be of the Empire an< yet not of it. They cannot enjoy the privileges an< ignore the responsibilities of the union. As membej of a single political organism, they owe allegiance the union and must shoulder their share of th< common burden. They will save themselves froi interference if they recognise their obligations for th< preservation of their sovereignties against dismember- ment, and for the promotion of good government an< religious toleration, which the King's Government has undertaken. There are other interests to be con- x OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS 315 sidered besides those of the states and their subjects. The British Government has a strong and indefinable obligation to promote the moral and material welfare of 232 millions of British subjects. If the action of a foreign nation towards them were unfriendly, law and policy would justify reprisals. With nearly seven hundred subordinate states, large and small, admitted into junior partnership with it, the British Govern- ment must guide its policy in each case that arises by the " competition of opposite analogies." It can hardly be contended that the refusal of a minority of the states to join in common action for the welfare of the Empire, whether it be a matter of currency, of postal development, of railway extension, or any other Imperial concern, would justify general inaction. The rights and privileges of each protected state are guaranteed by Parliament, but the beneficent exercise of the suzerain's authority, if it could not proceed without the agreement of every unit of the protector- ate, would be paralysed. Care must be taken that a policy of benevolent coercion does not prove more dangerous to the integrity of the Indian sovereignties than was the policy of escheat or annexation. But at the same time the progressive wants of society impose new responsibilities on those who are charged with their administration. Under these conditions it is well for all parties to take stock of their rights and duties. An examination of treaties and of . published correspondence on cases of interference is essential for that purpose ; and the object of this chapter is not to lay down a law, but to suggest some lines of distinction, and to indicate facts and analogies upon which others may put their own ' interpretation. CHAPTER XI OBLIGATIONS DERIVED FROM THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE qbiiga- 124. IN every political constitution there are certain public acts which are incomplete without the formal flpw exercise of the authority, or attributes, vested by it in from the its recognised Head or representative. The bestowal Crown. o f favours, or the grant of powers, by the supreme Head of the community carries with it certain obli- gations. The Crown is the fountain of Honour, and those who accept its decorations or privileges owe, j and admit their liability for, something in return. The Sovereign alone receives or accredits ministers and agents, and it needs no clause, such as article xix. of the Treaty with Kutch, dated the 13th of October ; 1819, to ensure that the British agent must "be treated with appropriate respect." The admission of a new chief into the family of sovereigns in sub- ordinate alliance with His Majesty, however regular the succession may be, is not complete without formal recognition of His Majesty's Viceroy ; the chief so recognised owes allegiance to t authority which recognises and upholds him. It w assuredly no accident that Lord Canning used in the Adoption San ads issued by him a form and words which are quite unusual in Indian treaties. Treaty of Benares, concluded on the 12th of Decem 316 CHAP, xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 317 1860 with Maharaja Sindhia, is drawn up between the British Government and His Highness, and Her Majesty's authority was not expressly referred to. But the Sanad of adoption, given to His Highness on the llth of March 1862, set forth " Her Majesty's desire to perpetuate the Governments of the princes of India, and to continue the representation and dignity of their Houses." The royal prerogatives were touched upon, and to the assurance given " in fulfil- ment of" Her Majesty's desires, the express condition was annexed of " loyalty to the Crown," as well as faithfulness to obligations to " the British Govern- ment." There are, then, certain other obligations due by the Native states which have not been collected under the three heads of common defence, external relations, and common welfare, obligations which flow from the source of the British Crown and from the prerogatives of the King-Emperor of India. It may be argued that some of these duties were enforced even before Lord Canning, in his Despatch dated the 30th of April 1860, described the general position created by the transfer of the administration to the Crown in these terms : " The last vestiges of the ; Royal House of Delhi, from which we had long been ; content to accept a vicarious authority, have been swept away. There is a reality in the suzerainty of : the Sovereign of England which has never existed ! before, and which is not only felt but eagerly ac- knowledged by the Chiefs ; a great convulsion has ; been followed by such a manifestation of our strength : as India has never seen." No doubt the connexion between the Crown and the Indian Sovereigns became ^more intimate after 1858, but it existed before then. ' The Company simply derived from their Sovereign many of the rights which they asserted and exercised. 318 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Hence it follows that some of the obligations which will be considered in this chapter were recognised when the Company ruled, although fresh vitality and force have been given to them by the determination of the Company's " trust " announced in Her Majesty's Proclamation of the 1st of November 1858. Exclusive 125. The first of these obligations arises from settle* ' ^ e P rer g a tive of the Crown to grant honours and precedence decorations, and to settle precedence. From the fact tnat tne King-Emperor of India exercises this power two obligations follow : first, that the Viceroy's de- cision as to relative rank is authoritative ; and, secondly, that no honours can be received from other sources without His Majesty's sanction. It may be added that the power which confers can take away that which it has granted. Questions of precedence and relative rank seem trivial, but they have even led to war in the periods which preceded the estab- lishment of the British peace. In the present day they give rise to heated discussion and sullen resent- ment, but more serious differences would ensue if the authority to arbitrate between rival claims did not vest in the Viceroy. A brief sketch of the history British titles and salutes will suffice as an introductioi to the consideration of the obligations attached their enjoyment. In India the Company's allies coveted honoui and titles, bestowed by the Emperor of Delhi, lon| after the consolidation of British supremacy. 1838 it was observed by a writer in the British at Foreign Review, that " the Nizam still acknowledge the supremacy of Delhi, as well as the King of Ou< the Nawab of Bhopal, and the Nawab of Mac Amir Khan does so in secret, we believe, althougl the Company raised him to the independent positioi xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 319 he holds." Considerations of policy induced the Governor-General to change the title of the " Nabob Vizier" of Oudh to that of "King." Lord Moira's Treaty of the 1st of May 1816 was concluded with " His Excellency the Nabob Vizier," whilst Lord Amherst's Treaty of the 17th of August 1825 was with " His Majesty the King of Oudh." Lord Moira, when he became Lord Hastings, was the first Governor-General who paid serious attention to the bestowal of titles, and he recorded his opinion that " this essential and peculiar attribute of sovereign rule should be exercised direct by the British Govern- ment." Lord Amherst granted several titles, and Lord William Bentinck reviewed the whole subject, in May 1829, in a Kesolution in which he laid down three grounds for their award. The first qualifica- tion was service rendered in war or time of public emergency. The second was public spirit shown by landholders in assisting the police, or by others who had improved the commerce and agriculture of India, or by those who had carried out important public works. The third qualification was based upon liberality in making contributions for public purposes. But it was not until the communications of India were de- veloped, and the institution of 1861 of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India by the Queen, that the Emperor of Delhi's titles ceased to possess a value, and the favours of the Sovereign of Great , Britain and Ireland were eagerly sought. The first Table of Salutes authorised by Her Majesty was con- tained in an Order in Council, dated the 20th of March 1857, although its issue in India was delayed by the outbreak of the Mutiny. The earliest lists published < by authority were sanctioned by Orders of Council, i dated the 23rd of January 1860 and the 1st of March 320 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. 1864. They were revised in 1867, and several ad- ditions or alterations in them have since then received the specific sanction of the Queen. The Viceroy of India can only amend the Table of Salutes subject to the approval of His Majesty, and when in 1877 the title of Queen-Empress, or Kaiser-i-Hind, had been assumed by the Sovereign, a fresh list was published in the following year, which introduced the distinc- tion of personal salutes given for life. Additions of guns, as a personal honour, to the dynastic salute of a chief last only for the life of the prince upon whom they are conferred. The salutes range from twenty-one guns, to which the three rulers of Baroda, Hyderabad, and Mysore are entitled, to nine guns, but those chiefs who receive salutes of eleven guns and upwards are alone entitled to the style of His Highness. Under the Company's administration certain ruling chiefs were styled His Excellency, but this style is now exclusively reserved for th< Viceroy and certain other British officials. It unnecessary to give a complete list of Indian title with the additions made to them by Lord Dufferin, who was the first Viceroy to recognise learning the creation of the titles of Mahamaho-padyaya an< Shams-ul-Ulama. The fact that all honours, titles salutes, and decorations proceed from the Sovereigi entails certain consequent obligations which have nexl to be considered. It was laid down in 1891 by Her Majesty's Govei ment, that in all questions of social preceden< amongst the chiefs of Native states in India, n< absolute right can be claimed, and the decision of the Viceroy is authoritative. But long before then a pute had arisen between the two great Kajput House of Jodhpur and Udaipur, otherwise known as Marw* xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 321 and Meywar, as to their relative precedence, and the Viceroy's decision had been enforced in 1870 as final. The deprivation, or the reduction, of a salute is regarded as a public disgrace, and Indian history supplies several instances of the infliction of this punishment on chiefs who have failed to carry out their solemn obligations. In the same way, titles have been publicly taken away from their holders, whether Native chiefs or British subjects, if they have brought disgrace on the Order into which they have been admitted. The obligation annexed to the receipt of the Koyal favour is thus made clear. In August 1886, the Gazette of India published the announce- ment, that " Earn Singh of Bansi in the District of Basti is hereby deprived of his title of Baja." The Raja had sent for a girl betrothed to her relative ; and when she was removed he ordered his servants to bring her by force. On her resistance she was cut down and her father was killed. The accused persons were acquitted for lack of evidence, but the Court pronounced an opinion against the Raja, who was accordingly deprived of his title. The Raja of Puri was, on another occasion, deprived of his title of Maharaja ; and a member of the Carnatic family, who treated with disrespect a title conferred upon him, was only allowed to resume it after he had tendered his apology. The prerogative of the Crown is exclusive, and titles which suggest an allegiance to any sovereign but the King -Emperor are ignored. Thus the title of Vizier of Oudh was exchanged, as already mentioned, for King, and in 1864 the claim set up by Sultan Sikandar to the title of Shahzada was disallowed. Again, the sovereigns of India are never called in official language royalties, nor are their sons styled Princes, a term appropriated Y 322 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. both in Statutes and in Indian laws to ruling chiefs themselves. Accept- 126. Since the Sovereign grants honours, salutes, foreign an d titles, whether personal or official, it is also the orders. prerogative of the Crown to settle the conditions under which they may be accepted from foreign Sovereigns. Eegulations on the subject were pub- lished in the official Gazettes of India in 1886, and have since then been republished. Foreign powers can have no intercourse with the protected sovereigns of India, and this rule of isolation precludes the direct transmission of royal favours. Occasionally, Native chiefs have sought a privilege from another chief, or desired to confer a title on a British subject. In each case it has been held that the act was in- admissible as an invasion of the royal prerogative. Thus in April 1886, a chief in Central India desired to receive a gold chain Toda from the " famous house of Kolhapur." The request was courteously declined. Much must depend on the nature of the present sought or offered by a ruling chief. Th< annual gift of shawls by the Maharaja of Kashmir the King, and the presents which the last King Ava sent to China, signify more than an exchange courtesies, being symbols of allegiance and subordim tion. It would therefore be contrary to the spiril of the union if Native chiefs gave or received su< presents. In 1875, the Nizam of Hyderabad prop< to confer the title of Mustakil Jung Istikam-ud-Dau] Bahadur on a British officer, but the title was not .: cognised. On the other hand Native sovereigns ha 1 conferred titles on their own subjects. 127. More important, both in itself and in n consequences, is the principle that the succession of chief to a Native state requires the recognition of th< xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 323 King's representatives. From this principle follows The right the further right of the British Government to settle disputed successions. The first rule was clearly laid succes - down in 1884 in a letter addressed, on the loth of chief- January, to the Chief Commissioner of the Central ships - Provinces, which was published in the Gazette of India of the 22nd of August 1891. The Secretary to the Government of India wrote : " The formal investiture of a chief should, if possible, be performed by a British officer. Such a course may not always be practicable ; but I am to observe that the succes- sion to a Native state is invalid, until it receives in some form the sanction of the British authorities. Consequently an ad interim and unauthorised cere- mony, carried out by the people of a state, cannot be recognised, although the wishes of the ruling family and the leading persons in the state would naturally in all cases receive full consideration." The same principle had already been established under the rule of the Company, not, however, without some contra- dictory precedents, and it was certainly recognised by all subordinate states under the Mughal and the Maratha governments. Thus, the Nizam of Hydera- bad, Sikandar Jah, in 1803 obtained the confirmation of the Emperor of Delhi to his succession to rule in the Deccan on the death of Nizam Ali. When it is recollected that Hyderabad had been admitted into the British alliance in 1766, that it was a party to ,the Triple alliance of 1790, and that in 1798 the British subsidiary force was made permanent and the union of the Nizam with the Company finally cemented, the reference to Delhi for recognition illustrates the firm hold which the idea of the Imperial prerogative of recognising successions had obtained in India. The Company was not altogether 324 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. pleased with the incident, but its officers judiciously retorted by delivering to the new Nizam an instru- ment, dated the 24th of August 1803, which declared that the British Government considered all treaties and engagements which had subsisted between the late Nizam and the Company to be in full force. Thus, in the first period of British intercourse, the prevalent idea in India was that successions needed the confirmation of higher authority ; and the Governor-General, Lord Wellesley, accentuated the principle by delivering a formal instrument to the ruler of the leading state in the country. In the next period the state of Indore presented an opportunity for enforcing the same lesson. Hari Eao Holkar died in October 1843, and His Highness's mother was allowed by the British Kesident to choose his successor, who was thereon installed by tha officer without awaiting instructions from Calcut To make the position clear, the Governor-Gene on the 9th of November 1844, addressed the ne Maharaja in language which has ever since adopted on similar occasions. It was remarked tha by the death of the late chief, without leaving a: adopted son, or any one entitled to succeed, guddee of the Holkar state became vacant." Thereo "it became necessary for the Governor -General make an arrangement for the administration" Indore. The secondary position which, in forming decision, was assigned to the wishes of the widow was emphasised in the following sentence : " Having an earnest desire to promote the interests of th chiefs and people of the state, and to preserve th honour and prosperity of the principality, the British Government determined on this occasion to make such an arrangement as would conduce to the accom xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 325 plishment of these ends, and at the same time, it was believed, be agreeable to the feelings of the remaining members of the family of the late Hari Eao Holkar, and of the chiefs and nobles of the principality." Upon this foundation of motive and prerogative was based the following conclusion : " Actuated by these motives, I was induced to direct the Resident to nominate your Highness to the occupation of the vacant guddee." " In thus bestowing on your High- ness the principality of the Holkar state," it is the intention of Government that " the chiefship should descend to the heirs male of your Highness's body lawfully begotten, in due succession, from generation to generation." Few Indian documents possess more historical interest than that just mentioned. It exonerates Lord Dalhousie from the charge, so often brought against him, of discovering a new doctrine of lapse. It places Lord Canning's Sanads in their true light as granting a concession which no ruling chief, and still less the widow of a chief, could claim, namely, the privilege of regulating the succession where no heirs male of the chiefs body lawfully begotten existed to constitute a "due succession." ^ Finally, it gives the force of continuity to the language used by Her Majesty's Government in : 1884 when the succession to Kolhapur was based on selection and not on any ceremony of adoption per- formed by the widow of the last Raja. On that ; occasion the Secretary of State expressed satisfaction that "a candidate has been found, closely related to the deceased prince, of a character which is stated to give promise of success as a ruler when he attains .majority, and whose selection, whilst agreeable to the ! Ranis and people of Kolhapur, has met with the approval " of the Government of India. 326 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. From this account it may be gathered that the prerogative of recognising successions was exercised in the times of Mughal rule and was asserted by the Company in the first and second periods of their intercourse with the states. In the third period it was finally placed beyond any challenge by the action of the first Viceroy. Lord Canning's Sanads of adoption were eagerly sought, and, as has been seen, they were denied to the junior branch of the Kurundwar family because its representative was not recognised as a ruling chief. The ruling prince of almost every important state in India received a Sanad, and by his acceptance admitted, if there was any need for the admission of that which could not be contested, the right of Her Majesty to regulate successions. The Sanads were received with every mark of joy and gratitude, because they confem something new and substantial when they granl to ruling chiefs a right of adoption " by yourself an< future rulers of your state, of a successor in accordanc with Hindu law and the customs of your race," an assurance " that, on failure of natural heirs, an succession to the government of your state, whic may be legitimate according to Muhammadan law will be upheld." The present section may be con eluded by repeating a quotation from a Despatc dated the 5th of June 1891, which was publish with the correspondence on Manipur affairs. " It the right and duty of the British Government t settle successions in subordinate Native states. Ever succession must be recognised by the British Govern- ment, and no succession is valid until recognition has been given." There is no compromise or qualification in this public declaration of an obligation common to all states. sion. xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 327 128. From that broad rule it follows that the The right British Government has the right and the duty of disputes as intervention to settle disputed successions. One of to succes - aisvn the objects which Lord Canning had in view when he conferred the Sanads of adoption was that ruling chiefs should make timely provision for their succes- sions. If they neglect the opportunity, and make no use of the means particularly placed in their hands, the British Government must select a successor. It cannot entrust the prerogative of the Crown to the widows of a chief. They may indeed adopt a son to the private estate, if there be any, of the deceased Hindu chief who has himself neglected, or been unable, to exercise the right. But the regulation of the succession to a chiefship is beyond their power. Thus, the last Kani of Satara adopted a son to her private estate, but the principality lapsed on the death of her husband without heirs. A chief may reasonably be expected to exercise the right of adop- tion in a formal and public manner. When, in 1869, it was announced that the late chief of Shahpura had adopted Earn Singh just before his death, it was dis- covered that the alleged adoption had been performed in secret, and there was no adequate proof of the fact that the chief himself had taken part in it. The obligation of selecting a successor thus devolved upon the British Government. The state of Ali Raj pur fell vacant, in 1891, upon the failure of heirs direct or adopted. The Government of India, following the precedent of Indore and of other states already noticed, declared that the state was thus liable to be treated as an escheat, but they selected Partab Singh, a cousin of the late Rana. In so doing they an- nounced that they were " guided solely by a con- sideration of the best interests of the state and of the 328 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. generally-expressed wishes of its nobles and people. Kana Partab Singh succeeds to the chiefship in virtue of his selection by the Government of India, and not as a consequence of any relationship, natural or arti- ficial, to the late Rana Vijay Singh." In weighing the best interests of a state due consideration is paid to Hindu or Muhammadan law or to any special family or tribal custom that supersedes the ordinary law. The personal fitness, or promise of fitness if a minor is selected, of the candidate is an essential qualifica- tion. Subsidiary to these main considerations, the wishes of the late ruler, if they can be ascertained, and the general feeling of the nobles and widows receive full attention. The widows of the deceased chief ought, in the absence of palace intrigue or domestic quarrels, to be the best exponents of their husband's intentions or preferences, and they can so far contribute to the material upon which the Vice- roy's selection and decision will be taken. But a prompt settlement is essential to the welfare of the state, which would be ruined by delay, and by th< growth of partisan feelings which a prolongation oi the dispute would entail. It is unnecessary to dwell on these considerations which are familiar to every student of Indian history. The Manipur correspond- ence shows that importance is still attached to the principle just discussed. "It is admittedly," wrol Her Majesty's Secretary of State on the 24th of Jul] 1891, " the right and duty of Government to settle successions in the protected states of India." Such questions may even arise out of the terms of the adoption Sanads, and not merely upon failure oi heirs whether natural or adopted. In Nawanagar, a Kathiawar state, His Highness first adopted one son, on whose death the adoption of another, Ranjit xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 329 Singh, was in January 1879 recognised by the Vice- roy. But in 1882 the Jam had a son, Jaswat Singh, born to him, and the Government of India conse- quently revoked their provisional recognition of Kanjit Singh. When, however, an early death removed this natural heir leaving no son to succeed him, the claims of Kanjit Singh as an adopted heir revived, and he was recognised as ruler of Nawanagar. In other cases questions have arisen as to the meaning of the Sanads given to Muhammadan states, which qualify the succession " on failure of natural heirs " by the words " which may be legitimate accord- ing to Muhammadan law." Does the protective caveat " natural heirs " comprise collaterals ? or may a Muhammadan ruler select any son he chooses to succeed him ? It would seem that a Muhammadan chief who is without lineal heirs should not pass over a natural collateral heir in favour of a selected successor without rights of inheritance, nor pass over the person next in succession by selecting a more remote collateral. This much is established by authoritative decisions in several cases, that the strict rules of civil inheritance are not necessarily applicable to quasi -regal successions. But there is no occasion to exhaust the list of questions that may require settlement. It is sufficient to state the rule that if disputes arise either under the Sanads or outside them, the Viceroy, as representative of His Majesty, has the right to settle them. Were it not so the rival parties would have recourse to the sword. 