Maximum Government Paper Cur- 1,14,76,87,000 (Oct.) 1,53,46,48,000 (Mar.) 1,85,14,79,000 (Jan.) 1,70,73,89,000 (Apl.) rency outstanding. Minimum Government Paper Cur 82,72,35,000 (Apl.) 1,05,96,05,000 (Apl.) 1,53,72,07,000 (Apl.) 1,57,62,82,000 (Sept.) rency outstanding. Number of Post Office Savings Banks. 1,79,71,49,000 (Oct.) 1,82,26,25,000 1,86,18,98,000 (Feb.) 1,84,19,40,000 (Mar.) 1,91,77,32,000 (Oct.) (Aug.). 1,67,31,85,000 (Apl.) 10,758 4 1,71,76,07,000 1,71,23,35,000 (May) 1,72,49,20,000 (June) 1,73,23,07,000 (May.) 19,58,324 20,43,502 20,89,314 21,64,473 R Further Correspondence regarding the Claim of the Nizam of Hyderabad to the Restoration of the Province of Berar. (In continuation of Cmd. 2439.) Presented to both Houses of Parliament LONDON: PRINTED & PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses: Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 28, Abingdon Street, London, S.W.1; York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff; or 120, George Street, Edinburgh; 1926 Price 4d. net. Cmd. 2621. Further correspondence regarding the claim of the Nizam of Hyderabad to the restoration of the Province of Berar. (In continuation of Cmd. 2439.) No. 1. Letter from His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad to His Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, dated King Kothi, Hyderabad-Deccan, September, 1925. MY DEAR LORD READING, 20th Your Excellency's letter of the 11th of March, 1925, in reply to mine of the 25th of October, 1923, was handed over to me by Sir Lennox Russell, the Resident, about a fortnight before your departure for Europe. 2. During Your Excellency's absence from India, I have given very careful consideration to the "decision " conveyed in the letter and the reasons on which reliance has been placed for coming to the conclusions that have been expressed. I need hardly assure Your Excellency that I have not overlooked the weight that must necessarily attach to a pronouncement that has the concurrence of the Viceroy, the Government of India and His Majesty's Government. I also recognise the high authority of such a pronouncement yet I frankly confess I cannot conceal from myself a sense of disappointment at the reply that has been given. It is true the Berar Controversy is an old one, but I think that my letter of the 25th of October, 1923, presented some aspects neither considered by His Majesty's Government in 1878, when Lord Salisbury sent out his Despatch of the 28th of March of that year, nor treated in Your Excellency's letter handed over to me by Sir Lennox. I say this not only with reference to the historical arguments" but also as to the Agreement of 1902, in respect of which there are deeper considerations which do not appear to me to have been appreciated. As I read Your Excellency's letter I find it is mainly based upon the doctrine of "res judicata " on the one hand and the obligations resulting from treaties and agreements once signed on the other. If these were the only criteria by which the claim to the restoration of the Berars could be met, my letter of the 25th of October, 1923, addressed to Your 66 |