129. Indian treaties and histories contain fre- Nazarana quent reference to Nazarana or succession duties, and and . suc - -* C6SS10I1 a discussion of the subject of succession to Native duties, states is incomplete without some allusion to them. Such fines or levies have their roots deep in the 330 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. past of Indian, as well as mediaeval European, history. At one time the payment of Nazarana or succession fines was regarded as the best evidence of a title to succession, and rival claimants vied with each other in pressing their payment on the Peshwa or the Emperor. The duty was often excessive. Thus, the petty Bhil state of Mandavi had devolved, in 1771, upon a cousin of the last ruling chief, and the Peshwa charged a Nazarana of 100,000 rupees. Another suc- cession occurred in 1776, and a further duty of 150,000 rupees was demanded. Ten years later the im- poverished state was charged 60,000 rupees for a third succession. When the Treaty of Bassein placed Mandavi in tributary relations with the British Government, the country was reduced to such a state that, in 1814, on the succession of a collateral, no Nazarana was taken. Sir John Malcolm was an advocate of the expediency of establishing the system of Nazaranas on a fixed basis ; but so long as the doctrine of escheat and lapse prevailed, the Company did not desire to commute a more profitable right of reversion for a tax with which was associated the idea that its payment afforded a guarantee against lapse. The Native states still levy Nazarana on succession to their subordinate chiefships, and the British Govern- ment has interfered in Kolhapur to prevent the exactions from oppressing unduly the chiefs who are placed under their general protection by treaties with the Maharaja. The liability of subordinate states to pay succession duties on the recognition of succession by the suzerain was so well established by precedents and tradition that exemption from the liability required special provision. Thus the treaty of 6th June 1819 with the Southern Maratha Country Jagirdars, the Patwardhan family, contains xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 331 a statement of their obligations to muster troops, and then promises that " when new Sanads are required for the descendants of each it is to be represented to the Government, which will graciously confer a new Sanad, and continue the Jagir without exacting any Nazar." The chiefs have since then received adoption Sanads, so that it may be assumed that no Nazarana would be charged on the succession either of descendants of the original grantee or of sons adopted by the ruling chiefs. Practically, under present policy, no succession duties are charged in the case of direct successions or adoptions duly made by ruling chiefs. In other cases of collateral successions, and where the state is not specially exempted for poverty or other good reason, a light duty is charged on its net revenue after deduction of any tribute which the state may have to pay under its treaties. The duty is graduated according to the distance of relationship, and if one succession on which duty has been paid is followed within a certain interval by another, a further reduction is made. 130. It is the prerogative of the Sovereign to The right receive representatives of, or to accredit his own to other * Nations and states, and to annex to their recognition agents. such conditions as are required. This, like other royal prerogatives, was exercised by the Company in former days. An extract from the records of the East India Company illustrates the procedure adopted. Thus, on the 2nd of August 1843, the following Despatch was sent to the Governor in Council at Bombay : " Sir At the request of His Majesty the King of the French, which has been communicated to us through the Queen's Government, we have consented to the recognition of Mons. Jules Altaras as Vice-Consul 332 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. for France at Bombay. We are, your Loving Friends, John Cotton," and others. From the date when the Government of India passed to the Crown, the nominations of foreign Consuls to reside in India have been regulated by the rules which apply to other possessions of the Crown. Nominations of a foreign Consul are signified by the power concerned to the Foreign Office in London. If the Indian authorities have no objection to raise, the exequatur of His Majesty issues in the usual course. When a foreign Consul is invested by his own Government with authority to make Vice-Consular appointments, the Government of India can recognise such appointments. Foreign consular officers having none but commercial duties to perform are only appointed at British Indian ports, and they have no intercourse whatever with the Native states. The channel of communication between the ruling princes and the outside world for all official purposes is through the agents or Eesidents placed at their Courts by the Government of India. These representatives of the King's Government have various duties assigned to them by British law, as well as by treaty with the states, or in the absence of treaties by established usage. In the earliest days of political intercourse, when a few favoured states were admitted into the Company's alliance, arrange- ments were made for the mutual appointment of agents. But with the introduction of the extended policy of subordinate isolation, and with the surrender by the protected allies of their rights of war and of negotiation, the maintenance of the Company's agents at the Courts of the Indian sovereigns entered on a new phase. Some states, as Kolhapur, were required to pay the cost, or a part of the cost, of the agency establishment from which under the altered conditions xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 333 they received material services of protection and advice. In course of time Parliament and the Indian Legislature attached to the Political agents special jurisdiction over British subjects in foreign territory. The Governor-General in Council charged them with the exercise of other jurisdiction delegated to the Government of India by the Native sovereigns, as over railway lands or civil stations. These arrange- ments will be considered in the next chapter. Here it is only necessary to refer to these matters in order to indicate the extensive area of duties and functions imposed on the Political officers attached to the pro- tected states. For the discharge of their duties they require not merely the privileges of extra-territoriality and the immunities that attach to foreign representa- tives and their servants in foreign territory, but also the active assistance of the sovereigns whose interests are protected by the British Government. No treaty engagement is needed to support this obligation. Without its representatives on the spot the Govern- ment of India could not perform its proper duties to the Native states. Occupying the position of inter- national representative or of arbiter in interstatal disputes, charged with the defence of the Empire and the protection of the chiefs against causeless rebellion, called upon to decide on the spur of the moment questions of succession, and in rare cases required to take a more active part in the internal administration, the supreme Government must station its officers wherever the need arises for their presence or their intervention. Any attack upon them is rightly re- garded as a breach of loyalty, and when the Gaikwar of Baroda was, in 1875, charged with an attempt to poison the British Resident, the proclamation issued by the Viceroy described the alleged attempt in these 334 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. terms : " Whereas such an attempt would be a high crime against Her Majesty the Queen, and a breach of the condition of loyalty to the Crown under which Mulhar Rao Gaikwar is recognised as ruler of the Baroda state." The duty which a Native prince owes to the British agent at his Court was thus traced to its source, the royal prerogative. The right 131. To the same source may be attributed the char^Tof right of the British Government to take charge of the states states when, owing to the death or removal of a of minors. , n , , . -. -, and to ruler, a fresh succession has not been recognised, or their** 6 f r ^ e successor duly recognised is unable from minority education, or other cause to undertake the responsibilities of his high position. Similar in source and nature is the obligation repeatedly and publicly affirmed " to see that a minor chief is so educated as to befit him to manage his state." The civil law imposes a special obligation on Government for the protection of minors and for their education. The principle is of greater importance to the Indian sovereigns, where Zenana factions and Court intrigues tend, if unchecked, to produce complications that would seriously hamper a young chief in the discharge of the extensive powers which may devolve upon him, whenever he is entrusted with the administration of his state. In the discharge of its duties the Government of India, whilst anxious to pay all deference to the views of the family of the deceased chief, admits no right of intervention, and is exclusively guided in the arrangements which it makes by its own conception of the interests of the ruler and his subjects. The duty 132. There are other obligations that flow from toth y e alty ^ e Direct relations in which His Majesty the King- Crown. Emperor stands to the protected chiefs of India, and xi OBLIGATIONS TO THE CROWN 335 which are embraced in the condition of loyalty to the Crown attached to the Sanads of adoption. The criminal law of British India recognises the offence of " waging war upon the King " ; and although the princes of India are not subject to the regular juris- diction of the British Courts, they have been taught by many examples that resistance to the Eoyal authority constitutes an act of rebellion. The Nawab of Furruckabad rebelled in 1857, and surrendered himself in 1859 under the Proclamation of amnesty. He was tried, and found guilty of waging war against the British Government, and of the murder of British subjects. The sentence of death passed upon him was suspended, but he was banished from British India. Breach of allegiance is still recognised as a ground for annexation, and Lord Canning expressly guarded against the impression to which his Sanads might possibly give rise, by recording this reservation : "Neither will the assurance dimmish our right to visit a state with the heaviest penalties, even to con- fiscation, in the event of disloyalty or flagrant breach of engagement." The obligation of loyalty rests not merely on the rulers of states, but on their subjects as well, since they, equally with their rulers, enjoy the protection of His Majesty. Thus, in August 1891, the Jubraj of Manipur was tried and convicted of " waging war against the Queen-Empress of India." The occasion was taken to proclaim that " the subjects of the Manipur state are enjoined to take warning by the punishments inflicted on the above-named persons guilty of rebellion and murder." Hostilities against the British Government not only involve a breach of allegiance, but a " crime." In the same way no Native state is justified in undertaking, or abetting hostilities against another state. When, 336 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP, xi in 1873, the Maharaja of Rewa, under grave provoca- tion, despatched a force to arrest Hard at Singh in Sohawal territory, his conduct was held to be a breach of allegiance. The duty of allegiance and loyalty owed by every state in India must be performed in spirit as well as in deed. The grant of harbour or refuge to a proclaimed offender differs little from abetment of his offence. In 1872, His Highness the Nawab of Junagarh brought to Bombay in his retinue a proclaimed mutineer named Niaz Muhammad Khan. This person was not covered by the amnesty, and he was seized, duly tried, and con- victed of rebellion. The Nawab expressed regret, and pleaded ignorance of the antecedents of his follower. The apology was accepted not without a serious warning to the chief, and the principle was laid down that a protected chief is bound to communicate to the British agent the name and circumstances of any suspicious persons, of any creed or profession, who may seek a refuge in his territory. CHAPTEK XII BRITISH JURISDICTION IN THE NATIVE STATES 133. How essential to the Indian system is the Three principle that sovereignty is divisible, becomes ap- g^ t ^ of parent when the intrusion of British Courts into jurisdic- the territories of the Native sovereigns is examined, delegated, In every state in the interior of India, the British" residuary, ~ . ,..,.. and sub- Government exercises personal jurisdiction over stituted. British subjects, as well as extra-territorial juris- diction over all persons and things within its cantonments situated in foreign territory. Where- ever a main line of railway penetrates, British jurisdiction acquired by cession and limited in extent to the objects set forth in the terms of cession follows it. In many of the protected states the Government of India shares with the sovereign his jurisdiction over his own subjects ; and in some the entire administration of justice, both civil and criminal, is conducted under arrangements made by the executive Government, or, as it is termed, by the Courts of the Governor-General in Council. In the case of States which are subject to none of the disabilities under which the Indian states lie, International law tolerates and recognises some of these forms of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Although it was laid down, in the case of the Laconia, that as a matter of right no state 337 Z 338 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. can claim jurisdiction of any kind within the terri- torial limits of another independent state, still a nation may, and does expressly consent, either by treaty or by its own legislation, to the introduction of foreign jurisdiction over persons who are not its subjects, or over areas occupied by the representatives of foreign powers, without thereby losing its inde- pendence. This authority derived from the sovereign of the place in which a court of foreign jurisdiction exists, coupled with the authority of the sovereign in whose name the court is established, constitutes the double foundation for the Consular jurisdiction which His Majesty's officers exercise by Orders in Council within Egypt, China, Morocco, Maskat, Turkey, Zanzibar, and other places. Its extent is more com- prehensive than is generally imagined. The Orders which affect Turkey, for instance, deal with the following matters, namely, the Government of British subjects, the judicial system in Egypt, hospital dues, judicial fees, the suspension of the operation of Orders in Council as regards matters within the jurisdiction of the Egyptian Courts, fugitive offenders, and the administration of Cyprus. With the Chinese Empire His Majesty has arranged for the extension of Consulai jurisdiction to maritime matters and additional ports, and for the establishment of the supreme Court at Hong-Kong, in addition to the matters mention< under Turkey. But International law could not strained to the length to which British jurisdiction ii carried in India as, for example, in those states wh< the Political agent hears appeals from capital senten< passed by the Courts of the Native states upon theii own subjects. In short, if the protected states are be treated, as the Crown and Parliament have under- taken to treat them, not indeed as independent, bu1 xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 339 still as sovereign states, we must part company with Austin and his school of International law, and hold fast to the principle laid down by the late Sir Henry Maine that sovereignty is divisible. The only alter- native is that which has already been discarded in the tenth chapter of this treatise, namely, to agree with Sir George Campbell that " it is impossible to give any definite explanation of what things we do meddle with and what we do not/' When it is remembered that in Africa the foreign jurisdiction of His Majesty is being exercised over any persons and in any cases over and in which territorial jurisdiction may be exercised, those who are anxious to perpetuate Native rule in India, and are jealous guardians of the rights and privileges of the protected princes, will be pardoned if they shrink from accepting the counsel of despair suggested by Sir George Campbell. It is essential in dealing w r ith the subjects discussed in this chapter to remember the point of view from which the obligations of the ruling princes are approached. An endeavour is being made to draw a line between what they must surrender as the price of union and what they can claim to retain. If the hand of foreign jurisdiction is to be extended according to " the circumstances of the case," and if analogies between European international usage and the treat- ment of the Native states are to be ruled out of court, the protected princes must lose a powerful defence against encroachment. Yet Parliament, the King's Orders in Council, and even recent treaties, constantly proclaim that the princes of India have " sovereign " rights, and while this is the case it becomes necessary to examine the intrusion of British jurisdiction into the Native states from their point of view as being sovereigns in their own internal affairs. 340 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. The best justification which can be given for the exercise of the extra-territorial powers of the Govern- ment of India will be found in tracing it to its sources. If these sources are very wide it will still be found that most of the area is outside the zone of danger, and some degree of confidence will be given to the protected princes by knowing where danger lurks and how it can be avoided. The preamble to the " Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council 1902 " recites the following sources : " treaty, usage, sufferance, and other lawful means," and of these the first three sources supply most of the " powers and jurisdiction exercised on His Majesty's behalf by the G-over nor- General of India in Council." In this chapter it is proposed to adopt a classification of the jurisdiction thus exercised which will bring prominently into view the source of the particular jurisdiction exercised whether delegated, residuary, or substituted. Delegation is meant to convey the idea of consent expressed by agreement or resting on sufferance. Eesiduary is intended to carry the mind to the defects in the sovereignty of the pro- tected rulers, who from a remote past have shared the attributes of internal sovereignty with a superior power exercising jurisdiction in certain defined and well- established cases. The phrase substituted is used for lack of a better term to describe the setting aside oi the jurisdictory powers of a chief when such powers are neither delegated nor vested by usage in the paramount power, but taken out of the chiefs hands and exercised for him by the will of a strongei power. In the chapter on obligations for the common defence, it was shown that all the states of India have delegated to the paramount power the duty of defend- ing them, and consequently they are obliged to grant t< xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 341 the Imperial army the right of cantonment and an u/ effective control over the railways, Imperial post offices, and Imperial roads. These concessions involve the exercise of British jurisdiction. In the chapter on external relations, it was explained that the sovereigns of India have ceded, without limitation or reserve, their rights of negotiation. It is therefore necessary to station British agents in their terri- tories, and the representatives of the British Govern- ment are entitled to exercise jurisdiction within their Kesidencies and agencies. To prevent cause of com- plaint the subjects of European and American nations must receive proper justice, and it may become neces- sary to entrust their trial for offences committed in the states to a British Court. In special localities, the Native sovereigns have handed over to the British Government jurisdiction over civil stations within which jurisdiction is exclusively exercised by British Courts. In all these cases, the source of British jurisdiction is delegation, or the consent of the states, expressed by treaty in the case of the larger princi- palities, and elsewhere based on tacit consent and long usage. In every Native state the combined authority of the King and the authority of the protected sovereign, either expressed or implied, may be regarded as the source of that widely extended personal jurisdiction over European and Indian British subjects which the Government of India either exercises, or, under certain limitations, entrusts to the Native state. We may then classify as instances of delegated jurisdiction which do no violence to the accepted theories of sovereignty, the five following classes : cantonment jurisdic- tion, railway jurisdiction, jurisdiction over civil sta- tions or canals, residency jurisdiction, and personal 342 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. &J/T &%~*- jurisdiction over Europeans. In regard to the last of these types it might be objected that the King's jurisdiction and control over his own subjects do not depend on delegation, and that the Statute, 6-7 Will. iv. c. 78, which gave colour to such a view was repealed. The view has been held and avowed by the British Government that its officers exercising jurisdiction over British subjects are not delegates of the power ruling over the country where they exercise such jurisdiction, but officers of the crown. This may be admitted, but, nevertheless, the powers which these officers exercise are conceded to the Crown by the territorial sovereign, and the term delegated jurisdiction may be used to cover that concession or toleration which is extended to the foreign official appointed by his own Government, with the consent of the terri- torial sovereign, to hold his court in the territories of the latter. The British Government also exercises a consider- able jurisdiction in some of the Native states over the subjects, or a class of the subjects, of such states. Sometimes this power is reserved to the Indian Government by treaty, as in the case of Kutch over the Jareja nobles, or in the case of Kolhapur over the feudatory states. More frequently it rests upon long usage and restrictions of sovereignty which date back from the first contact of the Company with certain states. In the period of civil wars which preceded the establishment of the British peace a stronger chief frequently claimed and exercised a share in th< sovereignty of a neighbouring territory, retaining in his own hands jurisdiction over certain persons or things. The British Government when it suppressed the superior chief, as, for instance, the Peshwa, relin- quished his control or jurisdiction over the minor xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 343 chiefs whenever that course seemed possible. But where the states were too small or too poor to provide proper courts of law, the Company retained in its own hands certain attributes of sovereignty. Such jurisdiction may be described as residuary, by which term is implied that the residue of jurisdictory attributes which have not been left with the Native sovereigns are exercised for them by the British Government. It may be urged that this jurisdic- tion is also delegated, and in some cases such is no doubt the case. But, as a rule, it vests in the British Government by right and by treaty or con- scious delegation, and, for reasons which will be more evident when the subject is discussed at further length, the term residuary will be found convenient. Eesiduary jurisdiction may be divided into ordinary and extraordinary. It is only with the former class that this chapter is concerned, because to the extraordinary power of the Govern- ment of India to interfere and set right any grievous wrong no limit can be fixed. The so-called extra- ordinary jurisdiction does not pretend to be based on right or delegation ; it rests upon an act of state and defies jural analysis. In such cases the Govern- ment of India interferes with authority by virtue of its paramount powers, and it does not cloak its intervention, or weaken its authority by straining legal ties, or misapplying legal phrases which were devised for a totally different set of conditions. Finally, there is a third class of jurisdiction, where the Native sovereign is for a time set aside and the ever-present, though sometimes latent, Imperial power is called into direct activity through failure of the ordinary local authority. As all power centres in and radiates from the Imperial Government, it makes such 344 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. arrangements as seem most just and expedient. This class of jurisdiction, to which for lack of a better term the name of substituted jurisdiction is given, approaches somewhat closely the class of extra- ordinary residuary jurisdiction. But there is this distinction between the two classes. When the British Government takes from a chief his regular jurisdiction in a claim preferred against him by one of his own Bhayad, it does not interfere with the rest of his jurisdiction. It merely asserts an extra- ordinary right to subject to an impartial trial a dispute in which the chief is himself personally interested, and the adverse party is one to whom, for special reasons of state and not of law, the intervention of the Imperial power is conceded. But when, owing to minority or misgovernment, a chief remains nominally sovereign, but cannot be trusted with the exercise of his own legitimate judicial functions, and the whole administration of justice is undertaken for him by the British Government, no residue of jurisdiction is left to him for the time being. The paramount power steps in to govern the state as its ruler for all purposes. The difference requires a distinct class to represent the more ex- tensive control exercised, and, accordingly, in this chapter British jurisdiction will be treated of as either delegated, residuary, or substituted. Obstacle 134. It must be admitted that the intrusion of ^ r ? ntlsh British jurisdiction, which has been described in the diction last section, presents a somewhat formidable list. from^ Two questions will at once occur to the reader who treaty. nas pursued thus far the inquiry into the relations of the Native states with the British Government. The first is, How can this extension of jurisdiction as, for example, to the trial of European British subjects Of THE UNIVERSITY xn BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 345 in foreign territory be justified by the terms of the treaties with their princes? The second is, On the assumption that the Native state forms no part of British India, how can British jurisdiction over the subjects of its ruler who are not British subjects as, for instance, residuary jurisdiction be rendered legal according to British law ? I propose to deal in this section with the first and least difficult of these questions. The ruler of Bhopal, in 1863, invited attention to the Treaty of the 26th of February 1818, which contained this assurance : " The jurisdiction of the British Government shall not, in any manner, be introduced into that principality." The reply given to Her Highness was based on three considerations the intention of the treaty, its proper construction, and the effect of Parliamentary legislation. The intention of the engagement was to protect Bhopal territory in its internal sovereignty over its own subjects. The words quoted conveyed a guarantee against the introduction of the ordinary judicial system of British India and the encroachment of British Law Courts created by the Legislative authority of British India. The mere exercise of jurisdiction over British subjects outside the terri- torial limits of British India could not be construed as the introduction of the jurisdiction of Government into Bhopal, which would signify the extension of British jurisdiction over all persons within the area. Parliament had, in 1861, passed its Statute 24 and 25 Vic. cap. Ixvii., which gave the Legislative Council authority to make laws for all servants of the Govern- ment of India within the dominions of princes and states in alliance with Her Majesty. The Indian Penal Code provided in 1860 for acts committed beyond the territories vested in Her Majesty by the 346 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Statute 21 and 22 Vic. cap. cvi., as if such acts had been committed in them. Finally, Bhopal had by the treaty to which it referred undertaken to " act in subordinate co-operation with the British Govern- ment " ; and where the British Legislature had em- powered the Indian Government to visit its subjects with penalties, the Bhopal state might reasonably accept the position in which the Government of India was itself placed. That Government could not legally surrender or compromise a special system and pro- cedure laid down by the supreme authority of Parliament for a class of persons subject to its jurisdiction. Obstacle 135. The second question cannot be answered jurfc- to by pitting the authority of Parliament or of the Indian diction Legislature against that of the Native state. It frorrffegai never been contended that Parliament can pass la 1 operative in foreign territory on those who are no1 British subjects. When, therefore, the Indian Govern- ment avoids annexation, and exercises, on behalf of Native prince, residuary jurisdiction over those wh< are his subjects, or with his consent administei justice in a civil station or on a railway line whic] has not been incorporated into British India, can such jurisdiction be legally justified ? In dis- cussing the question, it is desirable to state and prove two preliminary propositions : first, that the Indian Legislature has no power to legislate foi those who are not subjects or servants of Majesty, and reside, or are in foreign territory secondly, that, as a matter of fact, the Governmenl of India has, and exercises, jurisdiction over othei than British subjects and servants within sue] foreign territory. The solution of the difficulty a only be explained when the difficulty itself is full; xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 347 appreciated. The powers of the Indian Legislature, both in regard to British India and in regard to foreign territory, must therefore be examined with as much attention to conciseness as the intricacy of the subject will permit. 136. The legislative and judicial systems of Limita- British India have passed through four stages or periods. The year 1773, when the famous Kegulating Act, Statute 13 Geo. III. cap. Ixiii. was passed, closes the first period, and opens the second, which ended Councils with the enactment of Statute 21 Geo. III. cap. Ixx., passed in 1781. The third period ends with the Statute passed in 1833, namely, 3 and 4 Will. IV. cap. Ixxxv. ; and the fourth was closed by the Act of 1861, the Indian Councils Act, Statute 24 and 25 Vic. cap. Ixvii., which, with its amending Acts, still governs the legislation of Her Majesty's Indian possessions. At the outset the Company's officers considered that their concern ended with their own establishments. But they soon discovered that the Natives of the country eagerly sought justice in their Courts, although no law gave them jurisdiction in such cases. Appeals to them became more and more urgent before August 1771, when at last the Directors informed their President and Council that they intended " to stand forth as Diwan." The character of their judicial administration up to the year 1773 may be gathered from the Charter, given in 1661 by Charles II., which authorised the Governor and Council " to judge all persons belong- ing to the said Governor and Company, or that should live under them, in all causes, whether civil or criminal, according to the laws of the kingdom." A liberal interpretation was of course given to this authority. In 1726 it was officially stated that the 348 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Company had, by its strict distribution of justice, encouraged not only " our own subjects, but likewise the subjects of other princes and the natives of adjacent countries, to resort to and settle in the said forts and towns." Thus began that immigration of populations seeking justice and protection which has created Calcutta, and changed Bombay from a fishing village to the third most populous city in the British Empire. In 1726 Mayor's Courts were established in the three Presidency Towns, and in 1753 Courts of Requests were similarly created, and the pressure upon the civil jurisdiction of the Mayor's Courts was for a time relieved. The Court of Directors was authorised to make " bye-laws, rules, and ordinances for the regulation of the several Courts of Judicature." In 1773 the British Parliament referred to the Charter establishing the Mayor's Courts as " not sufficiently providing for the due administration justice." The famous Regulating Act, 13 Geo. III. cap. Ixiii., which gave increased powers to the Supreme Government in India, also established a Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William as a King's Court, and not a Company's Court, to perform all civil and criminal jurisdiction, and to do all other things necessary for the administration of justice. The extent of its jurisdiction over all British subjects residing in the Provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, and any of His Majesty's subjects, or any persons employed by them or the Company, was fixed section 14. The Supreme Government was, by the 36th section, empowered to make reasonable regula- tions for the good order of Fort St. William and places subordinate thereto, provided that such regulations were registered in the Supreme Court xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 349 with its consent. The dual control and jurisdiction of these two " Supreme " Powers was not only indistinctly traced, but it necessarily led to conflict. No explanation was given of " British subjects," and the territorial extent of their respective authorities was indefinite. Thus the two independent and rival powers, the Supreme Council and the Supreme Court, faced each other, and soon came to blows. In 1781 Parliament, by Statute 21 Geo. III. cap. Ixx., closed this second period of strife, recited the doubts and difficulties of the situation, and deemed it " expedient that the lawful Government of the Provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa should be supported," and " the inhabitants maintained and protected in the enjoy- ment of all their ancient laws, usages, rights, and privileges." The English law was no longer to govern Native India or supersede the Native law. It will be observed that so far as the extent of jurisdiction or the definition of subjects was concerned, the Statute of 1781 solved no difficulties, and it was not until 1797 that Statute 37 Geo. III. cap. cxlii. threw back light and its confirmation upon the proceedings of the Indian Government. Parliament then by implication recognised an extension of the Council's jurisdiction which was hardly warranted by law or Charter : " Whereas certain regulations for the better administration of justice among the Native inhabitants and others, being within the Provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, have been from time to time framed by the Governor-General in Council," it was ordered that such Kegulations should be registered in the Judicial Department and formed into a regular Code, and all Provincial Courts of Judicature were to be bound by the said Eegulations. The constitution of a Supreme Court in Madras, and subsequently by 350 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Statute 4 Geo. IV. cap. Ixxi. in Bombay, and the extension of the Legislative powers of the three Councils of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay in 1813, need only be mentioned. The revised Code of the Kegulations of the Governor-General's Council com- mencing in 1793, that of Madras in 1802, and that of Bombay, which in 1827 codified the law from 1799, bore testimony to the necessity which Parliament had recognised of giving freedom to the Governments of the three Presidencies. It was inevitable, however, that a system which had grown up as described should lead to anomalies and conflicts, and once more a remedy was sought in centralisation. The Act passed in 1833, Statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV. cap. Ixxxv., opened the fourth period, and gave power to the Governor- General in Council to " make laws and regulations for all persons, whether Britis] or Native, foreigners or others, and for all Courts oj Justice, whether established by His Majesty's Chartei or otherwise, and the jurisdiction thereof, and for a] places and things whatsoever within and throughoul the whole and every part of the said territories, an< for all servants of the said Company within th< dominions of Princes and states in alliance with th< said Company " ; but it excepted laws for punishing mutiny, or affecting the prerogative of the Crown, 01 the authority of Parliament, or the unwritten laws 01 constitution of the kingdom whereon may depend ii any degree the allegiance of any person to the Crown, or the sovereignty or dominion of the Crown ov< any part of the said territories. The centralisatioi of the Legislative power in the Council of Indi* demanded in course of time the addition to that Council of representatives of the local Governments. The necessary change of law was made in 1853, by xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 351 Statute 16 and 17 Vic. cap. xcv. ; and it helped to prolong the arrangement made in 1833, despite the growth of the Company's territorial possessions and the consequent strain caused by centralisation. The suppression of the Mutiny, and the transfer of the Government of India to Her Majesty, by Statute 21 and 22 Vic. cap. cvi., passed on the 2nd of August 1858, led up to the next and final change of policy in 1861. The territories over which Her Majesty assumed dominion were described in the Act of 1858 thus: "All territories in the possession, or under the Government of the said Company, and all rights vested in, or which, if this Act had not been passed, might have been exercised by the said Com- pany in relation to any territories, shall become vested in Her Majesty, and be exercised in her name ; and for the purposes of this Act, India shall mean the territories vested in Her Majesty as aforesaid, and all territories which may become vested in Her Majesty by virtue of any such rights as aforesaid." On the 1st of August 1861, Statute 24 and 25 Vic. cap. Ixvii. was passed, known as the Indian Councils Act. As amended from time to time, it enlarged the Councils ; it reserved to the Governor-General the power of making ordinances ; it created Local Councils for the Presidencies and Provinces, excluding from their legislative authority any laws affecting certain Imperial matters, or the relations of Government with foreign princes or states ; and it defined the extent of the powers of the Govern or -General's Council. Those powers are limited to making or altering laws " in the Indian territories now under the dominion of Her Majesty," " for all persons whether British or Native, foreigners or others, and for all Courts of Justice whatever, and for all places 352 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. or things whatever within the said territories, and for all servants of the Government of India within the dominions of princes and states in alliance with Her Majesty." In 1865, by Statute 28 and 29 Vic. cap. xvii., this power of legislation was extended to all British subjects of Her Majesty within the dominions of princes and states in India in alliance with Her Majesty, whether in the service of the Government of India or otherwise. Finally, in 1869, by Statute 32 and 33 Vic. cap. xcviii., further doubts were removed, and the Legislature's authority was ex- tended over " native Indian subjects of Her Majesty, without and beyond as well as within the Indian territories under the dominion of Her Majesty." From this review it will be seen that at first, whilst dominion was growing, the Company's juris- diction was extended beyond its own servants an< the King's subjects over the natives of the countr in the vicinity of its factories without any preci authority. Room was in fact left for the expansioi of its legislative power. But from August 1858 we gain a definite idea of what is meant by Indi* territories under the dominion of His Majesty, an< within those limits alone can the Legislature of Indii legislate for all persons and places to the extent oi the powers conferred upon it by Acts of Parliamenl It can also make laws for native Indian subjects oi the King, or native Indian soldiers in his India] forces, operative in any part of the world, and fc British subjects of European descent and servants oi Government in the Native states. And finally, special Acts of Parliament, it can make laws wit! extra - territorial applications concerning particuL subjects such as the Indian Marine, Merchant Ship- ping, and the Slave Trade. This, however, is the ful xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 353 extent of the extra-territorial Legislation entrusted to the Indian Legislature. But from what has been written above British jurisdiction is actually being exercised in Native states to an extent far wider than that covered by the authority either of Parliament or of the Indian Legislature, and it may be added that both Parliament and the Indian Legislature countenance, support, and regulate the exercise of this extended jurisdiction although it is neither created nor confirmed by either of them. 137. Whence then are these enlarged powers of More jurisdiction derived, powers which profess to introduce laws and jurisdiction for persons not being British the subjects into places outside British India ? When council the Indian Legislature supported their exercise by the f tne Governor -General in Council, and passed the Extra- General, dition and Foreign Jurisdiction Act XXI. of 1879, it recited the following authority : " Whereas by treaty, capitulation, agreement, grant, usage, sufferance, and other lawful means, the Governor-General of India in Council has power and jurisdiction within divers places beyond the limits of British India." If juris- diction over British subjects had alone been con- templated, a single reference to the Statutes would have sufficed. The same Act carefully discriminated between the three objects of the law of 1872 which it was about to amend, as first of all passed to remove doubts as to how far the exercise of such power and jurisdiction was controlled by and de- pendent on the laws of British India, and to con- solidate and amend the law relating to the exercise and delegation of such power ; secondly, as deal- ing with offences committed by British subjects beyond the limits of British India ; and, thirdly, as relating to the extradition of criminals. In 2A 354 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. regard to the first matter, the Act of 1879 declared, in section 5, that " a Notification of the exercise by the Governor- General in Council of any such power or jurisdiction shall be conclusive proof of the truth of the matters stated in the Notification." The Act of 1879 has been replaced so far as extradition is concerned by Act XV. 1903, while the whole of its provisions, including section 5, on the subject of foreign jurisdiction have been repealed. But the account just given serves to explain the compre- hensive terms of the preamble of the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council 1902, under which the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Governor- General in Council as previously exercised was con- firmed, and for the future placed on a wider and firmer basis. It runs as follows : " Whereas by treaty grant, usage, sufferance, and other lawful means Hi* Majesty the King has powers and jurisdiction, exercise on His behalf by the Govern or- General of Indij in Council in India, and in certain territories adjacenl thereto." The limits of the order are declared to " the territories of India outside British India, and any other territories which may be declared by Hi Majesty in Council to be territories in which jurisdic- tion is exercised by or on behalf of His Majesty through the Go venor- General of India in Council, or some authority subordinate to him, including th< territorial waters of any such territories." The recital of the above clause is enough to show at a glan< that the extra-territorial powers and jurisdiction of th< Government of India go far beyond the legislativ< powers entrusted by Parliament to the Indian Legi lature, and rest upon an authority which no Britis] legislature can itself create or assert. 138. We have now to see how the exercise b] was xn BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 355 the Governor-General of his foreign jurisdiction over HOW the persons who are not British subjects, and in places not under the King's dominion, has been arranged so as British to steer clear alike of the difficulties created by treaty, and of those which arise from the fact that the legis- solv ed. lative authority of the Legislative Councils of India is not co-extensive with the authority exercised by the Governor-General in Council, or, in other words, the executive Government. The solution of the difficulty will be best understood by contrast with two proposals which were much debated in former years. Attention was once invited to the system of Germany, where the Imperial law was at one time deemed to embrace the laws of the component states i within itself, and at a later period the proceedings of the Courts of some of the states were made subject to revision by a supreme Court of the Empire. It was then proposed to establish an Imperial judicial organisation in the Indian Empire, whereby an appellate and supervisionary jurisdiction would be exercised over all the Native states. The objection taken to this proposal maybe gathered from the preced- ing chapters of this book. The British Government, entrusted with authority to provide for the general defence, has not yet been authorised " to promote justice" or undertake a general control over the judicial system of the protected states. Parliament, by limiting its intrusion on behalf of British subjects ,and other persons specially named, has recognised the limits of its personal jurisdiction. A second proposal was then put forward dealing only with the petty states, or groups of states, where Eesiduary jurisdiction is most largely exercised. The advocates of this course relied upon an argument advanced in the trial of the case of Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram 356 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Kanji by the Privy Council, to which reference has been made in the fourth chapter of this treatise. It was argued that, when the British Government classified 188 chiefs of Kathiawar in seven classes, and defined the jurisdiction of each class, its action constituted a general, direct, and unequivocal exercise of Imperial sovereignty. " All persons and places," other than those over whom or which these juris- dictions of the chiefs were fixed by Imperial authority, became, it was urged, protected and subject to British jurisdiction (protectio trahit subjectionem), and these parties were really not foreigners, but subjects of the British Government. To this suggestion two replies may be made. In the first place, the extent of the Legislative power of the Indian Councils is territorial, and these " places " lie without doubt beyond the possessions vested in Her Majesty in 1858, or sin< acquired by her. In the second place, if it is soughl to treat the " persons " referred to as covered by the phrase " British subjects within the dominions oj princes in India " (Act 28 and 29, Vic. cap. xvii.), this would be an extension of allegiance opposed to long- established practice, the guarantees of treaties, an< the wording of the Indian Naturalisation Act. Om has only to recall the process by which the Company acquired jurisdiction over neighbouring territoi when as yet its Charters gave no jurisdiction save over the factories and their establishments, in ord< to realise the danger which the application of this theory would occasion to the Native states. All tl princes would view with apprehension the intrusioi of such a wedge into their sovereignties ; and the] would point to the repeated assurances of tl British Government that British law shall not introduced into their territories. The instrument xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 357 of transfer which restored to the Maharaja of Mysore "the government thereof" was very precise in determining the extent of foreign jurisdiction re- served by the British Government. It declared that "British sovereignty" should cease in the island of Seringapatam, and that the Maharaja should hold that island upon the same conditions as he held the rest of Mysore. Obviously, therefore, no countenance was given to the theory of an Imperial sovereignty. At the same time provision was made for the exercise of British jurisdiction in Cantonments to which His Highness was to " make no objection." Plenary criminal jurisdiction over European British subjects was retained in its own hands by the Government of India, and if a British railway was constructed in Mysore plenary jurisdiction within such land was to be transferred by the Maharaja. The clear intention of the document was to assert no general power of introducing British sovereignty or its jurisdiction into Mysore, but to define as clearly as possible the partial drawback or sacrifice of his own sovereign powers which the Maharaja might be called upon to make in respect of certain places and persons. The authority, in fact, for the introduction of British foreign juris- diction, was made to rest upon the Maharaja's consent guaranteed by the terms of the transfer. His sanction was needed for what may be described as delegated jurisdiction, by which is meant jurisdiction inherent in his own territorial sovereignty but yet suffered to be exercised by a foreign government. The need for jurisdiction over railway lands, and over civil stations, and other special areas in foreign territory is so obvious, that, with the rejection of these two proposals, some other device was needed. The plan adopted may seem to be a half-way house 358 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. to annexation, but in reality it removes that danger. The pledges given to the chiefs have been kept by entrusting to the Governor-General in Council, as an act of state, the jurisdiction with which the chiefs have for that purpose parted. The jurisdiction which the Governor -General in Council exercises through his delegates the Political agents, is the Native state's, or foreign, jurisdiction ; a portion of the full attributes of sovereignty or jurisdiction which, as was shown in the second chapter, are distributed in various degrees. With the chiefs consent, express or implied, the Governor'- General in Council shares with him the attribute of sovereignty known as jurisdiction. The subject of the Native state who may contest the authority of the Courts thereupon established by the Governor-General in Council, will get no redress from the sovereign of his state who admits the right of British interference. If he appeals to British law, he will be referred to the provisions of British law, which, although they do not confer, yet support and regulate the exercise of foreign jurisdiction in the case in question. While Act XXI. 1879 was in force, its section 5 declared that the Notifications of the Governor-General in Council issued under the Act were conclusive ; and, since the repeal of that Act, the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, and the King's Order in Council of the llth of June 1902, together with the Notifications published under it by the Governor -General in Council, warrant the officers concerned in exercising the powers entrusted to them, and prevent other British subjects and British Courts from raising any objections. The Courts established by the Governor- General in Council thus solve the difficulty. It seems a small difference, but is in reality one of importance to the sovereign of the Native xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 359 state. The Courts which intrude into his territory do not rest on the same legislative basis as the Courts of Justice in British territory. The British Legis- lature is not admitted, and it cannot encroach further. It can neither create nor meddle with the Courts, although it indirectly protects them from challenge in British territory. The Legislature concerns itself only with its personal extra-territorial jurisdiction. Beyond that it leaves it to the Government of India, in its executive capacity, to arrange any difficulties that may arise either with the sovereigns or the subjects of Native states in respect to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction over places or persons outside British India. The Native princes feel satisfied that their sovereign privileges or reversionary rights are not obliterated, nor endangered, by the intrusion of the judicial system of the British Empire, and the Governor-General takes care that the administration of justice, the law applied, and the procedure adopted by the Courts established by him, shall be in harmony with the spirit of British justice. When the subject of railway jurisdiction is dealt with, it will be found that the Native states usually cede " full jurisdiction short of sovereign powers." The reservation saves the railway lands ceded by them from annexation, whilst the Governor- General is able to provide the necessary Courts for the trial of railway cases, and to equip them with the necessary laws and rules of pro- cedure. 139. With this preliminary explanation of the Canton- difficulties of providing for foreign jurisdiction, we jj^jjj may now examine in detail the five classes of what diction, has been termed, in contradistinction to substituted where no consent is asked, or to residuary where no consent is needed, delegated jurisdiction. The first 360 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. on the list is Cantonment jurisdiction. The British Government has the absolute right of occupying any military positions it deems fit in any of the protected states. It has received the authority of its allies to protect them, and it may, by consequence of this delegation and without further reference to them, establish its cantonments in their principalities. It is essential to the efficiency and safety of the army so cantoned that it should be placed exclusively under British jurisdiction. Just as the ship of war, qui maritimus est exercitus, sails into a foreign port carrying with it its own equipment of laws and disciplinary rules, so the British army, to quote Wheaton, section 95, "stationed in the territory of another state, is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place," and fills the vacuum with its own laws. The first step taken by the authorities on the occupation of a foreign cantonment is to mark off the land so occupied and define its limits. When this is done, full jurisdiction over all persons and things within the cantonment is asserted without any further reference to the chief. British laws which apply proprio vigor e to British subjects or servants in foreign territory of necessity follow the army itself into its cantonment. But the invasion of British jurisdiction goes farther. The efficiency of an army depends largely upon the influence of surrounding circumstances. If intoxicating liquors are offered for sale without restriction by the subjects of the Native state living in the cantonment limits ; if the soldiers' accoutrements are bought up by traders ; or if sanitary arrangements are wholly neglected, and smallpox and other contagious diseases are left uncared for ; the force which occupies a foreign cantonment would become useless for the duties of general defence. xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 361 Accordingly, the inability of the British Legislature to pass laws for the subjects of a foreign state is cured by the capacity of the Governor- General in Council to make regulations and establish Courts in the cantonment outside British India. All persons resident, or found, within the cantonment are brought under subjection to British law and the cantonment Courts. If they are not already, as British subjects or servants of the Crown, amenable to the law of British India, the Governor-General in Council notifies that the said British Act is applied by him under the authority of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act and other lawful powers, to the cantonment. He declares the authority of the Courts and the procedure they are to adopt ; and thus the whole area of the cantonment, whilst it still retains its character as foreign territory, is occupied alike by British troops and by the laws and Courts which are necessary for its effective occupation. During the period of occupation, the Native state law and jurisdiction are ousted, and where the ordinary jurisdiction and British laws passed by the Indian Legislature cannot extend proprio vigore to the rest of the cantonment popula- tion, the authority of the Govern or -General in Council extends them. The sovereignty of the ruler of the country survives, although latent and sup- pressed for the time being. The chief is not consulted as to the measures which the British Government considers it proper to introduce for the administration of the cantonment, since his consent is implied in his obligations of military defence ; but, when the canton- ment is given up, his sovereign rights and powers revive. If the territory had ever been incorporated into British India, its rendition would require an act of the Legislature, and that difficulty is avoided. 362 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Railway 140. The history of British jurisdiction over diction. portions of railways in foreign territory supplies an instructive contrast between the ordinary British jurisdiction once introduced into Baroda in 1862, and the foreign jurisdiction now universally exercised by the Governor-General in Council. Of the necessity for acquiring full jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over all lines of main communication in India, there is no occasion to write at length. Whether the line is made at the cost of the British taxpayer, whether it is made by a British company under a guarantee, or whether, as in Kathiawar, it is made by one or more states as proprietors, the avoidance of a break of gauge in jurisdiction is equally desirable. The defence, as well as the general welfare, of the Empire depend upon the efficient working of through lines of com- munication. There must be one law affecting the administration and the working of a line of railway throughout its whole length. The very safety of the passengers requires uniform precautions against any neglect of duty. The vehicles must be safe, the line and its bridges looked after, and the various details of the traffic department regulated by one common law. The railway police employed on the several parts of the line must work together. The Kathiawar railway just mentioned traverses more than a dozen jurisdictions in the space of a hundred miles. If the police were hampered in their duties by extradition, and by the constant necessity for adjusting their procedure to the requirements of a new law at each station, the protection of the lives and property of the passengers would be compromised. The interests of the public require through booking of goods and passengers, and with divided jurisdictions the re- sponsibility for loss or injury could never be fixed. xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 363 The British Government is not the only interested party. Every Native state is equally concerned in desiring uniformity of jurisdiction over any piece of railway which becomes part of a line of communication between Native territory and British territory or between one Native state and another. As soon as any line ceases to be wholly isolated in a Native state and forms a link in a chain of communication with another jurisdiction, the cession to the Imperial Government of full jurisdiction, civil and criminal, by each state traversed by it is an obligation which has readily been understood and accepted by every important state in India. It was, at first, supposed that this obligation would be best fulfilled by the surrender of sovereign and territorial rights, and by the annexation of the strip of land required for the railway to the British possessions. Accordingly, when the line from Bombay to Ahmedabad through Baroda territory was constructed, the Gaikwar was induced to surrender his sovereignty. The Indian Legislature thus acquired authority to legislate for the new addition to the possessions vested in Her Majesty, and Bombay Act I. of 1862 was passed by the local Legislative Assembly in order to bring the strip of ceded land under British regulations. But the inconvenience of this procedure was soon felt when one piece of land already ceded for a station was discarded and another piece required. The discarded piece could not be retransferred to the Native state without legislation, and the addition required a further Act. Moreover, the sensibilities of the Native princes are wounded by the transfer of even the smallest slice of their territories to British dominion. The present practice avoids all these difficulties, and secures the reversionary rights of the 364 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Native states. Jurisdiction and full powers of ad- ministration instead of sovereignty are ceded to the Governor-General in Council, who thereon notifies the application to the foreign territory occupied by the line and its stations, of the requisite laws, and establishes the necessary Courts for their administra- tion under the provisions of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. It is, however, important to bear in mind, as shown by the case of Muhammad Yusuf-ud-din (24 LA. 137), that the nature and extent of the rail- way jurisdiction vested in the Governor-General in Council must be decided upon the construction of the correspondence in which the cession of jurisdiction is embodied. Juris- 141. British jurisdiction is occasionally required diction in , i i . . /> , ., civil over particular places or sites in foreign territory, stations, either because they form the headworks of Imperial canals, or because they are centres of British trade or of the influx of European residents. The main motive for acquiring jurisdiction is the avoidance of entangling disputes with the officials of the Native state which might terminate in more serious interven- tion. The advantages secured by these arrangements are mainly British, and the other states of India are not concerned in them as they are in the cantonments and railways, in which all the protected states possess a direct interest. The Government of India must there- fore look to special agreement with the state con- cerned in order to acquire the jurisdiction it needs. Instances of such delegated authority are to be found in Kathiawar, where two of these stations have brought into prominence the legal difficulty which was dis- cussed in the early part of this chapter. The chief of Wadhwan, on the 7th of January 1864, assigned in perpetuity a piece of land near his capital " for the xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 365 purpose of assisting Government in the administra- tion " of a political District, and it was agreed that if the station was ever abandoned it should revert to the Native state. The station has become the centre of the local cotton trade and an important junction of railways. In a suit brought by one Triccam Pana- chand v. the Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Company and others, the High Court held incidentally that the civil station of Wadhwan had been placed by the transaction just noticed within the limits of British India. This decision was passed in March 1885, and in the following November the same High Court ruled in regard to the Rajkote civil station, which was ceded under almost similar circumstances and conditions, that it was not a part of British India within the Statute of 1858, namely, 21 and 22 Vic. cap. cvi., and that the British juris- diction which was exercised in Rajkote was such as was dealt with in the Indian Foreign Jurisdiction Act XXL of 1879. The later decision embodies the views and practice of the British Government, which regards its civil stations in Native states, and its canal works erected in foreign territory by the con- sent of the states, as remaining outside British India. The laws which are introduced are not passed by the Legislative Councils of India, but are applied by the Government of India ; and the Courts which administer justice within them are Courts established by the Governor-General in Council, or if for con- venience' sake a neighbouring British Judge or Magis- trate is given authority over these areas, he exercises his functions not as a British Judge or Magistrate, but under special appointment, under the provisions of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. 142. The house and premises occupied by the 366 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Residency! British Eesident or agent appointed to the charge of diction. British relations with one or more Native states are, like a British cantonment, occupied at the same time I by the law of the nation which deputes its represent- y ative. The consent of every Native state to the appointment of a British agent, together with the rights and privileges that must accompany him, is assumed as a matter of course. Possessing no rights of negotiation or legation, a protected sovereign in India has no option in the matter of receiving an agent. He is bound to accept any officer appointed and to treat him with due respect. When the Company dealt with a few states on equal terms, it followed the custom of international law. Thus the Treaty with the Sind Mirs, concluded in August 1809, which was not a treaty of protection but one of reciprocal friendship, provided for the " mutual despatch of the Vukeels of both Governments." But when the Company undertook without reservation the protectorate of the Native states, and restricted their rights of independence, it excluded from its engage- ments references to accredited agents, and took what measures it considered desirable for the protection of its own and their interests. Since the British Govern- ment takes it for granted that its agent will be received by a protected Prince, it also expects that all facilities for the performance of his duties will be accorded. If International law recognises the necessity that public Ministers should be independent of the local authorities in order that they may fulfil the duties of their mission, and that the exemption of themselves and their families and suite from territorial jurisdiction is reasonable, a similar exemp- tion is much more required in India, where in even recent times an attempt to poison a British Resident xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 367 has been committed. At the same time, care is taken to prevent the exercise of Residency jurisdiction from prejudicing the interests of the Native state. The Political agent exercises jurisdiction over his own servants or British public servants, but he is careful not to allow his Residency to become an asylum for fugitives from the local jurisdiction. As a further proof of the distinction drawn between the agent's residence and the Native state's territory it may be mentioned that, if a new ruler of the state is to be installed, the ceremony would most appropriately be performed outside the limits of the Residency, since these premises are quasi-British territory. 143. The question of personal jurisdiction over Personal British subjects is somewhat complicated by the dis- Diction tinction between their legal status and the tendency ver of usage. Parliament granted to the Indian Legis- subjects. latures power to legislate for native officers and soldiers by Statute 3 and 4 William IV. cap. Ixxxv., for servants of the Government of India by 24 and 25 Vic. cap. Ixvii., for British subjects by Statute 28 and 29 Vic. cap. xvii., and for native Indian subjects by Statute 32 and 33 Vic. cap. xcviii., without and beyond, as well as within, the Indian territories. The practice of the British Government in its diplo- matic engagements with foreign powers has not differed from that of Parliament. In the eye of international, as well as of English constitutional law, the status of an Indian British subject is the same as that of an Australian or an European British subject. And yet, in practice, a distinction is drawn between these two classes of the King's subjects. So far as extradition is concerned, the Indian Act XV. of 1903 excludes European British subjects from Chapter III. of that Act which deals with the surrender of fugitive 368 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. criminals to the Native states. And in the same way British Indian Courts or Courts of Foreign jurisdiction deal with offences committed by Europeans in Native states, while Indian British subjects are handed over to the Courts of the Protected Princes in whose territories they have offended. This is one of the anomalies that abound in India, of which the very existence of British rule in that vast country is itself a notable example, anomalies with which practical statesmen must deal, however intolerable they may seem to the student of law. The justification for this differential treatment of the King's subjects in respect of crimes committed in the protected states rests in the first place upon distinctions of national character and religion. As Lord Stowell has pointed out, the Hindu system is unwilling to recognise the equality of foreigners with the natives in the eye of its law. " In the western parts of the world alien merchants mix in the society of the natives ; access and inter- mixture are permitted ; and they become incorporated to almost the full extent. But in the East from the oldest times an immiscible character has been kept up ; foreigners are not admitted into the general body and mass of the society of the nation : they continue strangers and sojourn ers as their fathers were Doris amara suam non intermiscuit undam." This attitude of caste and of the Hindu mind is naturally aggravated in the national home of the Hindu faith by the proximity of a western system introduced into British India. The laws of Menu are opposed to religious toleration and to the extension of equal rights to all citizens, and although many changes have taken place even beyond the frontiers of British India, the time has not yet arrived when the extra- territorial jurisdiction of the King can safely be dis- xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 369 pensed with. Indeed in every Native state provision is made for it by the appointment of a Justice of the Peace for that state. It must be admitted that the relief which capitulations and treaties provide for Europeans in foreign non-Christian countries is also needed in the protected states of India. With the Indian subjects of the King the case is different. Their own social system prevails on each side of the line that separates British India from the Native state. Under the supervision of the Political agent the courts of the state may be trusted to do justice to their claims and rights, and if for any reason they should fail to do so, extradition would be refused and a remedy devised. There are other reasons besides those mentioned which justify the retention of jurisdiction over European British subjects. The Government of India has restricted the employment of Europeans by the Indian sovereigns, and it is in harmony with this restriction that it should, if necessary, retain a juris- diction with which it has been invested by Parliament and the law of India. It is true that the same law gives it also jurisdiction over native Indian subjects. Bat with regard to them, the circumstances differ. There is no such distinction in religion, education, and social habits between Indian subjects and the subjects of the Native states as to require the extension to them of rights of exterritoriality to the same extent as to European British subjects. Again, very few Native states possess jails in which European convicts could, with proper regard to their health, be incarcer- ated. The embarrassments into which a Native state might be drawn by any injudicious proceedings against an European British subject suggest the wisdom of avoiding the exercise of a right of trial which might 2B 370 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. prove a doubtful boon to them. The necessity for conducting the proceedings in a language intelligible to the European accused would of itself prove incon- venient in many cases and delay the trial. For these and other reasons the rule is generally observed that if an European has committed an offence punish- able by Indian law he is surrendered for trial by a British Court. To this general rule certain exceptions will be stated presently, but before this is done a reference is invited to the Mysore instrument of transfer set out at length in Chapter VI. Its article xvii. declares that plenary criminal jurisdiction over European British subjects shall, notwithstanding the transfer of sovereignty, " continue to be vested in the Governor- General in Council," but it leaves room for the restora- tion of a part of it by delegation. " The Maharaja shall exercise only such jurisdiction in respect to European British subjects as may from time to time be delegated to him by the Governor -General in Council." In other words, the territorial sovereignty was transferred to the Maharaja with this exception that the Government of India retained the jurisdiction over Europeans, leaving, however, the door open for the delegation or surrender of this jurisdiction in any particular cases. What those cases may be will appear from the next paragraph. Where an European has offended against the laws of a Native state, without rendering himself liable punishment for breach of a British law to which he i* amenable beyond British India, a difficult situatioi may arise. The law of the territorial sovereign ma] be from an European point of view either reasonable or the reverse. The breaker of the law is in eithe] case resident in the territory and liable to the penaltic xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 371 provided by the Native state's ordinance. If the offence were one against the revenue or the sanitary laws of the state, he ought to be punished if found guilty. If, on the other hand, the offence charged was that of eating his customary food, questions might reasonably arise as to the propriety of his trial and conviction. All, perhaps, that need be said here is that in all such cases the British Government would decide upon their merits. It would be held that the British subject was not deprived of his rights of protection by residence out of the British possessions ; he might in fact invoke the assistance of the political officer to secure the privileges of just and civilised treatment which are his birthright. The protected prince on his side could not reasonably object to a provision, embodied in the Turkish capitulations of 1675 and confirmed by treaty in 1809, whereby if any Englishman happens to commit a crime, " the Governors in our sacred dominions shall not proceed to the cause until the ambassador or consul shall be present." For the rest, whether the European should be left to be tried by the state's Court, or by a Court of Foreign jurisdiction in the state, or again whether the Native state should be advised to proceed no further with the charge, are questions which would be decided by the British Government after full dis- cussion and consideration of the circumstances. There is further the case of an European British subject who has taken service with a protected prince in whose dominion he commits an offence. In that instance, if the laws and courts of the state are on a satisfactory footing, the European British subject would, it may be presumed, be left to the jurisdiction of the native Courts, subject to a right of intervention by the political officer on sufficient reason being 372 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. shown in the particular case. Although it has been argued in this chapter that the protected princes have tacitly or otherwise delegated or ceded to the pro- tecting power their territorial jurisdiction over Europeans, yet that presumption must be weakened in an individual case where an European has entered the service of a Native state. He may be held to have accepted a general allegiance to the ruler of the state, and to have bound himself to obey its laws and submit to his master's jurisdiction. Extra- 144. Before leaving the subject of delegated accused jurisdiction, it is convenient to revert to the law of persons. extradition, to which some reference has already been made. It is not only in dealing with European fugitive criminals that reciprocity in the matter of extradition is inadmissible. It has been seen that, whilst the British Government does not as a rule extradite an European offender to a Native state, it demands the extradition to itself of such offenders. In the same way the British Government expects the surrender of military deserters from the Imperial army, whilst it cannot extradite to a Native state a deserter from its army. The early treaties made by the Company frequently contemplated the reciprocal surrender of fugitive criminals, and even of revenue defaulters. Thus the treaty of the 6th of June 1802 negotiated with Baroda contained this clause : " In future the subjects of each state, who may take refuge with either, shall be delivered up, if the state from which such party or parties shall have fled, appear to have any demand of debt, or any just claim against him or them." This clause was repeated in 1805, and in 1817 it was modified to the following extent : " That offenders taking refuge in the jurisdiction of either party shall be surrendered on demand without xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 373 delay or hesitation." English history, however, has shown, as for instance in the treaty made with France in 1852, that a treaty of extradition cannot be brought into operation unless the law gives its sanction, and in India, when the law of extradition limited the cases and prescribed the conditions under which offenders were to be handed over to the Native states, the Government could not avoid " delay or hesitation." It had no option but to comply with the law of British India, whatever appeals the ruler of Baroda might make to the terms of his treaty. In this respect neither Baroda nor any other Native state lies under similar disabilities. For there is hardly a state in India in which the laws do not emanate from the will of the sovereign, and even where there is a legislative assembly it is under the guidance of the minister. Accordingly, there is no such difficulty to be experienced by a Native ruler in complying with British demands for the surrender of criminals as the Government of India must en- counter in meeting similar demands from him. The two parties to an extradition treaty are not equally placed for the purpose of giving effect to it. In these circumstances, extradition treaties with the Native states have fallen into disfavour. One which was negotiated with the leading state of Hyderabad in May 1867 was modified in July 1887, so as to give full play to the greater facilities afforded by the passing of a new Extradition Act in British India. Between 1867 and 1869 treaties were negotiated with most of the states in Rajputana, but extradition between them and British India was regulated by Act XXI. of 1879, after the passing of that Act, in preference to the arrangements embodied in those agreements. The law which now governs 374 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. extradition is Act XV. 1903, under which treaties are safeguarded by section 18, but the provisions of the Act for the surrender of fugitive criminals to " states other than foreign states " (to which latter states the Extradition Acts passed by Parliament in 1870 and 1873 apply), that is to say to the Native states of India, are so convenient that it is no longer desirable to make fresh treaties on the subject with the protected princes. It is unnecessary to enter at farther length into the provisions of the Indian Act of 1903, but a few general remarks may be made on the subject. The primary object of the extraditional arrangements is, as has been pointed out to the states, not the attain- ment of the nearest feasible approach to mutual surrender, but the enforcement of effectual measures for the suppression of crime. A foreign or colonial subject taking refuge in the territory of a Native state from the jurisdiction of his own Government must be surrendered. Proclaimed offenders, guilty it may be of political crimes, must be given up by states which owe allegiance and have entrusted to the British Government the task of defending them. The Government of India has obtained legal power to surrender to its allies large classes of specified offenders who are not European British subjects ; and although in ordinary cases it demands, whether for itself or foi other Native states, the surrender of fugitive criminals so classified, it reserves to itself the right, involved in the spirit of its treaty relations, of demanding a full measure of co-operation for the suppressioi of crime in any direction that circumstances ma] require. 145. The official Gazettes of India throw the fullest public light on every form of foreign juris- xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 375 diction. Notifications appointing Courts and intro- Residuary ducing laws into areas occupied by what has been ^{ ou termed delegated jurisdiction, constantly appear in inthe the weekly Gazettes. On the extension of every fresh railway into foreign territory, the public are informed as to the duties and authority of the police, and the jurisdiction of the various Courts. In the case, however, of residuary jurisdiction, the great bulk of laws and regulations are published in the Agency Gazettes, and not in the British Indian Gazettes. The distinction is not without its signifi- cance. The existence of residuary jurisdiction marks a diminution of the state's sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and the investment of that sove- reignty to the same extent in the power which has imposed the restriction. The jurisdiction which the British Government exercises over British subjects, or over Native state subjects in cantonments, civil stations, and residency limits, is derived from the consent, implied or expressed, of the sovereigns ; but residuary jurisdiction is either a deprivation imposed by engagement upon the Native states affected by it, or a drawback from the attributes of sovereignty which were recognised as vesting in the state on its first introduction into the protectorate. Some instances of the jurisdiction under our immediate consideration will serve to explain its origin and extent. In the large Province of Kathiawar the Company negotiated, in 1807, some 150 engagements for fixing the tribute due by the chiefs, and relieving them from the devastation and hardship entailed by the annual invasion of their principalities by an army sent from Baroda to collect it. Some account has already been given in Chapter IV. of the acquisition 376 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. of the Peshwa's rights in 1817, and the exclusion of the Gaikwar's influence in 1820, with the result that the Company determined to treat the chiefs as " indepen- dent " sovereigns. Events, however, proved that these petty tributaries could not be trusted with inde- pendence. All of them were under the obligation of not molesting one another and of maintaining order in their territories, but very few of them were equal to the task. Robbers infested the roads, and the so-called sovereigns dare not bring them to justice. The public safety was nowhere adequately maintained. Accordingly the Government of Bombay directed the political Commissioner in 1830 to visit Kathiawar twice a year, and to try criminals whom the chiefs were too weak to punish. The two reasons assigned for such interference were the public safety, and the desire to avoid annexation or " to prevent the danger of chief by chief falling into the vortex of our ordinary rule." The Directors in due course approved the plan, and recognised the duty of taking a direct part in the administration of Kathiawar without incorporating it in British rule. In a despatch of March 3, 1858, the Directors impressed upon the Government of Bombay that the country was not to be treated as British territory, but they clearly realised that matters were going from bad to worse, owing to the division of estates and the inability of the impoverished chieftains to suppress outlawry and organised plunder. In fact more than 400 separate states were claiming to be treated as sovereignties, of whom the majority were without the means of providing any sort of public administration. The knot was cut by rearranging the chiefs into two classes, those classified as capable of exercising certain powers who were arranged in seven classes, and those xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 377 for whom the Governor -General in Council must exercise the whole of the attributes of sovereignty. The jurisdictional chiefs, numbering some 188, were graded as stated, and the extent of their criminal and civil jurisdiction precisely defined, the seventh class being given powers as petty Magistrates, but entrusted with no civil jurisdiction. The rest, consisting of unclassed estates, or chiefships extinct in all but name, were grouped under an agency official called a Thanadar, who exercised on behalf of the chiefs the jurisdiction which they were unable to use. The jurisdictional chiefs were allowed to exercise their limited powers without interference; but all cases that lay outside their defined jurisdiction were sent before the British Courts of the Agency. The ordinary residuary jurisdiction which thus devolves on the Political officers is considerable ; and in the exercise of the Imperial power under which the Settlement was effected the British Government introduces laws and regulations as they are required. One of the latest enactments then notified in the official Gazette was a Limitation Law for Kathiawar. The law was not passed by the Legislative Councils of India, but intro- duced by the Government of Bombay in its political capacity as the highest local depositary of the Imperial sovereignty which sustains the Kathiawar subordinate sovereignties as far as they can go, and supplements their deficiencies where the public welfare demands it. The system of Government thus introduced has been described as resting upon the will of the paramount power and not on law, and the jurisdiction as political and not judicial in its character. Its effect was fully discussed in the judgment delivered by the Privy Council on December 18, 1905, in the cases of Hemchand Devchand v. Azam Sakarlal Chhotamlal, 378 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. and the Taluka of Kotda Sangani v. the State of Gondal. For present purposes it is only necessary to add that the Bombay Government in its proceed- ings draws its sanction from the supreme Government of India, and acts in the exercise of His Majesty's suzerainty, which is recognised by Statute 52 and 53 Vic. cap. Ixiii. section 18. The chiefs can hardly be said to have delegated their authority, since it is evident that the classification of 1863 left them with, at the best, limited jurisdictional powers, and in some cases with none at all. In other cases the residuary jurisdiction of the British Government is, to some extent, derived from the consent of the chiefs. The difficult situation caused in Kutch by the treaty of the 4th of December 1819 was expressly created " with the approbation of the Government of Kutch." With that sanction the Company engaged to guarantee by separate deeds the Jareja chiefs of the Bhayad, and generally all Eajput chiefs in Kutch and Wagur, in the full enjoyment of their possessions. When the descendants of the guarantee-holders appealed to the British Government against the encroachments of the Darbar, and complained of the deprivation of their hereditary rights, the British authorities, after consultation with His Highness the Kao, effected a Settlement whereby a special Court was instituted for the trial of cases of every kind in which a guar- antee-holder is concerned, or to which a Khalsa subject is a party against a resident on a guarantee- holder's estate, or which arise between residents on different estates. In other cases, arising on the estates of guarantee-holders, a residuary jurisdiction was vested in the Court, subject to defined limitations intended to preserve the limited jurisdiction of the xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 379 guaranteed nobles. An appeal, subject again to limitations, was reserved from the decisions of the guarantee-holders to the Court, and an appeal from all decisions of the Court lies to His Highness the Eao with a further appeal to Government. In the case also of boundary disputes a right of appeal to the British Government was reserved. A similar instance of residuary jurisdiction asserted by the British Government over a particular class of persons, subject to the sovereignty of a ruler in sub- ordinate alliance with His Majesty, is furnished by the treaty of the 20th of October 1862, concluded with the Raja of Kolhapur. This treaty provides " that all criminal cases within the jurisdiction of these Sirdars, involving death or imprisonment beyond seven years, should be forwarded for trial before the Political agent for submission to Govern- ment." Thus, the Court of the Political agent of Kolhapur is vested with jurisdiction to try such cases ; and although the Government of India cannot by its statutory legislative authority sanction this exercise of jurisdiction over persons who are not subjects of His Majesty, yet indirectly the law of India recognises and supports the proceedings of the Political agent. For, whenever it is necessary to incarcerate in a British jail the foreign offenders sentenced by that officer, the Indian Prisoners Act permits their reception in a British prison, and they can be deported thence to a penal settlement if they have been sentenced to transportation. It is un- necessary to add to these examples of residuary juris- diction. The two lessons which seem to be suggested by the review just given are, the evidence which they afford of the extent to which sovereignty is divisible in India ; and the care taken by the British 380 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. Government to exercise its political jurisdiction with due regard to its general pledge, that it will not introduce the regular British jurisdiction, or allow its ordinary Courts to extend their jural authority into the Native states. Substi- 146. There remains a further class of jurisdic- tion, British only in a special sense, which differs diction. entirely from either of the categories previously de- scribed. Delegated jurisdiction, if not permanently acquired by the Government of India, is at any rate needed so long as the occupation of the locality con- tinues. Eesiduary jurisdiction must continue until circumstances alter, and until the judicial systems of the King's allies are organised on a basis altogether different from that which now exists. Then the special protection of certain classes from injustice would become unnecessary. But when the British authorities depose a Native ruler for gross misgovern - ment, or exercise the royal prerogative of guardian- ship of a minor chief, the intervention is avowedly temporary and rests entirely on an act of state. The objects in view are seldom alike in two cases together. In a well-managed state the accident of a minority creates but little disturbance. The Native state machinery is kept at work under adequate super- vision, and the introduction of British measures, alien to the spirit of the indigenous Government, is care- fully avoided. The British Government is respon- sible, and exercises, rather than introduces, jurisdiction for the time being ; but that responsibility involves nothing more than the administration of the country under its own laws and by its own state officials. On the other hand, when a ruler is deposed for long- continued and gross misrule, or where the death of a chief entails the management of a principality ill xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 381 equipped with Courts and destitute of definite laws, the task is more onerous. A study of the official Gazettes shows that, at one time, the introduction of laws and the establishment of Courts in states thus brought under temporary control in Western India, were notified in the British official Gazettes. In recent years this practice has properly been discon- tinued, and the form in which such orders are now issued serves to distinguish substituted from residuary jurisdiction. When, for instance, a law was introduced into Sawantwari, whose ruler was not entrusted with power, the fact was thus notified in the Agency Gazette : " The Political agent, on behalf of the Government of the state of Sawantwari, and with the sanction of the British Government, introduces " the law as then published. In contrast with this, where laws are introduced into a civil station, or a Thana l circle, in foreign territory, in the exercise of delegated or residuary jurisdiction, the Notification refers to the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, and cites the authority of the Governor -General in Council, or of the local Government. In short, where British jurisdiction replaces that of a Native chief for any of the reasons just assigned, it is not only a temporary invasion, but an invasion of British power rather than of British jurisdiction. Sometimes where the state is petty, and a neighbouring official holds Court in a British District, he is entrusted with jurisdiction over the state. But it is made clear that the jurisdiction is given not to his Court as such, but to the officer who presides for the time being over that Court, and not by the general law, but by the special authority of the Executive Government. The general principle is laid down that whatever law is administered or 1 For explanation of the Thana system see Sections 15 and 145 above. 382 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. introduced into a state under temporary administration will be the law of the state. If the phrase " British jurisdiction " is applied to what is here termed substi- tuted jurisdiction, it must be understood that it is British only in the sense that the British Government and its officers are charged with the temporary administration of the law and the management of the state. Con- 147. The whole subject of foreign jurisdiction is remarks one ^ tedious complexity but of supreme importance to the integrity of the Native states. Situated as many states are in the heart of British districts, intersecting every line of railway, and sometimes representing the wreckage of principalities once well equipped but now disintegrated by rules of equal inheritance, they are preserved from serious conflict with the British system only by the surrender of some of their attributes of sovereignty. To permit the introduction of the British judicial system into them would be a certain step to annexation. British laws and British Courts have no discretion and know nothing of policy. They are based on a system of administration which differs materially from that of India under its own princes. The law must be ad- ministered and interpreted in accordance with its terms and with the decisions of the highest tribunals. If then the British Government must interfere for the security of British subjects, of protected persons, or Imperial interests, it wisely entrusts its interference to officers whose actions can be regulated by a studious regard for the rights and privileges of the states, and for the solemn guarantees given by the British nation. The care taken by the Government of India to avoid the Koman system of prefectures, or the task of organising one Imperial judicial xii BRITISH JURISDICTION IN NATIVE STATES 383 system for the whole Empire, illustrates its constant endeavour to respect the cherished rights of the subordinate states whilst it mantains its own. The various circumstances of t}ie numerous principalities require separate treatment for each one of them, but one and all have been promised protection, and there is no department of political control more likely to lead to dangerous interference than that of foreign jurisdiction. If any one consults the official Gazettes of the Indian Government he will find many scores of pages devoted annually to the judicial notifications published by the political officers of the Empire. British law flows into the Native states through many channels, and it is essential to keep the influx under proper control. For this reason an attempt has been made in this chapter to discriminate between the various classes of foreign jurisdiction, and to show that undue encroachment upon the internal sovereign- ties of the protected princes is carefully avoided. CHAPTER XIII THE TIE WHICH UNITES Brief 148. ANY one who has followed the course of inquiry retrospect ^hus far will be in a position to form his own opinion at the PI- i position of as to the propriety 01 the various terms which are states*** mos t commonly applied to the rulers of the Native states of India. Before, however, their claims to an international, a quasi-international, a feudatory, or a constitutional position are examined, a short retrospect at their privileges and duties will be con- venient. In the teeth of difficulties arising from their past history, their geographical and constitutional environment, the personal character of some of them, and the conflicting interests or encroachment of a stronger power exercising dominion in their midst, all who are fit to govern have preserved not only their pro- prietary rights but most of the attributes of internal sovereignty. Nearly seven hundred states remain outside the territories known as British India. The treaties and engagements which bind them to the supreme Government of the Empire have been forged at various times, and under the heavy blows of shat- tering policies directed by a stronger organisation. Admitted first to equal alliances extended to a favoured few, the foremost privileged princes found the weight of international obligations almost too heavy for them 384 CHAP, xni THE TIE WHICH UNITES 385 to bear. In course of time they witnessed and felt the extension of British ascendancy and the spread of the protectorate, and one and all surrendered their rights of war and negotiation. From a condition of subordinate isolation the allied and protected states were raised to a position of partners and were finally united to the British Government. They were secured against annexation at the cost of a fresh liability to improve their internal administration, and the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland in conveying to them Her Majesty's assurance that the representation and dignity of their Houses should be continued, ex- pressed her reliance on their loyalty to the Crown, and their faithfulness to the conditions of the treaties, grants, or engagements which record their obligations to the British Government. The whole family of country princes and chiefs have thus passed through three phases of policy, and felt the shock of three historical changes the removal of Imperial authority from Delhi, the resignation of his sovereignty by the Peshwa, and the determination of its trust by the Company in favour of the Crown. All alike are guaranteed protection, despite the fact that it was purchased at a great price by a few favoured chiefs in the earlier days of their contact with the Company, that it was refused for a long time to others who applied for it, and that it was never conceded by treaty to some whose relations with the British rest upon usage. The obligations to the British Government, to which Lord Canning's Sanads called such pointed attention, are the price which the states pay for protection, and for the rights which they derive there- from. Their duties are liable to be reinforced from the exercise of the royal prerogative, from the action 2 c 386 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. of Parliament within the limits which its solemn guarantees impose upon it, from the law of natural justice, from fresh agreements, and from usage which is ever active to adapt the letter of engagements to their spirit under altered circumstances. Under such conditions an exact account of rights and obligations cannot be struck. Nevertheless, the main heads of the bill are sufficiently distinct. The states have entrusted to the paramount power the duty of pro- viding for the common defence, and of directing their external relations. In time of war they must co- operate to the full extent of their resources, and in time of peace they must grant to the Imperial army such assistance as it requires, and must regulate the strength and equipment of their own forces so as to avoid embarrassment to their neighbours and danger to the peace of their own territories. They must enable the supreme Government to maintain its communica- tions between the military stations and posts occupied by its forces, and to avoid dangerous interruptions or break of jurisdiction al gauge in the Imperial system 'of railways and telegraphs. Inasmuch as the Govern- ment of India acts for them in all international and interstatal arrangements, they must loyally carry out the obligations incurred to foreign powers or other states on their behalf. The perpetuation of their Governments is incompatible with the dismemberment of their states, internal disorder, or gross misrule. They must therefore accept Imperial intervention to prevent or correct such abuses. The laws of natural justice and the principle of religious toleration must be observed. The right of self-preservation, with its incidental rights, gives to the British Government an indefinable right to protect Imperial interests where they may be injured by the unfriendly action of xin THE TIE WHICH UNITES 387 the King's allies : and it suggests a possible right of intervention in their internal affairs, as in the regula- tion of currency, or commerce, or in the establishment of postal union. Each case of interference must, how- ever, be justified by real necessity. Claiming as they do the protection of the King-Emperor, the Indian sovereigns must seek the confirmation of the Viceroy to their successions, must treat with respect the representatives of Imperial authority, accept the guidance of the supreme Government during minor- ities, and generally prove their loyalty to the Crown. Parliament and the Legislatures of India have on their part recognised the fact that, except in the case of British subjects or servants, British legislative and judicial authority cannot extend beyond the territorial limits of India under the King. The judicial or legislative functions with which the British Govern- ment is invested in the Native states must therefore be based on a full .recognition of the fact that they are exercised on foreign territory. If the duties of the protected princes are extensive, the limitations upon the interference of the British Government are strict. 149. It can readily be understood that amidst Loose the shifting scenes through which British intercourse f^^ has passed to its final goal, and with so large a body avoided in of states of various sizes and in various positions within and beyond the advancing line of British dominion, some features and incidents of an Inter- national, a feudatory, or a constitutional position here and there lend colour to different theories. But no uniform or consistent practice has been observed by the paramount power in describing the states as a whole. On the contrary, different language has been used in despatches and in treaties at different periods. 388 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. and even in the same period one ruler has been dis- tinguished from another, each case being treated on its own merits. We can trace to their sources some at least of the imperfect generalisations which different writers have attached to the whole group. To the present day the state of Nepal preserves a large measure of independence so far as the British Govern- ment is concerned. In 1854 it even waged war and in 1856 concluded a treaty with Tibet without the intervention of the British Government. Since then it has been the scene of revolutions and disturbances with which the Government of India had no concern. Its foreign affairs are, as in the case of Afghanistan, under British control. It is, however, unnecessary to enter into further particulars, since Nepal has been ex- cluded from the scope of this work. It is sufficient to mention the state as illustrating a semi-international position of considerable independence. And such was the position which the most important of the Indian states, especially Mysore and Hyderabad occupied when they first entered into negotiations with the Company's officers. The phrase " inde- pendent" was then used in official documents to describe their chiefs, and even up to the outbreak of the Sikh war in 1845 the ruler of the P/nnjab maintained so called international relations with the Indian Government. When the war ended, the obligation was imposed on the Lahore state of re- cognising the " independent sovereignty " of the Maharaja of Jammu, to whom Kashmir was given by the Company as an " independent " possession. These and other instances have been cited by those who would call the rulers of the Native states independent. Others have preferred to adopt the phrase feudatory, and later advocates of the feudal theory find in Kajpu- xin THE TIE WHICH UNITES 389 tana, in the Punjab, and in the petty Jagirs scattered over the Empire, much that reminds them of the feudal system. How far any real similarity, whether in origin or tendencies, exists is a matter for subse- quent discussion. Here it may be admitted that the phrase is used in many parts of Sir Charles Aitchison's comments upon the treaties. But where it is so applied the treaties themselves hardly warrant the application. For instance, the chiefs subordinate to Kolhapur were described in his review as feudatories, but the Treaty of the 20th of October 1862 calls them " higher Sirdars " in article 7, and in the next article " higher Jagirdars," and " Sirdars," and it recognises the " seignorial rights of the Kaja." The seigneurs and droits seigneuriaux were no doubt present to the mind of Mr. Havelock, who drafted the treaty, but too much stress must not be laid on a chance word. The obligations of Cheit Singh are also described as feudal, but the engagements with Benares do not make even a remote reference to feudal relations. On the whole, it seems to me that the expression is almost studiously avoided in the text of the agreements concluded before 1857. We might have expected to find the term applied to the Cis-Sutlej chiefs in the treaties with Eanjit Singh, but it is not used. It is only to be found in the Sanads or patents given to the chiefs of the Central Provinces or Nagpore. The fifteen chiefs to whom adoption Sanads were granted in 1865, as Karond andKhaira- garh, executed an agreement which commenced as follows " : I am a Chieftain, under the administration of the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces. I have now been recognised by the British Govern- ment as a feudatory, subject to the political con- trol of the Chief Commissioner." Accordingly the 390 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. expression is reproduced in the Notification of the Foreign Office, No. 1237 I, of the 13th of April 1893. There are again others who claim authority for the adoption of the phrase nobles of the Empire, and such advocates of the constitutional theory may find in the position of the Eaja of Mudhol and in that of Pudukkottai in Madras germs of an idea that the chiefs were rather nobles of the British dominion than sovereigns of petty states. But traces of this inferior position are very rare, and it is clear that the uniform tendency of British administration has been to exalt the status of the Indian chiefs and to keep their territories outside the grasp of British law, rather than to assign them a noble position as the aristocracy of British India. A careful study of the Indian treaties seems to point to the deliberate avoidance of any general term for classifying the Company's allies, and when feudatory is used in a proclamation the words run " Princes, and feudatories." The tie is 150. If International law deals only with nations national or states whose intercourse with each other is based upon the theory that they are equal powers and have the right to form alliances and declare war, then the Native states of India cannot claim an interna- tional position. The restrictions placed upon their independent action, and the obligations which habitu- ally govern their external relations, and even to some extent their exercise of internal sovereignty, must be held to have deprived them of real international life. This view, based upon the considerations which have been set forth in previous chapters of this work, is confirmed alike by the explicit declaration of the British Government and the opinions of eminent writers on International law. There is nothing un- certain in the tones of the Notification published xni THE TIE WHICH UNITES 391 by the Government of India in its official Gazette, No. 1700 E, dated the 21st of August 1891 : "The principles of international law have no bearing upon the relations between the Government of India as representing the Queen-Empress on the one hand, and the Native states under the suzerainty of Her Majesty on the other. The paramount supremacy of the former presupposes and implies the subordination of the latter." The testimony of text writers of ac- knowledged authority is hardly less emphatic. Twiss has already been quoted in favour of the view that the states are " protected dependent states." Sir Edward Creasy, in his First Platform of Interna- tional Law, section 97, deals with the proposition that titular independence is no sovereignty if coupled with actual subjection. " Such," he observes, " is the condition of the Native princes of India. We all see clearly in them and in their subjects not independent political communities, which are sovereign states in the eye of International law, but mere subordinate members of the larger and Paramount political society, the true sovereign state, the British Empire." On the other hand, in his Commentaries upon Interna- tional Law (Third Edition), section 29, Sir Eobert Phillimore lays emphasis upon the principles of international justice, which " do govern, and ought to govern," the dealings of the Christian with non- Christian communities. " They," he writes, " are binding, for instance, upon Great Britain in her intercourse with the Native powers of India ; upon France with those of Africa ; upon Russia in her dealings with Persia ; upon the United States of North America in their intercourse with the Native Indians." In a footnote he refers to the fact that Haidar Ali was invited by France and England to 392 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. accede to the Treaty by which the status quo ante bellum was established in India. Upon this it may be observed that when the policy of the ring-fence was being pursued in India the principles and even the precise language of International law were gener- ally and properly applied to the Indian states. Haidar Ali was in August 1770, and even at a much later date, independent, and he exercised full rights of war and of diplomatic action. His son sent an embassy to the French. But the condition of the Indian states has been entirely altered since the close of last century. No one will deny that what Sir Robert calls the " precepts of Natural law " are obligatory both on the states and on the British Government, or that the latter is bound to govern its intercourse with the states by the " principles of justice," whether moral, international, or of any other category. Per- haps Sir Robert means no more than that, as he shows in section 75, where " the capacity of the state to negotiate, to make peace or war with other states irrespectively of the will of its Protector," is made the test of its International existence. Woolsey, in his Introduction to the Study of International Law, is uncompromising in his rejec- tion of such a condition. In section 37 he writes : " For the purposes of International law that state only can be regarded as sovereign which has retained its power to enter into all relations with foreign states, whatever limitations it may impose on itself in other respects." Halleck (Sir Sherstone Baker's Edition, 1878, chapter iii., page 61) goes even further: "No doubt one state may place itself under the protection of another without losing its international existence as a sovereign state, if it retains its capacity to treat, to contract alliances, to make peace and war, and to xin THE TIE WHICH UNITES 393 exercise the essential rights of sovereignty. But these rights must be retained de facto as well as dejure" M. Charles Calvo considers that if a state 11 abandonne ses droits de n^gocier et de conclure des traites et perd ses attribus essentiels d'independance, il ne peut plus etre regard comme un 4tat souverain, comme un membre de la grand famille des nations." He classes the Indian states with Siberia as outside the range of International law, and as protected dependent states. Manning, in his Commentaries (book iii, chapter i., edited by Sheldon Amos), finds fault with the " affected classification of states accord- ing to the alleged gradations and modes of their sovereignty/' and is obliged to insist on the doctrine that every "state" is, for all purposes of political intercourse, to be treated as the equal of other states. He will not even admit that " some of the Indian states " are instances of semi-sovereign states. It is unnecessary to ransack any farther the libraries of International law, for if it is conceded that Inter- national law can only apply strictly to states which may form alliances and declare war on other states, then the Native states must lie beyond the scope of a treatise upon International law. 151. The application to them of the term feuda- The tie is tory is much more general, and the arguments for so not describing them have been cleverly discussed at con- siderable length by Sir Lewis Tupper in Our Indian Protectorate ; or, an Introduction to the Study of the Relations between the British Government and its Indian Feudatories. Sir Lewis has said all that can be advanced in favour of the term. There are, no doubt, several coincidences in the circumstances of all societies of men, and in their attempts to adapt themselves to their environments, at different periods, 394 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. and in different parts of the globe. Self-preservation is a law of human nature, arid in periods of constant civil war and of the sack of cities, the soil possesses, all the world over a value which no movable property can at such times command. The Indian people of necessity grouped themselves in parties round a terri- torial chief who could protect them. Their swords continued to be as necessary to them as their plough- shares, and the chief himself, who for the sake of policy and protection rendered military service and allegiance to a superior prince, exacted similar dues in turn from his vassals. Parallels to the droits seigneuriaux, to fiefs, to the comitatus, and other incidents of feudalism, can readily be traced in Indian history, although the broad currents of their develop- ment took entirely different directions in the East and in the West. The Sarinjamdars of the Deccan, the Jagirdars in most parts of British India, and the Zamindars of Bengal suggest many analogies to feudal lords ; and, with a difference, some few of the petty chiefs ruling small Native states in the presidency of Bombay are not unlike them. But it is this super- ficial resemblance, confined to a very few of the petty chiefs, which makes the employment of the phrase feudatory so dangerous to the rights of the great bulk of the protected princes of India. Sir Lewis Tupper is led on by his argument to make little of the gulf which separates the Jagirdar subject to British law from the treaty Jagirdar ruling in Jath or Sangli and making his own laws for his subjects. In the end he arrives at the conclusion that the position of the Native states is constitutional. He evades the main issue, whether Parliament is competent to pass terri- torial laws for the Native states, on these grounds (p. 353), that if it were necessary to legislate, xni THE TIE WHICH UNITES 395 " the constitutional course would be to induce the chief to introduce the laws on his own authority." But what if the semi-sovereign chief will not be in- duced ? In that case, as he argues, " the political supremacy of Parliament is undoubted. The states are subordinate to the Government of India ; and that Government is both created by Parliament and responsible to it." His inference seems to be that Parliament may do what it pleases with the states, although it has no power to legislate for places and persons not under British jurisdiction. He even argues that " from the point of view of the duty of good government, native rulers may be regarded as the agents or great hereditary officers of the British Empire at large for the administration of part of its varied possessions." If Sir Lewis Tupper's argu- ments are to be taken seriously, they would warrant the conclusion that the Native states being feuda- tories are British " possessions," and this would assuredly nullify the solemn assurances given to their rulers. 152. This leads us directly to the main issue, The tie is whether the connexion between the King's authorities > in India and his protected allies or the rulers of the tie. ; Native states is a constitutional tie. Those who adopt that view can doubtless point to certain arrangements which suggest such a statement. In particular the great settlements made by Lord 'Hastings are cited as being of a constitutional character. It has been shown in a previous chapter that the jurisdictions of the numerous princes in Kathiawar were defined, certain laws applied, and a ^framework of Government introduced. In the history 5 of the English constitution a process of evolution can be traced from treaties, negotiated between orders or 396 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. estates, to a legislative union. The Magna Carta, although in form a Charter, or in Indian phraseology a Sanad, is in substance a Treaty or agreement between the King of England and his Barons. So late as the reign of Edward II., the doctrine pre- vailed that a Parliamentary grant bound only the parties who had assented to it, just as the deter- mination of the Witan bound merely those who were present and concurred in the proposition. The Congress meetings of the Anglo-Saxon Empire origi- nated in the facility they offered to the Sovereign for entering into a general compact with his vassals, which otherwise would have required the " counsel and consent" of parties to several Treaties. The position of King and nobles in early English history thus presents some incidents common to that of the Supreme Sovereign in India in relation to the country princes. In the case of the Tributary Mahals of Orissa the tie is more or less of a con- stitutional character. Such powers as the chiefs exercise they owe to British policy, although the country has been declared to lie beyond British India. Even in the case of the more important Indian sovereigns, it is claimed for Lord Lytton that he correctly expressed the position of certain leading Princes when he conferred upon them the title oi " Counsellors of the Empress." Any one who acquainted with Stubbs's Select Charters knows h the English constitution was the resultant of fon that can be traced back to Teutonic origin, how eacl concession supported a programme of new claim* which were made good by later struggles, and in short, the institutions of to-day grew out of the past. The political organisation of India und< Native Kule may, it is argued by those whos< xin THE TIE WHICH UNITES 397 arguments have been thus summarised, in time be modified similarly, and proceed in the direction of a constitutional union with India under the King. The strongest advocate of the constitutional tie is Professor John Westlake, who has discussed the point in his chapters on the Principles of International Law, a subject on which he is undoubtedly an eminent authority. " The Native princes who acknowledge the imperial majesty of the United Kingdom have no International existence, to International law a state is sovereign which demeans itself as indepen- dent " ; and if no foreign relations are allowed it, Mr. Westlake will not permit it to be called even semi- sovereign, for "a state is semi-sovereign to the extent of the foreign relations which the degree of its practical dependence allows it." He goes on to argue that, since the British power alone represents to the outside world the unit India, the political relations possessing any degree of fixity which exist between the component parts of the unit are constitutional. The position of a Native state " appears to be that of a separate part of the dominions of the King-Emperor, as New South Wales and British India are other such separate parts." Reviewing the intrusion of foreign jurisdiction into the states, Mr. AYestlake argues that their position has been imperceptibly shifted from an International to an Imperial basis, although the process has been veiled by the prudence of statesmen, the conservatism of lawyers, and the prevalence of certain theories about sovereignty. He makes little of Treaties, since " no human arrangements can escape from decay : in all states the legislative power sets aside the obligations of contracts" ; and he offers this consolation to the chiefs who cherish such docu- 398 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. ments as sacred : "in truth the Treaties and grants themselves are safer under a constitutional system than under an International one." " The princes and people of the Native Indian states may reflect that England relies on precedent and constitutional tact for her own liberty and good government." Else- where, the writer, from whom these quotations are made, insists upon the importance of avoiding loose and inaccurate references to International law, and he puts the case in these words : "We may either say that we have set up a state of chiefs in India to which International law has no application, as was done in the Notification of the Government of India, No. 1700 E, 21st of August 1891, and then we observe our law-abiding character in the quarters of the world to which we admit that International law applies ; or, we may keep up the pretence that International law applies within India, and then it will be hopeless to deny that we are breakers of it." The force of this reasoning is obvious, and it has already been admitted that the tie is not strictly international. But is there no shelter for the Native states under the shadow of International law ? Is it not possible to conceive of a sovereignty which, if wanting completeness in every respect, may ye1 be a sure defence against annexation ? Sir Hen] Maine certainly thought that the Native states mighl find shelter there. His words may be quoted " Sovereignty is a term which in International indicates a well -ascertained assemblage of separal powers and privileges. The rights which form pai of the aggregate are specifically named by th< publicists, who distinguish them as the right to make war or peace, the right to administer civil and criminal xin THE TIE WHICH UNITES 399 justice, the right, to legislate, and so forth. A sove- reign who possesses the whole of these is called an independent sovereign, but there is not, nor has there ever been, in International laws, anything to prevent some of these rights being lodged with one possessor and some another." Elsewhere, as quoted with evident approval by Sir Courtenay Ilbert, Sir Henry Maine puts his finger on the chief test of sovereignty which even the petty states of Kathia- war enjoy : " These principles would justify any amount of interposition, so long as we interpose in good faith for the advantage of the chiefs and people, and so long as we do not disturb the only unqualified sovereign right which the Kathiawar states appear to possess the right to immunity from foreign laws." 153. In the course of this work the states have Plea for been described as sovereignties, and the expression JJU^ 8 " 1 * must be read with the context. For it has been sovereign shown that very many of the attributes of sovereignty have been exercised for the ruling chiefs by the protecting power. The British Government has drawn to itself the exercise of the entire external sovereignty of the Native states, and it has also gathered into its own hands some of the internal sovereignty of even important states, leaving to petty chiefs, as in Kathiawar, merely shreds of internal sovereignty. The Indian states have been treated in this book as semi-sovereignties, or types of limited sovereignty. International law to-day recog- nises that " to a limited extent it may govern the relations of certain communities of an analogous character with independent states " (Hall, 4th Edition, p. 183), and in the days gone by, when its exponents had no knowledge of modern protectorates or spheres 400 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. of interest, it was not so uncompromising as either Austin or Mr. Westlake would wish us to believe. They accommodated their phrases to the facts before them, and Kluber described the United States of the Ionian Islands as perfect specimens of semi-sovereign states. No doubt the analogy between the Native states and the Ionian Islands is not quite complete, but it was close enough to justify Maine in unwinding the ball of ideas represented by sovereignty, and claiming the shelter of International law for the union of the semi-sovereign states of India with the British Government. For this reason a brief account of the arrangement sanctioned by the European powers may be given. By the Convention signed at Paris on the 5th of November 1815, it was provided that the Ionian Islands should form " a single, free, and independent state under the denomination of the United States of the Ionian Islands." By article ii. the state was placed " under the immediate and exclusive protec- tion " of the King of Great Britain and Ireland. By the next article the appointment of a Lord High Commissioner was provided for, to enable the King " to employ a particular solicitude with regard to the legislation and the general administration of those states." The next article dealt with the preparation of a new Constitutional Charter. By article v. the " rights inherent in the said protection " were ex- plained as giving His Britannic Majesty "the right to occupy the fortresses and places of those states, and to maintain garrisons in the same. The military force of the said United States shall also be under the orders of the Commander-in -Chief of the troops of His Majesty." The next article dealt with the pay- ment of the British garrison by the Government of xin THE TIE WHICH UNITES 401 the United States. Article vii. introduced an ele- ment of contrast: "The trading flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands shall be acknowledged by all the Contracting Parties as the flag of a free and independent state." The colours were then described, and the article proceeded : " None but commercial agents or Consuls, charged solely with the carrying on commercial relations, and subject to the regula- tions to which commercial agents or Consuls are subject in their independent states, shall be accredited to the United States of the Ionian Islands." The Constitutional Charter amplified the article just quoted by forbidding subjects of the United States of the Ionian Islands from acting as Consuls or Vice -Consuls of Foreign powers. British consular protection was assured to the subjects of the states in all ports. Rules were laid down for the approval of the appointments of all foreign agents and Consuls. Vessels sailing under the Ionian flag were to carry the pass of the Lord High Commissioner, while other sections dealt with the national colours and the Naturalisation of foreign subjects. It may be ad- mitted that although the sovereign attribute of free and uncontrolled agency in external relations was wanting to the Ionian states, still there was a spark of diplomatic life left to them in the reception of commercial agents. But in all other respects, such as their deprivation of rights of war, their exclusive protection by Great Britain, and the particular solicitude over their administration with which the British power was entrusted, they present a very marked parallel to the relations which in the present day subsist between the Government of India and the dependent protected states. The precision of modern writers and jurists would not 2 D 402 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. perhaps have tolerated the insertion in the Con- vention of the phrase independent, but there are many who still do not hesitate to describe the Ionian Islands, under the Convention of 1815, as semi-sovereignties. Theim- 154. But there is a stronger justification for the of main- adoption of the term semi -sovereignties than that taming which is afforded by mere arguments drawn from the policy. use, or abuse, of the sacred phrases of International law by jurists or statesmen. Violence must be done to history, diplomatic engagements, legislative enact- ments, legal decisions, and long-established usage, if we are to discard ideas of suzerainty or sovereignty as inapplicable to the Native states of India, and incompatible with the future development of the Indian Empire. The history traced in these pages proves what Mr. Westlake is ready to admit that the Company dealt with the leading rulers of India in times past on equal terms as independent sovereigns. It is something gained to start from an International basis, and it has been shown that the attributes of sovereignty with which the Company's allies parted were conceded by themselves sometimes by treaty and sometimes by consent. In the King-Emperor's dealings with Foreign states there is no concealment of the fact that the rulers of Native states possess a large measure of internal sovereignty. Commercial and extradition treaties with Foreign Powers reserve such rights, and when their provisions are made applicable to the Native states, the following words are used : " including the territories of any Native prince or chief in India under the suzerainty of the British Government." When, again, arrangements are made with an Indian prince for jurisdiction over railways or tracts of country the language used is unequivocal. The lease xni THE TIE WHICH UNITES 403 of Berar given by the Nizam of Hyderabad, dated November 5, 1902, recites that: "His Highness the Nizam, whose sovereignty over the assigned districts is reaffirmed, leases them." When Mysore was restored in 1881 the island of Seringapatam, which having previously become part of British India had been leased since 1811 to Mysore, was thus referred to : " From the date of the Maharaja's taking posses- sion of the territories of Mysore the British sove- reignty in this island of Seringapatam shall cease and determine, and the said island shall become part of the said territories, and be held by the Maharaja upon the same conditions as those subject to which he holds the rest of the said territories." Thus the language of Indian treaties as well as that of British treaties with European powers boldly affirms the sovereign rights of the Native states. The voice of British Legislatures and British judges is equally clear. Parliament in the Interpretation Act, 1889, 18 (5) defines India "as British India together with territories of any Native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty, exercised through the Governor- General of India or other officer subordinate to the Governor -General of India." Several Acts passed by the Indian Legislature apply to subjects of His Majesty " within the dominions of princes and states in India in alliance with Her Majesty," such as those dealing with the Income Tax (act ii., 1886), the Native Passengers Act (x., 1887), the Official Secrets Act (xv. ,1889), and Indian Kail ways Act (ix., 1890). In the Pilgrims' Ships Act (xiv., 1895), ,the General Clauses Act (x. of 1897), and the leading [Codes of procedure, the expression used is "any Native prince or state under the suzerainty of Her Majesty." 404 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP. The imperial Courts of Appeal give no countenance to the theory that no "sovereignty" is left to the Native states. In the case of Saiyad M. Yusuf-ud-din (LA. vol. 24, p. 145) the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Privy Council pointed out that the sovereignty derived from the Nizam on a particular line of railway did not justify the arrest complained of. "The authority, therefore, to execute any criminal process must be derived in some way or another from the sovereign of that territory." He continued, " as the stream can rise no higher than its source, the Notifica- tion of the Government of India can only give authority to the extent to which the sovereign of the territory, the Nizam, has permitted the British Government to make that Notification." And most significant was the Keport of the Privy Council in 1902 in the Matabeleland case. "The situation is one very familiar to Indian lawyers and administrators. For in India there are hundreds of states in which the East India Company, during its rule, and after- wards the Crown, has acquired large powers oi administration. . . . And yet, unless there has beei cession of territory, the least independent of such states is for some important purposes a foreigi state, its subjects are not British subjects, the laws passed by the Indian Legislature do not affect thei and it is subject to such rules as have been dul] made in accordance with the jurisdiction acquii over it." How far continuous usage has affirmed the poss sion of attributes of semi-sovereignty by the Native states must be gathered from the pages of this book, and the discussion may be concluded with a plea foi adherence to a policy which has preserved the integrity and secured the loyal co-operation of nearl; xin THE TIE WHICH UNITES 405 seven hundred princes and chiefs. Any removal of a check against encroachment and interference could not fail to excite the resentment and alarms of the King's allies. A habit of mind or language, which should encourage the belief that the Native rulers are o merely delegates and agents of the British Government, and not entitled in their own right to exercise authority over their subjects within the limitations which have been described, would not only retard progress, but excite opposition to reform. Sound policy no less than good faith is on the side of the legal authorities who treat the Native princes as possessed of varying degrees of internal sovereignty dependent upon the British Government. It cannot be denied that the shelter of International conceptions and rules protects a weak state from dangers to which a constitutional tie would expose it. In daily inter- course with the neighbouring states which occupy so large a space in India, the British administration must constantly ask for co-operation, sometimes even for the cession of rights. Human nature everywhere is more prone to grant what is asked for as a reasonable favour than demanded as a right. The responsibilities of the British rulers of India are large enough with- out making unnecessary demands on the hereditary rulers of Native states. Since public opinion is apt to be impatient in its demand for reforms, it is expedient that it should realise the solemn promises embodied in Lord Canning's Sanads and in Queen Victoria's gracious proclamation, and the restrictions imposed upon it by the public acts of the British Nation. It is only by such means that the good faith of Great Britain can be maintained, and the vision realised, which Tennyson beautifully expressed in " Akbar's Dream " 406 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA CHAP, xirr Me too the black-wing'd Azrael overcame, But Death had ears and eyes ; I watch'd my son, And those that follow'd, loosen, stone from stone, All my fair work ; and from the ruin arose The shriek and curse of trampled millions, even As in the time before ; but while I groan'd, From out the sunset pour'd an alien race, Who fitted stone to stone again, and Truth, Peace, Love and Justice came and dwelt therein. INDEX Abdalis, 109 Aby ssinians Native States' recruitment of, re- stricted, 240 Settlers in Janjira, 208 Acts of Parliament as affecting Native States- Extradition and Foreign Jurisdiction Act (1879), 353-4, 358, 373 Foreign Jurisdiction Act (1890), 358 Indian Act (1903), 374 Indian Councils Act (1861), 347, 351-2 Indian Naturalisation Act, 356 Indian Prisoners Act, 379 Instances of, 197-200 Interpretation Act (1889), 403 Regulating Act of 1772 (1773), 61, 347, 348 (1781) on British jurisdiction in India, 349 (1797) on Code of Regulations in judicial affairs, 349 Adoption Right of, not included in Tehri Sanad, 166 Sanads of. See that heading Succession to rule distinct from, 154 Afghanistan Foreign affairs of, 388 Sikh war against, 136 Sind, relations with, 135 War with (1842), 135 Afridis, 209 Agra British acquisition of, 85 Coinage difficulties in, 311 Ahmed Shah, 136 Ahmedabad, 26, 116 Ahmednagar Battle of, 221 Suttee in, 304 Aitchison, Sir Charles, cited, 38, 389 Akalkot, 295 Akbar, 135 Ali, Nizam, 73, 323 Ali Rajpur Disturbances in (1883), 241 Mekrani ruler of, 26 Succession settlements in (1862), 295 ; (1891), 327-8 Ali Vardi Khan, Nawab of Bengal, 63 Allard, , 139 Alwar Bhartpur, form of arrangement with, quoted, 277-8 Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Intervention in (1870), 300 Treaty with (1803), 54, 85, 124 Ambur, battle of, 68 America. See United States Amherst, Lord, review of administration of, 99 ; treaty of, with Nagpore (1816), 123 ; extends protec- torate to Sirohi (1823), 114 ; acquires Arakan and Tenasserim (1826), 101 ; concludes Treaty of Ava (1826), 179 ; titles granted by, 319 Amir Khan, 26, 112, 276 Amritsar, Treaty of (1846), 57, 140, 235, 246, 288 Anand Rao, Gaikwar of Baroda, 83, 111, 224 Anjar, 211, 225 Anne, Queen, charters given by, to E. I. Co., 46 Annexation policy Abandonment of, 45, 102 Justifications advanced for, 133 Necessity for, as corrective to policy of non-interference, 129 Anwaruddin, Nawab of the Carnatic, 68 Appa Saheb, 110, 155 Arabs Gaikwar deposed by, 111, 241 Hyderabad embarrassed by, 241 407 4 o8 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Arabs (contd. ) Native States' recruitment of, re- stricted, 240 Arakan, 101 Arcot, 47, 72 (see also Carnatic) Argaon, battle of (1803), 84, 221 Asaf Jah, 66, 68 Asirgarh, fort of, 110 Assam Mutilation and torture in, 304-5 Native States in political relations with, number of, 16 Assaye, battle of (1803), 84, 221 Auckland, Lord, general policy of, quoted, 145-6 ; policy regarding Shikarpur, 135 ; policy towards Oudh, 148-9, 151 ; otherwise mentioned, 52, 100 Aurangzeb, Emp. of Delhi, 138 Austin cited, 31, 339, 400 Austria Convention with (1815), 244 Succession, war of, 66, 67 Ava China, relations with, 322 Yandabu Treaty as affecting, 99, 179 Ava, Treaty of, 99, 179 Baghelkhancl, 114 Bahawalpur Concessions to (1842), 135 Imperial service troops furnished by, 185, 233 Independence of, preserved, 142 Non-intervention policy as regarding, 130-31 Baillie, , 75 Baji Rao, 78, 82 Balaji, Peshwa of Poona, 70 Balasinore, 277, 311 Ballantyne, Col, 35 Banda, 139 Bangalore, 72 Bankote, 81 Bansi, Raja of, deprived of his title (1886), 321 Banswara Khushalgarh, relations with, 276 Protection refused to, 89 ; extended to (1818), 57, 113 Bariya, 210 Barlow, Sir George, treaty of, with Holkar (1805), 107; dissolves alliance with Jaipur, 113 ; policy of, towards Mysore, 173 Baroda Arab troops' imprisonment of Gaik- warof (1802), 111, 241 British control over (1802), 83 British jurisdiction in (1862), 362, 363 Baroda (contd.) British-Indian laws and institutions in, 7, 132 Contingent, military, furnished by, failure of, 228 Deposition of Gaikwar of (1875), 42, 158, 203, 302 ; reason for, 167-70 Detachment of, from Maratha con- federacy, 109 Geographical position of, 15 Joint Report on (1865), cited, 35 ; quoted, 118-19 Kaira district in relation to, 20 Military establishment in, results of, 227 Military obligations of, as defined by treaty, 235, 247 Mulkgiri army of, 35, 116-17, 375 Population of, un warlike, 219 Resident in, attempt to poison (1875), 169, 333-4 Rise of, 70 Salutes accorded to ruler of, 320 Subsidiary forces maintained by, 224 Succession dispute in, 83 Treaties with (1802), 54, 83, 94, 107, 168, 235, 372 (1805), 247, 372 (1817), 372 (1820), 117 Tributaries of, management of, trans- ferred to British Government, 35, 116-17, 210, 375 Bashahr, 142 Bassein, 59, 82 Bassein, Treaty of (1802), 62, 79, 83, 107, 109, 168, 210, 221, 237, 257, 330 Bastar, 156 Bednore, 72 Behar British jurisdiction in, 348, 349 Clive acknowledged Diwau of, 64 Belgaum, 194 Benares, British acquisition of, 65 Benares, Treaty of (1860), 239, 316-17 Bengal British jurisdiction in, 348, 349 Council of, extension of legislative powers of (1813), 350 Formation of Province after Plassey, 64 Native States in political relations with, number of, 16 Oudh regarded as buffer State to, 64-5 Bentinck, Lord Wm., review of adminis- tration of, 99-100 ; regulation of, against Suttee (1829), 304 ; corre- spondence of, with King of Oudh (1831), quoted, 92 ; proclamation INDEX 409 of, at annexation of Coorg (1834), 145 ; policy of, as to bestowal of titles, 319 Berar, terms of lease of, to Great Britain, 232, 403 Berar (Nagpore). See Nagpore Bharmalji Rao, 121, 225 Bhartpur Alliance with (1803-5), 85 Alwar, form of arrangement with, quoted, 277-8 Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Succession dispute at, 99 Bhaunagar, Imperial service troops furnished by, 185, 233 Bhawani Singh, 114 Bhil Rajas of Khandesh, 26 Bhopal British jurisdiction in, question as to (1863), 345-6 Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Military contingent furnished by, failure of, 228 Military obligations of, as defined by treaty, 235, 247-8 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 166, 184 Pindari assistance sought by, 111 Protection refused to, 89 ; extended to, 112 Treaty with (1818), 247 Bhowan Singh, 165 Bhutan Annexation of district in, 158 Treaty with (1774), 53, 158 Bikanir Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 166, 184 Protection refused to, 89 ; extended (1818), 56 Revolt of nobles in (1830), 299 Sidhs in, 299-300 Treaty with (1818), 56, 113 Bombay British acquisition of, first (1668), 81 Court of Requests in (1753), 348 Mayor's Court in (1726), 348 Bombay Government Gazette, cited, 20 Bombay Presidency Council of, extension of legislative powers of (1813), 350 Enclaves of foreign territory in, 16 Jurisdictions in, variety of, 18 Native States in political relations with, extent and number of. 15-16 Thana circles in, 34-5 Brinjaris, 77 British and Foreign Review, cited, 4 ; quoted, 150-51, 318 British India, legislative and judicial systems of, stages of, 347 (see also Indian Legislature) British South Africa Company, Charter to, quoted, 196 Broach, 82 Bundelkhand States Cession of, to British (1802), 79 Hastings' settlement in, 114 Petty chiefs in, precluded from British protection, 89 Treaties with(1804and!818),54-6,237 Bundi Gwalior Treaty (1817) as affecting, 110 Treaty with (1818), 56, 113 Burhanpur, Treaty of (1804), 94, 191, 234-5, 257, 281 Burke, Edmund, quoted, 76 Burma Native States included in, number of, 16 Yandabu Treaty as affecting, 99 Bussy, 65, 73 Buxar, battle of, 51, 59, 64 Calcutta- Black Hole of, 63 Clive's acquisition of Zemindari of land around, 58 Court of Requests in (1753), 348 Mayor's Court in (1726), 348 Calvo, Charles, quoted, 393 Cambay Bassein Treaty as affecting, 210 Disturbances of 1890 in, letter ad- dressed to Nawab after, 49, 131, 300-301 Taraja made over to (1771), 81 Treaty with (1771), 53 Cambay, Treaty of (1 802), 83 Campbell, Lord, quoted, 269 Campbell, Sir George, quoted, 4, 8, 282, 313, 339 Canning, Lord, doctrine of lapse accepted by, 155 ; policy regarding Suttee, etc., 305; Sanads of adoption con- ferred by, 38, 40, 158, 162-4,166, 236, 245-6, 251, 288-90, 305, 316, 325-7, 335 ; quoted on rights of British Crown, 44, 290 Cantonment jurisdiction, 360-61 Caranja Island, 82 Carnatic (see also Arcot) Area and situation of, 67 British protectorate over (1763-78), 73-5 Treaty with (1787), 54 4io THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Central India Chiefships in, number of, 98, 114 Disorder in, before Pindari war, 108 Hastings' settlement in 114-15 Tankhadars in, position of, 309 Central Provinces Feudatory chiefs of, 389 Native States in political relations with, number of, 16 Ceylon British acquisition of, 208 Dutch possession of, 66 Chamba, 142 Chambal, bridge over, 250 Chamkanni, Chief of, 209 Chamrajendra Wadiar Bahadur, 174 et seq. Chanda Saheb, 68 Chandanagore, 63 Changama, battle of (1767), 74 Charles II., King, Charter of 1661 given by, to East India mer- chants, 46 Charnock, Job, 62-3 Cheit Singh, 389 Chilianwala, battle of, 141 China Ava, relations with, 322 British jurisdiction in, 338 Eeligious toleration in, secured by treaty, 306 Chindwara Jagirdars, engagement re- quired of (1821), 26-7 Chitapet, 72 Chitu, 112 Chuda, 298 Civil stations, British jurisdiction in, 364-5 Clarke, Sir Alured, 59 n. Clive, Lord, avenges Black Hole atrocity (1756), 63 ; relations with Siraj- ud-daula, 63-4, 90 ; takes Gheria fort (1756), 81 ; victorious at Plassey (1757), 58, 64 ; restores Oudh to the Nawab, 9, 64, 136 ; influence of, 72 Cochin Subsidiary troops maintained by, 94, 223-4 Treaties with (1791), 54 (1809), 94, 240 Colebrook, cited, 293 Contingents or auxiliary forces provided by Native States, 228-30 Coorg Annexation of (1834) Manner of, 145 Reason for, 100, 133, 142-4 Tipu deprived of, 51, 126 Coorg (contd.} Treaties with (1790), 54 (1793), 126-7, 172 War with (1834), 183 Coote, Col. Eyre, 73 Cornwallis, Lord, non - intervention policy of, 28, 60, 112, 137, 162 ; ideal of, 96-8, 102, 107, 115, 119, 136, 278; operations against Tipu, 77 ; treaty with Coorg, 126-7, 143, 171-2 ; death of, 60 Coromandel coast, E. I. Co.'s position on, 66 Court, , 139 Cowasjee, Jehanghir, 297 Cranganore, 76 Creasy, Sir Edward, quoted, 391 Crown, British Loyalty to, duty of, 334-6 Prerogative of. See that heading Transfer of E. I. Co. 's jurisdiction to 42, 157, 161 Cuddalore, French acquisition of, 73 Cuillier, Pierre (Perron), 24 Curzon, Lord, 232 Dabha, battle of, 134 Dalhousie, Lord, review of administra- tion of, 101 ; annexation policy of, 102-3, 133, 145, 152 ; policy regarding Bahawalpur (1853), 131 ; treaty with Hyderabad (1853), 231 ; otherwise- men- tioned, 44, 150, 325 Damaji, 83 Damalcheruvu, battle of, 68 Damaun, 213 Datia British relations with, under Hast- ings, 114 Military obligations of, as defined by treaties, 237-8 Treaties with (1804-1818), 54 Daulat Rao, 24, 25 De Boigne, 24 Deeg, battle of, 84 Delhi- British acquisition of, 85 Massacre at (1398), 209 Delhi, Emperor of Recognition by, sought by native chiefs, 318, 323 Trial of, 42 Deoli irregular force, 229 Dessulji, Rao of Kutch, 121 Devgaon, Treaty of (1803), 84 Dewas Malwa contingent partly supported by, 229 Treaty with (1818), 57, 114 INDEX 411 Dhar, 57, 114 Dharampur, 241 Dharwar, 72, 77, 194 Dholpur, 53, 250 Dhulip Singh, 140, 141 Diu, 213, 266 Dost Ali, Nawab of the Carnatic, 68 Dufferin, Lord, Burmese and Shan States brought into protectorate by, 52 ; rendition by, of Fort of Gwalior, 159 ; Imperial service troops scheme promoted by, 159, 185, 233 ; titles conferred by 320 Dumas, Benoit, Gov. of Pondicherry, 68 Dungarpur, 113 Dupleix, 65, 66 Dutch in possession of Ceylon, 66 East India Company Agents received by, 331-2 Bombay first acquired by, 81 Charters : given to, 46 ; Charter of 1661 quoted, 347 Derivative authority of, 317 Factories of, in 1741, 66 Hyderabad, relations with, 73-4 Maratha war, second (1803), 84 Mysore wars, 68-9, 74-9 Oudh, financial relations with, 148, 150-51 Penang, Burma, and Ceylon, position in (1786-96), 88-9 Piracy suppressed by, 208 Kelations of, with Native States, re- view of, 1 ; ring-fence policy, 11-12, 43 ; nature of relations at end of first period, 91 Ring-fence policy of, 11-12, 43, 91 ; inter-statal warfare consequent on, 11-12 Select Committee on, Fifth Report of, cited, 76 Subordinate isolation policy of, 96, 123-8 Subsidiary forces, policy as to, 227 Transfer of jurisdiction of, to British Crown, 42, 157, 161 Egypt- British consular jurisdiction in, 338 European rivalries in, 268 Elephanta Island, 82 Elizabeth, Queen, Charter of 1600 given by, to East India merchants, 46 Ellenborough, Lord, review of adminis- tration of, 100 ; Gwalior treaty negotiated by (1844), 39, 239 Elphinstone, Mountstuart, treaty of, with the Peshwa (1817), 109 ; with Baroda (1820), 117, 168 ; otherwise mentioned, 11, 35, 121 Excellency, title of, 320 Executive authority (Governor-General in Council) (see also Viceroys) Code of Regulations of (1793), 350 Indian Councils Act (1861) as affect- ing, 351-2 Judicial powers of, 119, 346, 354, 358-9, 361, 364, 365, 381 Legislative powers of, as defined by Statute (1833), 350 Local Governments represented on (1853), 350-51 Extradition Acts regulating, 373-4 Deserters, of, 248-9 Foreigners, of, 197, 271-2 Indian subjects, of, refused, 367, 369 Reciprocity in, inadmissible, 312, 372-3 Eyre, Lord Commissioner, 47 Faridkot Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Protectorate extended to, 55, 142 Ranjit's aggression against, 87-8 Fateh Ali Khan, Mir, 291 Ferozepore, 137 Fort St. David, 66, 73 Fort St. George (Madras), E. I. Co.'s post at, 66 (see also Madras) Fort William, Supreme Court of Judica- ture established at, 348 France British hostilities with, as affecting India, 61, 66-7, 72-3, 75, 78 ; Seven Years' War, 61, 63, 67 Hyderabad, intrigues regarding, 65-8 ; relations in 1796, 78 Tipu's relations with, 77-8, 80 Treaties Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), 67 Extradition treaty, 197, 373 Paris, Convention signed at (1815), 244, 400 Paris, Peace of (1763), 67, 68 Tilsit (1807), 86 Frontier people, treatment accorded to, 209 Furruckabad, 335 Gaikwar. See Baroda Gangadhar, 295 Ganpat Rao. 291 Garhwal. See Tehri Gawalgarh, surrender of (1803), 84 Gazette of India quoted, 181, 182 321, 323 ; cited, 197, 240-41, 299, 322, 383 ; notifications in, 374-5 412 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA German States (1820), comparison of, with Indian States as to foreign relations, 254 Germany Extradition treaty with (1872), 271 Judicial system of, contrasted with that of India, 355 Ghazi ud Din, 148 Ghazipur, 65 Gheria (Vijayadrug) fort, dive's capture of (1756), 63, 81 Ghulab Singh, Raja of Kashmir, 141. 209, 246 Ghumbhir Singh, 179 Goa, 213 Goddard, Gen., 59 Gond rulers of Khairagarh, 26 Gondal, 55, 307 Governor-General. See Executive author- ity and Viceroys Govind Rao, 224 Govind Singh, 138 Gujarat Four political agencies of, 118 Hastings' settlement in, 115-19 Transit duties in, intervention as to (1857), 312 Tributary states of, civil police of, 228-9 Gujrat, battle of (1849), 141 Gurkhas. See Nepal Gwalior Army of Contingent furnished by, failure of, 228 Establishment of, regulated by Ellenborough, 100; denned by treaties, 239 Imperial service troops furnished, 185, 233 Maharajpur, violence of troops at, 219 Obligations, military, as defined by treaty, 234-5 Subsidiary forces maintained, 221-2 Bundelkhand in relation to, 237 Detachment of, from Maratha Con- federacy, 109 External relations denied to, 257 Geographical position of, 15 Hostilities with (1803), 83-4 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 166, 184 Nagpore joined by, against British (1803), 84, 221 Obligations undertaken by, summary of, 202 Pindari war affected by attitude of, 17 Poona, relations with (1758), 70-71 ; (1802), 78, 79 Gwalior (contd.) Railway land granted by (1859), 251 Rendition of, to Sindhia (1886), 159 Representation of, on Baroda Com- mission, 169, 203 Rise of, 70 Treaties with (1781), 53 (1803) Sarje Anjengaon, 84, 85, 107, 221 (1804) Burhanpur, 94, 191, 234-5, 257, 281 (1805) Mustafapur, 107 (1817), 12, 109-10 (1844), 39, 239. (I860) Benares, 239, 316-17 (1855-83) as to road expenses, 250-51 Warlike elements in, difficulties con- sequent on, 24-6 Gwalior, Treaty of (1817), 12, 109- 110 Haidar Ali, Sultanate of Mysore usurped by, 69 ; hostilities with, regard- ing the Carnatic, 73-5 ; Cochin conquered by, 223 ; Hyderabad threatened by, 230 ; suppression of dominion of, 62 ; otherwise mentioned, 59, 391-2 Hall quoted, 399 Halleck quoted, 392-3 Hardat Singh, 336 Hardinge, Lord, review of administra- tion of, 101 ; Suttee suppressed by, 104 ; ultimatum of, to Oudh, 149-50; letter of, to Maharaja of Kashmir, cited, 49, 302 ; quoted on native misrule, 302 ; mentioned, 52 Hari Rao Holkar, 130, 190, 299, 324 Harris, Gen., 79 Harris, Lord, 49, 301 Hastings, Lord (Lord Moira), review of, administration of, 99 ; achieve- ments of, on the Treaty map, 10, 51 - 2, 162, 275 ; treaties with Gwalior and Indore, 12, 109, 222 ; admits Bhopal to protection (1817), 112; treaty with Jodhpur (1818), 286 ; treaty with Satara (1819), 122, 127, 171-2, 288 ; policy towards Oudh, 122, 148 ; form and style of treaties of, compared with those of his predecessors, 124- 127 ; isolation policy of, 28, 102 ; settlements made by, 45, 102, 395 ; settlement in Rajputana and Central India, 113-1 5; settle- ment in Gujarat, 115-19 ; settle- INDEX 413 ment in Kutch, 119-22 ; arrange- ments made by, as to military obligations, 222, 235 ; policy of, as to external relations, 257- 258 ; policy as to bestowal of titles, 319 ; leaves India (1823), 128 ; otherwise mentioned, 60, 61, 89, 96, 111 Hastings, Warren, title of Governor- General assumed by, 59 n. ; an- nexes Rohilla district to Oudh, 59, 65 Havelock, Mr., 389 Hindia, fort of, 110 Hindu law Menu, laws of, 307-8, 368 Property, public and private, dis- tinguished by, 154, 293 History of Modern India (Campbell) quoted, 282 Hog Island, 82 Holkar. See Indore Holyrood Abbey, Charter of, quoted, 294 Hunsraj, 120 Hyderabad Arab settlers in, 241 Area and population of, 15 Army of Contingent furnished by, 230-32 Imperial service troops furnished, 233 Obligations, military, as defined by treaty, 247 Subsidiary forces maintained, 93, 223, 225-6 Berar leased by, to Great Britain, 403 Dangers threatening, 230 External relations denied to, 256-7 Extra-territorial jurisdiction in, 270-71 French intrigues regarding, 65 - 8 ; relations with France in 1796, 78 Frontier of, irregularity of, 16 Geographical position of, 15 Importance of, in the Deccan, 23, 67 Independent position of, towards E. I. Co., 388 Loyalty of, to Great Britain, 230 Marathas' defeat of, at Kharda (1795), 78, 230 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 166, 184, 232 Mysore's encroachments on, 69 ; Tipu's advances rejected, 78 Obligations of, 203 Pindari raids in, 106 Salutes accorded to ruler of, 320 Sarkars ceded by, 53, 223 Status of, 23 Succession war in (1748), 68 Hyderabad (contd.) Territory taken from Mysore, 77, 223 Title offered by, to British officer not recognised, 322 Treaties with (1759), 53, 73 (1766), 53, 74, 93 (1768), 74 (1790) triple alliance against Tipu, 62, 77, 80, 91, 105 (1798), 78-9 (1800), 1, 247, 256 (1853), 225-6, 231 v (1861), 270 (1867 and 1887) extradition, 373 Idar Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Raja of, position of, 35 Ilbert, Sir Courtenay, cited, 399 Imperial Gazetteer of India, cited, 14 n. , 89 and n. Imperial service troops furnished by Native States Advantages of system of, 233 Dufierin's development of system of, 159, 185, 233 Efficiency of, 232-3 States furnishing, list of, 233 Status of, 185 Indian Councils, legislative power of, territorial, 356 Indian Councils Act (1861), 347 Indian Empire, area and population of, 14 Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council (1902), 354, 358 Indian Law Reports cited (see also Law cases) Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram Kanji, 33, 118, 183-4, 355-6 Mahals, tributary, case of, 33-4 Triccam Panachand v. Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Rail- way Co., 33, 365 Indian Legislature, limitations on powers of, 346-53, 359, 365 Indian Princes. See Native Princes Indian States. See Native States Indore Amir Khan's aggressions against, 112 Army of Imperial service troops furnished, 233 Obligations, military, as defined by treaty, 235, 247 Subsidiary forces maintained, 94, 222-3 Bundelkhand in relation to, 237 Canadian missionaries in, 307 414 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Indore (contd.) Detachment of, from Maratha Con- federacy, 109 External relations denied to, 257 Geographical position of, 15 Hostilities with E. I. Co., 84 Jealous of other Maratha States, 83 Malwa contingent partly supported by, 229 Non-intervention policy as regarding, 130, 131, 287 Poona and Gwalior defeated by (1802), 79 Ranjit Singh, relations with, 85-6 Revolt of subjects of (1835), 130, 287 Rise of, 70 Succession settlement in (1844), 324-5 Treaties with (1805) Rajpur Ghat, 54, 84-5, 107 (1818) Mandasor, 12, 110, 114, 214, 222-3, 235, 240, 247, 257, 287, 289 Indus river navigation, regulation of, 250 Infanticide Cause of, 20 Hindu religion against, 200-201 Prevalence of practice of, 304 Treaties forbidding, 121, 304 Intervention, British, in internal affairs of Native States Currency, in matter of, 310-11 Dismemberment or injury of a state, in prevention of, 291-8 Extra - territorial jurisdiction. See suit-heading Foreigners Inhuman practices, for suppression of, 303-6 Instances of, 287-9 Misrule, gross, in cases of, 302-3 Railways, in matter of, 249-52, 311, 362-4 Rebellion, for suppression of, 298-302 Religious toleration, to secure, 306-8 Right of, 212 Special cases of, secured by treaty, 308-9 Trade matters, as to, 312 Understanding as to, 289-90 Ionian Islands Comparison of, with Indian States as to foreign relations, 244, 255; as to sovereignty, 400-402 Isolation, subordinate, of Native States Hastings' establishment of, 96, 123 et seq.y 257-8 Reasons for, 43-4 Italian Government, document regard- ing Capitulations published by, quoted, 267-8 Jafar Ali, Mir, 63-4, 90 Jafar Ali Khan Saheb of Cambay, 131 Jaikotah, 76 Jaintia, E. I. Co.'s protectorate over (1824), 99 Jaipur Alliance with, terminated by Sir George Barlow, 89, 113 Imperial service troops furnished by, 185, 233 Jodhpur feud with, 275 Representation of, on Baroda Com- mission, 169 Treaty with (1818), 56, 113 Jaisalmir, 57, 113 Jaitpur, lapse doctrine as affecting, 134 Jaloun, 153 Jammu Ghulab Singh's acquisition of, 141 Kashmir given to (1846), 388 Janjira Abyssinian settlers in, 208 Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Mint of, suppressed (1834), 310 Treaty with (1733), 53, 81 Jankoji, 25 Jaora Chief of, capacity of, 26 Integrity of, guaranteed, 56, 114 Malwa contingent partly supported by, 229 Jareja nobility. See under Kutch Jasdan, 292 Jayaji, Rao Sindhia, Maharaja, 25, 39 Jhalawar Creation of principality of (1838), 113, 296 Protectorate extended to (1838), 57, 114 Reconstitution of (1899), 114 Jhansi Lapse doctrine as affecting, 134, 153 Treaty with (1818), 237 Jind Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 166, 184 Railway facilities granted by (1860), 251 Protectorate extended to, 12, 142 Treaties with (1809), 55 (1847), 57 (1860), 305 Jind family, 86 Jodhpur Contingent, military, furnished by, failure of, 229 East India Co. precluded from treaties INDEX 415 Jodhpur (contd.) with, 89, 107 ; restriction re- moved (1817), 110 Imperial service troops furnished by, 185, 233 Jaipur feud with, 275 Rajput dynasty of, 23-4 Religious toleration in, 307 Treaty with (1818), 56, 113, 275, 286 Udaipur, dispute with, as to pre- cedence (1870), 320-21 Junagarh Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Portuguese, disputes with, 266 Treaty with (1807), 55 Warning to Nawab of, 336 Jurisdiction, British, in Native States Acts of Parliament affecting (1773- 1869), 347-52 Cantonment, 360-61 Civil stations, in, 364-5 Delegated Cantonment, 360-61 Civil stations, in, 364-5 Meaning of, 340-42, 357 Personal, over British, European and American subjects, 13-14, 267-71, 309-10, 367-72 Railway, 362-4 Residency, 366-7 Executive authority's, 119, 346, 354, 358-9, 361, 364, 365, 381 Extraordinary, basis of, 343 Extra-territorial, acquired by execu- tive authority, 353, 358, 364 Exercised by courts established by executive, 119, 346, 361, 365, 382 Special cases of British subjects, 367, 370 Supported by legislative authority, 353, 359 Justices of the Peace, 369 Railway, 362-4 Residency, 366-7 Residuary Meaning of, 340, 342-3 Origin and extent of, instances explaining, 375-9 Sphere of, 355 Substituted Meaning of, 340, 343-4 Nature of, 380-82 Three kinds of, 340 Treaties in relation to, 344-6 Kaira district, 20 Kalsia, 55, 142 Kaugra, 98 Kanoji, 224 Kanoji Angria, Chief of Kolaba, 81 Kapurthala Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Restoration of, to native rule, 142 Karan Singh, 304 Karauli, 56, 113 Karen States of Burma, 16 Karikal, 66 Karim, 112 Karoud, 389 Kashmir Ghulab Singh presented with, 141, 388 Gifts from, to British sovereign, 322 Hardinge's letter to Maharaja of, cited, 49, 302 Imperial service troops furnished by, 185, 233 Military obligations of, as defined by treaty, 235 Territorial limits of, restriction as to, 295 Treaty of Amritsar with (1846), 57, 140, 235, 246, 288 Kasim, Mir, 64 Kathiawar Alienations of revenue in, 298 British jurisdiction in, 376 Civil stations in, 364-5 Classification of States in, 376-7 Hastings' settlement of, 395 Political divisions of, 292 Railway in, jurisdictions traversed by, 362 Rajasthanik Sabha in, 308-9 Status of chiefs in, 399 Thana circles in, 37 Treaty with (1807), 55, 250 Tribute of, to Baroda collected by British, 116-18, 210, 375 Kathis, 292 Katosan, 295 Kennedy, Major, 301 Kennery Island, 82 Khairagarh Gond rulers of, methods of, 26 Status of Chieftain of, 389 Treaty with, 156 Khairpur Ellenborough's policy regarding, 100 Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Independence of, permitted, 136 Treaty with (1832), 57 Khalsa, the (see also Sikhs) Dalhousie's conquest of, 101 Ghulab Singh minister of, 141 Jurisdiction for, special, 378 Meaning of name, 138 Khande Rao, 169 416 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Khandesh, BM1 Rajas of, 26 Kharak Singh, Maharaja, 93 Kharda, battle of (1795), 78, 230 Khasi States, area of, 16 Khushalgarh, 276 Kirki, battle of (1817), 110, 227 Kishengarh, treaty with (1818), 56, 113 Kluber, cited, 400 Kolaba Lapse doctrine applied to (1840), 153 Pirates of, 81 Kolhapur Agency establishment in, 332 Alienations of land in, restricted, 295-6 British interferences in, nature of, 195 British- Indian laws and institutions in, 7, 132 Concessions made by (1886), 193 Contingent, military, furnished by, 229-30 Detachment of, from Maratha Con- federacy, 109 External relations denied to, 258 Feudatory states included in, 12 ; British jurisdiction as to, 309, 342 Free trade adopted by (1886), 311 Jagirdars in. See subheading Feuda- tory Piracy suppressed in (1766), 81 Succession in, settlement of (1844), 325 ; succession duties levied, 330 Treaties with (1766), 53, 90, 392 (1812), 192, 258 (1826), 192-3, 240 (1827), 193 (1829), 246 (1862), 193, 258, 379, 389 Summary of, illustrating growth of policy, 192-3 Kolis of Taraja, 81 Kotah Contingent, military, furnished by, failure of, 228 East India Co. precluded from treaties with, 107 ; restriction removed (1817), 110 Jhalawar created out of, 113, 296 Protectorate extended to (1817), 56, 113 Kurundwar, subdivisions of, 291-2, 294-5 Kutch Contribution from, towards cost of British regiment, 211, 225 Hastings' settlement in, 119-22 Infanticide in, suppressed, 303-4 Kutch (contd.) Jareja chiefs of the Bhayad, 119-20 ; guarantee held by, 48, 309, 378- 379 ; jurisdiction over guarantee- holders, 122, 309, 342, 378-9 Kathiawar States at feud with, 274 Maritime regulations as affecting, 265 Military obligations of, as defined by treaty, 235, 247 Nawanagar, form of agreement with, cited, 277 Nobility powerful in, 22 (see also subheading Jareja) Offer of alliance by, rejected (1802), 120 " Settlement and Rules of 1875," 122 Subsidiary forces maintained by, 94, 224-5 Treaties with (1809), 56, 120 (1816), 56 (1819), 121-2, 235, 243, 247, 274, 287-8, 316, 378 Zanzibar slave-dealing suppressed by late ruler of, 101, 262-3 Kythal family, 86 Laconia, case of, cited, 337-8 Lahore Annexation of, 140 Buffer state, as, 86 Kangra conquered by, 98 Ranjit Singh's acquisition of, 98, 136 Lahore, Treaty of (1809), 60-62, 88, 136- 137, 139 Lake, Gen. Lord, 89, 107, 113, 124, 237, 278 Lally, 72-3 Lansdowne, Lord, 158, 233 Lapse, doctrine of Advantages of, 134 Created or regranted States, in, 155 Dalhousie's attitude towards, 152 Legal aspect of, 153-5 Lascars, 224 Laswari, victory of (1803), 84 Law cases cited Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram Kanji, 33, 118, 183-4, 355-6 Guiana (ship), 269 Hemchand Devchand v. Azan Sakarlal Chhotamlal, 377 Mahals, tributary, case of, 33-4 Muhammad Yusuf-ud-din, 364 Papyanni v. The Russian Steam Navigation Co. , 269 Rajkote civil station, 365 Saiyad M. Yusuf-ud-din, 404 Taluka, The, of Kotda Sangani v. the State of Gondal, 378 INDEX 417 Law cases cited (c&ntd. ) Triccam Panachand v. the Bombay, Baroda, and Central Indian Railway, 33, 365 Lawa Chief of, murder of, 26 Creation of, as separate chiefship, 276 Lawrence, Sir Henry, 140, 305 Lawrence, Sir John, 41, 130, 158 Lewa Kumbis, infanticide among, 20 Lisbon, Treaty of (1878), 248 Livy, quoted, 9 n. Lucknow, Treaty of (1801), 146-7, 226 Lunawara, 277 Lytton, Lord, quoted, 5, 396 ; speech of, at Delhi (1877), quoted, 159, 184 Madan Singh, 113 Madhavji Sindhia, Maharajah, 24, 25 Madras Court of Requests in (1753), 348 Mayor's Court in (1726), 348 Madras Presidency Council of, extension of legislative powers of (1813), 350 French and British rivalry in, 65, 67 Native States iu political relations with, extent and number of, 15- 16 Madura, French reverse at, 72 Magona, chiefship of, 35-6 Mahamaho-padyaya, title of, 320 Maharajpur, 219, 239 Mahe, 66, 75 Mahi Kauta, Thana circles in, 37, 292 Mahmud, King, 209 Maine, Sir Henry, quoted, 31-2, 398-9 ; cited, 339 Malcolm, Sir John, policy of, as to succession duties, 330 ; quoted, 14, 27-8, 289-90, 303 Maler Kotla Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Protectorate extended to, 55, 142 Malia, aliens' privileges in, 241 Malwa East India Co. precluded from treaties i with, 107 Misgovernment in, previous to Pindari . war, 113 Malwa contingent in the Mutiny, 222, 229 Man Singh, Maharajah of Jodhpur, 24, 287 Manclasor, Treaty of (1818), 12, 110-11, 114, 214, 222-3, 235, 240, 247, 257, 287, 289 Maudavi, succession duties in, 330 Mandi Restoration of, to native rule, terras of, 142 Suttee in, 304 Mandvi, 120, 153 Mangalore, Treaty of (1784), 75-6 Mangalore, vicissitudes of (1768-99), 75 Manipur Ava, Treaty of, as affecting, 179 Forced labour in, abolished (1892), 312 Rebellion in (1890-91), 99, 179-83, 335 Succession question, 158 ; Despatch relating to, quoted, 4-5, 326, 328 Treaties with (1762 and 1833), 53 Manning, quoted, 393 Maratha Confederacy Break up of, after Panipat, 70, 109 Decline of, 62, 70 Dissolution of (1817), 109 Maratha Country, Southern, Jagirdars of Sanad of adoption possessed by, 10 Treaty with (1819), 330 Maratha Government, Chindwara Jagir- dars' engagement with (1821), 26 7 Maratha war, first, 59, 63, 82 Maratha war, second Alwar's assistance in, 124 Course of, 84-5 Results of, 59-60 Marathas Bankote acquired from, 81 Characteristics and condition of, 137-8 Hyderabad defeated by, 78, 230 Tipu's bigotry towards, 76 Treaty with Southern Maratha Country Jagirdars (1819), 330 Tribute claims of, 70, 71, 74 Marwar. See Jodhpur Maskat Agreement with (1873), 263 British jurisdiction in. 338 Massowah, 268 Masulipatam, 66, 106 Matabeleland case, analogy from, 404 Mauritius, 66 Meenas and Mhairs, 24 Meerut, massacre at (1398), 209 Mehidpur, battle of, 110, 222 Metcalfe, Sir Charles, 86 Meywar. See Udaipur Miani, battle of, 134 Minors, charge of, 196, 334 Minto, Lord, 60-61, 86, 88, 96, 103 Modern India (Campbell), quoted, 4 Moira, Lord. See Hastings Monson, Col., 84 2E 4i8 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Mornington, Earl of. See Wellesley, Marquess Morocco, British jurisdiction in, 338 Morvi Kutch feud with, 274 Treaty with (1807), 55 Mudhol, 390 Muhammad Ali, Nawab of the Carnatic, 68, 73 Muhammad Ali Shah, King of Oudh, 148 Muhammad Wajid Ali Shah, King of Oudh, 151 Muhammad Yusuf-ud-din, 364 Muir, Col., 25 Mulhar Rao, Gaikwar of Baroda, 169-70, 222 Multan, 98 ; murder of British officers at, 101, 141 Munro, Major, 59, 64 Murree hill villages, 209 Mustafapur, Treaty of (1805), 107 Mutiny of 1857 British position after, 161 Change of policy subsequent to, 44 Hyderabad's services in, 232 Nepal's services in, 148 United Malwa contingent in, 222, 229 otherwise mentioned, 239, 242 Muzaffar Jang, 68, 72 Mysore Area and population of, 15 Bentinck's interference in (1831), 100 Coinage of British India in, 311 Haidar Ali's and Tipu's rule in, 69 Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Independent position of, towards E. I. Co., 388 Laws of British India adopted by, 7, 10, 132 Rendition of (1881) Circumstances of, 173 Comparison of, with earlier trans actions, 171-2 Instrument of transfer reproduced, 174-9 ; quoted, 239, 242, 246-7, 251, 258-9, 311, 370 ; cited, 270, 357 Salutes accorded to ruler of, 320 Seringapatam acquired by (1881), 175, 357, 403 Subsidiary forces maintained by, 223 Treaties with (1763), 53 (1784) Mangalore, 75-6 (1790), 9 (1792) Seringapatam, Peace of, 77, 223 (1799), 54, 79, 94, 223 Wars with First, 74, 226 Mysore (contd.} Wars with Second, 75-6 Third, 77, 223 Fourth, 78-9, 223 Wellesley's policy regarding (1799), 172 Mysore, Treaty of (1799), 54, 79, 94, 223 Nabha Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 166, 184 Protectorate extended to (1809), 12, 55, 142 Treaty with (1860), 305 Nadir Shah, 209 Nagpore Annexation of (1853), 101, 134, 155; reasons for, 152 Bundelkhand in relation to, 237 Detachment of, from Maratha Con- federacy, 109 Feudatory chiefs of, 10, 389 Hastings' settlement in, 122 Hostilities with (1803), 84, 221 Lapse doctrine as affecting, 134, 155 Rise of, 70 Treaties with (1781), 54 (1803) Devgaon, 84 (1816), 123 (1818) provisional, 110, 155 Nao Nihal Singh, Maharaja, 98 Napier, Sir Charles, 9, 134 Nasir Jang, 68 Native Princes Acquisition of land by, understand- ing as to, 296-7 Connotation of term, 321-2 Co-operation of, increasingly neces- sary, 20 Dual position of, in certain cases, 34 Foreign Orders bestowed on, restric- tions as to, 322 Guardianship of minors, 196, 334 Honours bestowed on and taken from, 319-22 Jurisdiction, number exei'cising, 36 Personal difficulties of, 21-3 Personal responsibility of, 156, 160, 170 Power of, 7 Salutes accorded to, 319-21 Sovereign rights of, 339 Status of, theories as to independent, 388 ; feudatory, 388-90, 393-5 ; noble, 390 ; Twiss and Creasy on, 391 ; constitutional, 395-8 ; semi- sovereign, 399-402 INDEX 419 Native Princes (contd.) Visits of, to England, 184 Native States of India (for particular States see their names) Acts of Parliament as affecting, 197- 200 Agents, right to receive or accredit, 331-4 American States contrasted with. See under United States Annexation of. See Annexation Policy Area and population of, 14 and n. Benevolent coercion of, danger as to, 187, 315 British jurisdiction in. See Jurisdic- tion British - Indian administration in re- lation to Difficulties due to proximity, 16- 20 Effect on Native States, 160-61 Intrusion of laws of British India, guarantees against, 6 Coinage of, 310-11 Connotation of term, 31-7 Defence of. See under Obligations Defence Disintegration of, precautions against, 291-8 East India Co.'s relations with, review of, 1 Equality of treatment accorded to, 51 Extradition from. See Extradition Foreign enlistment in, obligations regarding, 272-3 Foreigners in Deportation of, 268 Extradition of, 197, 271-2 Extra-territorial jurisdiction over, 13-14, 267-71, 309-10, 370-72 Frontier protection of, 17, 18 Geographical position of, 15-16 Government in British opinion as to, 145 Systems of, 132 Guardianship of minor princes in, 196, 334 Imperial service troops furnished by. See that heading Infanticide in. See Infanticide Inhuman practices in, intervention to suppress, 303-6 International intercourse denied to, 254-60 International law not applicable to, 181, 183, 186, 391-3 Interstatal intercourse denied to, 273-7 ; form of interstatal ar- rangements, 277-8 ; beneficial results of loss of negotiation, 278-9 Native Princes (contd.) Intervention, British, in internal affairs of. See that heading Isolation of. See Isolation Jurisdiction, British, in. See tliat Justices of the Peace in, 369 Lapse, doctrine of. See that heading Mail robbery rules (1885), 253 Military co-operation with Contingents, Imperial service troops, subsidiary forces. See those head- ings Services required for Imperial army Cantonments, etc., grant of rights as to, 244-7 Extradition of deserters, 248-9 Passage and occupation of forts, grant of rights as to, 244-6 Supplies, assistance in pro- curing, 247-8 Military department of administra- tion, restrictions in Fortifications and equipments, as to, 242-4 Reasons for, 239 Recruitment, as to, 240-41 Strength of army, as to, 238-40 Minting in, restrictions as to, 310-11 Misrule in, gross, intervention in cases of, 302-3 Money - lending transactions with, legislation regarding, 197-8 Mutilation and torture in, 305-6 Natural justice, conformity with, de- manded from, 200-201 Negotiation, right of. See subheadings International and Interstatal Non-intervention with. See Ring-fence policy Number of, 1 Obligations of. See that heading Origin of. difficulties arising from, 21 Paramount power's position in rela- tion to, 215 Patience needed in dealing with, 187- 188, 313 Personal factor in, importance of, 7 Personal responsibility, policy of, 156, 166, 170 Police corps recruited from, 228-9 Policy regarding, British. See Policy Postal communications in, Imperial control over, 252-3 Prerogative of the Crown as affecting. See that heading Protection afforded to maritime, 208 ; territorial, 209 2 E2 420 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Native Priuces (contd.} Protection of subjects of, in foreign countries, 263-6 Kailways in, Imperial control over, 249-52, 311 Rank and precedence, questions of, 318, 320-21 Rebellion in, intervention to suppress, 181, 298-302 Rebellion of, against paramount power, doctrine as to, 181, 335 Religious animosities in, military re- strictions necessitated by, 242 Religious toleration in Absence of, instance of, 19 British attitude as affecting Native States, 199-200 Intervention to secure, 306-8 Restrictions imposed on, 211 (see also subheading Military Department) Roads in, protection of, 250-51 Rulers of. See Native Princes Sanads granted to. See Sanads Sovereignty divisible in. See Sove- reignty "Subordinate co-operation," origin of phrase, 128 Subordinate isolation of. See Isolation Subordinate union of. See Union Subsidiary forces. See that heading Succession in. See that heading Summary of present position of, 384-7 Suttee in, abolition of, 100, 304 Telegraphs in, Imperial control over, 251 Tone adopted towards, 195 Treaties with. See Treaties with Native States Union, policy of. See Union Usage as affecting, 30, 32-4, 41, 203-5, 256 Variety of, 2, 312 Nawanagar Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Kutch feud with, 274 ; form of agreement cited, 277 Piracy renounced by (1808), 117 Succession in, settlement of, 328-9 Treaty with (1807), 55 Nazar Muhammad, 111 Nazarana, 329-31 Nepal- British ascendancy in Sikkim acquired through, 50 Foreign affairs of, 388 Independent position of, 104-5, 388 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 45, 148, 166, 184 Treaties- Dates of, 50 Nepal (contd.} Treaties (1816) Segowli, 52, 56, 104, 142 Termination of treaty by Lord Wellesley (1804), 89, 103 Tibet, treaty of peace with (1856), 255, 388 War with (1815), 104 ; (1817), 158 Niaz Muhammad Khan, 366 Nizams of Hyderabad, descent of, 23 (see also Hyderabad) Non-intervention policy. See Ring-fence Northbrook, Lord, 158 ; quoted, 302 Nur Muhammad, 135 Obligations of Native States entailed by policy of subordinate union Defence, for common Peace, in time of, 234 ; in matter of railways, telegraphs etc., 249-53 War, in time of liability of States unlimited, 234-8 Evidence required for claim of, 206 Indeterminate nature of, 190-91, 313 Internal administration, as to Categories of, 283 Divisions of, two, 283-5 Sources of, five, 196 et seq. Summary of, as undertaken by, and Mysore and Gwalior, 174, 202 Usage as determining, 203-5 Olpar, 116 Order of the Star of India, institution of, 319 Orders, foreign, restrictions as to, 322 Orissa British jurisdiction in, 348, 349 Clive acknowledged Diwan of, 64 Tributary Mahals of, 396 Oudh Annexation of Consummation of, 151 Reason, 101, 133, 145-6, 302 dive's restoration of (1765), 9, 51, 136 Diplomatic honours accorded to, 92-3 East India Co.'s financial relations with, 148, 150-51 King of, alternatives presented to, by Dathousie, 44 Kingship of, established by Hastings, 122, 319, 321 Munro's victory over, 59, 64 Nepal's aggressions against, 103 Outram's offer to, 150, 151 Rohilla District annexed to, 65 Treaties with (1765), 53, 62, 64 (1801) Lucknow, 146-7, 226 INDEX 421 Oudh (contd.) Treaties with (1814), 148 (1837) Auckland's proposed altera- tion of, disallowed, 148-9 (1838), 93 Oudh, Treaty of (1765), 53, 62, 64 Outram, Major, 135, 150, 151 Palanpur Military establishment in, results of, 227, 229 Treaty with Q817), 56 Panalla, Fort of, 246 Panipat, battle of, 63, 70, 109 Paris, Convention signed at (1815) ; quoted, 244, 400 Paris, Treaty of (1814), quoted, 243 Partab Singh, 327-8 Partabgarh Alliance with, terminated, 89 Banswara aggression against, 276 Protectorate extended to (1818), 56, 113 Patiala Afghan recognition of Eaja of, 136 Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Military obligations of, as defined in Sanad, 236, 245-6 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 166, 184 Protectorate extended to, 12, 142 Kail way facilities granted by (1860), 251 Rangit Singh a danger to, 86-7 Sanads granted to (1815), 56 ; (1847), 236, 245-6 ; (1860), 166, 236, 245-6, 251, 288-9, 305 Patwardhan family, 330 Pegu, 101, 150 Perron (Pierre Cuillier), 24 Peshwa. See Poona Phelps, Mr., quoted, 5 Phillimore, Sir Robert, quoted, 391-2 Phulkian States, 86-8 Pindari war, 25 - 6, 43, 96, 222 ; Gwalior's attitude as affecting, 17 ; consequences of, 105-6, 115 Pindaris, characteristics and condition of, 106, 138 Piracy, 208 Plassey, battle of, 58, 64, 226-7 Policy, British, regarding Native States Principles of Declarations of, 4-5 Sources of, 30 Ring-fence policy. See that heading Rules determining Disadvantageous, 3, 5 Non-existent, 2-3 Policy, British, regarding Native States (contd. ) Subordinate isolation policy. See Isolation Subordinate union policy. See Union Three forms of, adopted, 3, 43-4 Political agents (officers, residents) Assistance given by, to native rulers, 119 Compulsory acceptance of, by native rulers, 131 Difficulty of position of, 6 Jurisdiction exercised by, 333, 358, 367, 377, 379 Status and duties of, 332-3 Pondicherry British acquisition of (1761), 73 French possession of, 65-6 Popham, Capt., 159 Poona External relations denied to, 257 Importance of the Peshwa in British and French rivalries in the Deccan, 67 Maratha Confederacy Hardship of, renounced by Peshwa (1817), 109 Relations with (1758), 70-71 Military obligations of, as defined by treaty, 247 Mysore incapable of permanent alli- ance with, 69 ; Tipu's advances rejected, 78 Resignation of sovereignty by the Peshwa (1818), 42 Treaties with (1739), 53, 81 (1790) triple alliance against Tipu, 62, 77, 80, 91, 105 (1802), Bassein, 62, 79, 83, 107, 109, 168, 210, 221, 237, 257, 330 (1804) partition treaty, 85, 94, 107 (1817), 109, 113, 115-16, 210, 245, 247 Poona, Treaty of (1817), 109, 113, 115- 116, 210, 245, 247 Porbandar British control over (1809), 243 Coinage in, 311 Piracy renounced by (1808), 117 Treaty with (1807), 55 Porto Novo, 66 Portuguese possessions in India Commercial treaty with, 213 Diu colony, 213, 266 Extradition treaty with, 248 Port requirements of, 265 Postal communications in Native States, Imperial control over, 252-3 422 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Precedence, questions of, 318, 320-21 Prerogative of the Crown as affecting Native States- Agents, accrediting of, 197, 331 Guardianship of minor princes, 196, 334 Honours, bestowal and deprivation of, 196, 319-22 Passports, granting of, 197 Rank and precedence, settlement of questions as to, 318, 320-21 Succession, recognition of, 5, 196, 316, 322-6 Proclamations of 1858 and 1901, 28 Pudukkottai Status of ruler of, 40-41, 390 Treaty with (1803), 54 Punjab Annexation of, reason for, 133 Council of Regency, impotence of, 101 Native States in political relations with, number of, 16 Oppression in, before Sikh war, 137 Ranjit Singh's aggressions and annexa- tions in, 9n. t 12, 278 Ruin of, under Ranjit's successors, 98, 101 Treaties with (1809) Lahore, 60, 61, 88, 136-7 (1815) with Hill States, 56 (1832), 250 (1838), 135 Purandhar, Treaty of (1776), 82 Puri, Maharaja of, deprived of his title, 321 Quinton, Mr., murder of, 179 Radhanpur, Persian dynasty founded at, 26 Raghoji Bhonsla of Nagpore, 84. 85, 155 Raghiinath Rao Keshav (Ragoba), 82, 291 Railways in Native States, Imperial control over, 249-52, 311, 362-4 Rajasthanik Courts, 119 Rajgarh, 307 Rajpur Ghat, Treaty of (1805), 84-5 Rajputana Area of, 15, 89 Disorders in, 276 East India Co. refuses protection to, 89 ; position under Treaties 'of Gwalior and Mandasor, 110-11 Geographical position of, 15 Military obligations of, as defined by treaty, 235 Population of, 15 Protectorate extended to states in (1817-38), 12, 52, 113-15 Sovereignties in, number of (1813), 98 Warlike capacity of, 219 Ram Singh, 321, 327 Rampur Imperial service troops furnished by, 185, 233 Mutiny, rewards for services in, 166, 184 Treaty with (1794), 54 Ramp ura, Tonk's acquisition of, 112 Ranjit Singh, Jam of Nawanagar, 328-9 Ranjit Singh, Lahore acquired by, 85, 136 ; Holkar's approaches to, 85- 86 ; Sikh Empire of, 98, 139 ; subsequent collapse of empire, 98, 101 ; successors of, 98, 101, 139; treaty of Lahore (1809), 60, 61, 88, 136-7; Cis-Sutlej States rescued from (1809), 142 ; treaty with (1832), as to naviga- tion, 250 ; aggressions of, in Punjab, 9 n., 12, 278 ; Sikh efforts against, 86-7 ; Shikarpur protected from (1836), 135, 278; Auckland's treaty with Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk and (1838), 135 ; death of, 137 ; loyalty of, 137 ; otherwise mentioned, 96, 227 Rank, questions of, 318, 320-21 Raoji Apaji, 224 Rebellion, definition of, 181, 335 Regulating Act (1773), 347, 348 Religious question. See under Native States Residency jurisdiction, 366-7 (see also Political Agents) Residents. See Political Agents Responsibility, personal, of native rulers, policy as to, 156, 166, 170 Rewa Breach of allegiance by (1873), 336 Treaties with (1812), 55, 245; (1813), 250 Rewa Kanta, Thana circles in, 37 Rights of Nations in Time of Peace, The (Twiss), cited, 4 Ring-fence policy Annexation the remedy for, 153 Causes of, 43, 130-32 Completeness of, Oudh an instance of, 146-7 Instances of, 130-31, 146-7 Results of, 11-12 Ripon,'Lord, transfer of Mysore by, to present Maharaja (1881), 158, 171-9, 238-9 ; policy of, regard- ing Canadian missionaries, 307 Roads, protection of, in Native States, 250-51 Rohilla District, annexation of, to Oudh, 65 Rohilla war, 59, 146 Roman Republic, analogies from policy INDEX 423 of, towards protected States, 5, 8-11 Rose, Sir Hugh, 25 Royal prerogative as affecting Native States. See Prerogative Saadut Ali Khan, Treaty of Lucknow with (1801), 146-7 ; death of (1814), 148 Saadut Khan, appeal of, refused (1853), 131 Salabut Jang, 72, 73 Salbai, Treaty of (1782), 53, 59, 82 Salsette Island, 82 Salutes, 319-21 Sambalpur, 134 Samthar, treaty with, 56, 114, 238 Sanad, meaning of term, 38 Sanads of adoption Canning's, 38, 40-41, 158, 162-4, 166, 184, 325-7 Form of, 163-4 Lansdowne's, 158, 184 Nagpore Jagirdars presented with, 10 Native attitude towards, 163-4 Policy represented by, 158, 162-3, 167 Prerogative touched on in, 316-17 Restriction in grants of, 292 Sanads of protected rule, 166, 167 Sarje Anjengaon, Treaty of (1803), 84, 85, 107, 221 Satara Annexation of (1848), 101 ; reasons for, 152 Creation of principality of, 99 External relations denied to, 257-8 Lapse doctrine as affecting, 134, 327 Road ceded by (1829), 250 Sanad of adoption possessed by, 10 Treaty with (1819), 57, 122, 127, 172, 288 Savanur, status of ruler of, 41 Sawant wadi Detachment of, from Maratha Con- federacy, 109 Treaty with (1730), 208 Sawantwari British jurisdiction in, 381 Treaty of Sar Desai with (1730), 53, 81 Segowli, Treaty of (1816), 52, 56, 104, 142 Selborne, Lord, quoted, 117-18 Seringapatam British capture of (1799), 59, 69, 79 i Grant of, to Mysore (1881), 175, 357, 403 Seringapatam, Treaty of (1792), 77, 223 Seton, Capt, 89 Shah Alam, Emperor of Delhi, 64, 278 Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk, 135 Shahpura Succession in, settlement of (1869), 327 Treaty with (1848), 327 Shamrao Narain Land, 300 Shams-ul-Ulama, title of, 320 Sher Singh, Maharaja, 98 Shikarpur, 135, 278 Shore, Sir John, 78, 146 Shri Desal, 225 Siam Judicial system in, 268 Religious toleration in, secured by treaty, 306 Sidhs, 299-300 Sikandar Jah, 323 Sikhs (see also Khalsa) Characteristics of, 137, 219 Invasions of British India by, 219 Malwa, 86-7 Manjha, 87 Shahids, 138 War with (1845), 137, 139-41 Sikkim British ascendancy in, acquired through Nepal, 50 Nepal precluded from interference with, 104 Treaty with (1817), 56, 105 Wars with, 158 Sind Akbar's annexation of (1591), 135 Amirs of, pensioned by Napier, 9 British annexation of, 100 ; reason for, 102, 133-5 Factories in, closed (1775), 81 "Peccavi" despatch regarding, 134-5 Ranjit Singh's aggressions against, 278 Subdivisions of, 135, 291 Treaties with (1809), 55, 89, 366 (1842), 135 Sindhia. See Gwalior Siraj-ud-daula, 63, 90 Sirhind, Sikh conquest of, 136 Sirmur Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Protectorate extended to, 142 Sirohi Disturbances on frontier of (1871), 24 Treaty with (1823), 57, 114 Sitabaldi, battle of (1817), 110 Sivaji, 70 Slaves, restitution of, undertaken by British, 81, 90 Smith, Col., 74 Sovereignty, divisibility of, 31-2, 148, 337, 339, 358, 379, 398-400 Spottiswoode, Dr., 294 Statistical Abstract cited, 14 and n. 424 THE NATIVE STATES OF INDIA Statutory Natives, 270 Stowell, Lord, quoted, 368 Stubbs' Select Charters cited, 396 Subordinate isolation. See Isolation Subordinate union. See Union Subsidiary forces of Native States Origin and character of, 93-4, 220 et seq. Preference of E. I. Co. for, 227 Succession in Native States Minorities, cases of, 334 Nazarana, 329-31 Recognition of, by the Crown necessary, 5, 196, 316, 322-6 Settlement of, British right to, 282, 327-9 Suket Alienation of lands in, restriction as to, 296 Restoration of, to native rule, terms of, 142 Supreme Court of Judicature Establishment of, 348 Supreme Council in rivalry with, 349 Sur Chandra Singh, 179-80 Surat, 153 Sutlej river navigation, regulation of, 250 Suttee, abolition of, 100, 304 Swiss Confederation, comparison of, with Indian States Interstatal intercourse, as to, 254-5, 274 Military establishments, as to, 218, 236 Military obligations, as to, 236 Railway control, as to, 249-50 Talpur dynasty, 291 Tamerlane, 209 Tanjore Alliance with, 62 Carnatic claiming tribute from, 53, 67 Mysore's relations with, 69 Treaty of Mangalore including (1784), 76 Taraja, Kolis of, 81 Tehri (Garhwal) Alienation of, prohibited, 295 Imperial service troops furnished by, 233 Regranting of (1859), 49, 155, 165 Sanad granted to (1820), 57 Teignmouth, Lord, 162 Telegraphs in Native States, Imperial control over, 251 Tellicherry, 75 Tenasserim, 101 Tennyson quoted, 405-6 Thana circles, 34-5, 37 Tibet, Nepal's treaty with (1854), 255, 388 Tilsit, Treaty of (1807), 86 Tipu Sultan, Coorg wrested from, 51; Hyderabad threatened by, 230; second Mysore war, 75-6 ; success of, 69 ; provokes Marathas, 76-7; triple alliance against (1790), 9, 62, 77, 80, 91, 105, 218-19, 227; relations with the French, 77-8, 80 ; fourth war with British, 79; otherwise mentioned, 59, 223 Titles, bestowal of, 319-22 Tonk Amir Khan confirmed in possession of (1817), 26, 112, 276 Treaty with (1817), 56, 240 Travancore Alliance with, 62 Proposal of, regarding loan of military officers, rejected, 185-6, 233 Subsidiary forces maintained by, 93, 224 Treaties with (1795 and 1805), 54, 93 Treaty of Mangalore including, 76 Treaties other than with Native States Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), 67 France and Great Britain, between (1852), 373 Germany and Great Britain, between (1872), 271 Lisbon (1878), 248 Paris (1814), 243 Paris, Convention of, regarding Ionian Isles (1815), 244, 400 Paris, Peace of (1763), 67, 68, 73 Tilsit (1807), 86 Yandabu (1826), 99, 179 Yarkand (1874), 264 Treaties with Native States (for particu- lar States and Treaties see under their names) Collections of, published, 38 English version of, authoritative, 48, 91 "Extensive Interpretation " of, neces- sary, 30-31, 38-41, 164, 234, 246, 256 Formalities in execution of, 8-9 Forms of, in first period, 90-91 Futility of, 146 Historical study necessary in connec- tion with, 41-6 Interference secured by, in special cases, 308-9 Letters having the character of, 49 Parliamentary recognition of, 37-8 Respect accorded to, 49-50 Responsibility for, attached to Supreme Government, 46-8 Rules of interpretation of, 30, 171 INDEX 425 Treaties with Native States (contd. ) Silence of, instructive, 246 Subsidiary forces fixed by, 93, 226 Tabular statement regarding, 53-7 Westlake's view of, 397-8 Whole body of, necessity for con- sidering. See subheading Exten- sive Interpretation "Treaty Jagirs," 10, 41 Trichinopoly, 67, 69, 72 Trimbak Rao, 291 Trimbukji, 109 Tunis, judicial system in, 268 Tupper, Sir Lewis, cited, 393-5 Turkey- British jurisdiction in, 338 Capitulations of 1675, cited, 371 Twiss, cited, 4; quoted, 259-60, 391 j Udaipur (Meywar) East India Co. precluded from treaties with, 89, 107 ; restriction removed (1817), 110 External relations denied to, 257-8 Jodhpur, dispute with, as to preced- ence (1870), 320-21 Military obligations of, as defined by treaty, 235 Rajput dynasty of, 23 Treaties with (1818), 56, 113, 124-6, 235, 257-8 (1854), 305 Umetha, position of Chief of, 34 Union, subordinate, policy of Leading cases of, 167 et seq. Native attitude towards, 156 Objects of, 45, 192-4 Obligations entailed by. See Obliga- tions of Native States Price of, moderate, 207 Responsibility implied in, 156, 166, 170 Rights and benefits to Native States accruing from, 207-11 United Provinces, number of Native States in political relations with, 16 United States of America Comparison of, with Indian States Coinage, as to, 310 Defence, as to provision for, 194-5 212 Fiscal affairs, as to, 212-14 Interstatal intercourse, as to, 274 Military establishments, as to, 217- 218 Postal arrangements, as to, 250 Native Indian policy of (1846), 11 Usage, importance of, 30, 32-4 41, 203-5, 256 Ventura, Gen., 137, 139 Viceroys of India (see also Executive Authority) Number of, 157 Powers vested with, 316-18, 322, 329 Victoria, Queen, proclamation of, as Empress, 158-9, 320; Indian Princes' allegiance to, 196 Vijay Singh, 328 Vijayadrug (Gheria) fort, 81 Vilayatis, 240, 241 Vinayak Rao, 291 Virarajendra Wodiar, 144-5 Vizagapatam, 66 Wadhwan, civil station in, 364-5 Wagar, British guarantee held by chiefs in, 121, 309 Wajid Ali Shah, 149 Wandiwash, 73 Wargaon, Convention of, 82 Watson, Adm., 63 Wellesley, Marquess, treaties negotiated by, 10, 90, 93-4, 97 ; creates Hindu Kingdom in My sore (1799), 172 ; Treaty of Lucknow (1801), 146 ; Treaty of Sarje Anjengaon (1803), 221 ; form and style of treaties of, compared with those of Hastings, 124; Cornwallis and Teignmouth in relation to, 162 ; quoted, 60 ; otherwise men- tioned, 50, 51, 59 n., 185, 324 Wellesley, Gen. Sir Arthur, at Ser- ingapatam, 69 ; victories of, over Marathas, 107, 221 Westlake, Prof. John, quoted, 397-8 ; cited, 402 Wheaton quoted, 41-2 William III., King, Charter of 1698 given by, to East India Merchants, 46 Woolsey quoted, 392 Yandabu, Treaty of (1826), 99, 179 Yarkand, Treaty of (1874), 264 Zalim Singh, 113 Zamaun Shah, 226 Zanzibar British jurisdiction in, 338 Order in Council regarding (1884), 264 Religious toleration in, secured by treaty, 306-7 Slave-dealing in, 201, 262-3 Printed by R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, Edinburgh, OF UNIVERSITY Bv SIR WILLIAM LEE-WARNER, K. C.S.I. Two Vols. Svo. 2$s. net. THE LIFE OF THE MARQUIS OF DALHOUSIE, K.T. With Portraits, Maps, and Plans. TIMES. " Contains the story of a noble career, nobly told. It will be of intense interest to those who are familiar with the history and administration of India, and should be read by all who hold that the great deeds and splendid achievements of our countrymen are among the most precious assets of our national life. . . . Just as the author is infected with his subject, so he infects us. We lay down the book with reluctance." OBSERVER. " Will surely attract considerable attention. It is a noble story, full of interest." DAILY CHRONICLE. "Except in respect of a lack of sharpness of outline, which is intentional, we get an ideal biography, written by a man who has a life's acqaintance with India and its problems." ACADEMY. " The model of what a life of a great man should be. " BY SVEN HEDIN Two Vols. Svo. 30^. net. TRANS-HIMALAYA DISCOVERIES AND ADVENTURES IN TIBET With 388 Illustrations from Photographs, Water-Colour Sketches, and Drawings by the Author, and 10 Maps. SIR THOMAS HOLDICH IN THE WORLD. " For all lovers of a good story of genuine travel and adventure it will be a most delightful book to read, and the fact that it deals with the hitherto untrodden region of India's great northern water-parting will render it doubly interesting." TIMES. "From the general reader's point of view this is probably the most interesting of all Sven Hedin's books. It is often diffuse, but never dull. It abounds in human interest." WESTMINSTER GAZETTE. " A hearty welcome will be given to a work of great value from a geographical point of view, and one which to the ordinary reader is full of interest. " TRUTH. "No book since Stanley's African volumes has approached in interest Trans- Himalaya." MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON. TWO NEW WORKS ON INDIA 8vo. i os. net. ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS OF BRITISH INDIA BY JOSEPH CHAILLEY MKMBER OF THE FRENCH CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES TRANSLATED BY SIR WILLIAM MEYER, K.C.I.E. TIMES. " The result of M. Chailley's labours is one of the most remarkable and scholarly books which has ever been written about India, certainly the most calm and comprehensive pronouncement upon British rule ever penned by a foreign critic. . . . As a dispassionate, reflective, and stimulating examination of the results of British rule in India, it stands without a rival." PALL MALL GAZETTE. "A perusal of this valuable and wholly impartial work is strongly commended to all those who wish to be informed upon Indian administration, and do not start with the intention of disparaging the great achieve- ments of our Indian Government, and of their fellow-countrymen in the East." 8v0. i os. net. THE GATES OF INDIA BEING AN HISTORICAL NARRATIVE BY COLONEL SIR THOMAS HOLDICH K.C.M.G., K.C.I.E., C.B., D.Sc. AUTHOR OF "THE INDIAN BORDERLAND," ETC. WITH MAPS DAILY TELEGRAPH. " It is not often in these days, when the hasty com- pilation of books falls in so readily with the prevailing atmosphere of headlong study, that one comes across a work so thorough, so sound, and so conscientiously first-hand, as the elaborate and masterly treatise now before us." DAILY MAIL. "There is a wonderful glamour of romance about the facts and about Colonel Holdich's vivid and able narrative, and it is indeed refreshing to read these pages, which are distinct and ' individual ' without ever being laborious, which contain numberless technicalities and yet are not lacking in clarity and never overtax the mind of the reader. . . . As regards his technical knowledge, the wisdom and keenness of his views, his mastery over his subject, from a-military as well as from a geographical and historical standpoint, it need only be said that they are equal to his ability as a writer." MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON. V T T' RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO* 202 Main Library LOAN PERIOD 1 HOME USE 2 3 4 5 6 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. DUE AS STAMPED BELOW DEC 06 1991 JTOBISCiJEC16'91 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY FORM NO. DD6 BERKELEY, CA 94720 rC 38853