signed nor do I deny that its provisions are binding on those who signed it, but the interpretation of its clauses by reference not only to the language of the Treaty but also to the official pledge given to induce its execution is a matter that alone can bind the signatories to the Treaty. Here again investigation is called for.

10. I read in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Your Excellency's letter an unhesitating resolve to take stand on the Treaties of 1853 and 1860 and an expression of inability to admit any liability to reopen matters expressly settled on those occasions. As an Ally of the British Government I can but furnish reasons for giving a proper interpretation to these Treaties. It is in the hope that these reasons will be considered that I am making this further representation. If a reconsideration of the Treaties of 1853 and 1860 necessitates reversion to the maintenance by the Nizam of the large forces which he was bound by the Treaty of 1800 to supply in time of war, I shall most assuredly undertake that liability. This offer I make whole-heartedly not only to facilitate the reconsideration of the Treaties of 1853 and 1860 but to give further proof, if proof were needed, of my unity and identity of interest with the British Government in times of danger and Imperial crisis.

11. I welcome Your Excellency's solicitude for my subjects of the Berars. In this I find a repetition of the sentiments expressed in Lord Salisbury's Despatch of 1878. I am also not unmindful that the Government of India in reporting the terms of the Agreement of 1902 alluded to their anxiety in this connection. I do not doubt the genuineness of this solicitude nor do I deny that my subjects of the Berars are entitled to all the fostering care which can be bestowed upon them for their moral and material advancement. I am no less anxious than Your Excellency and the British Government to secure to the Beraris the benefits of progressive Government. For this very reason I offered in paragraph 32 of my letter of the 25th of October, 1923, a Constitution to the Province of Berar by the insertion of definite clauses in the Instrument of Restoration or any other State paper that may be drawn up securing to my Berar subjects a responsible Government with absolute popular control, under a Constitutional Governor appointed by me as my Representative, of their internal affairs and complete autonomy in administration, except in matters relating to the British Government and my Army Department. In these days when Provincial autonomy, the realization of responsible Government and the increasing association of the people with the work of administration are in the air in British India, the offer I have made of a Constitution for the Berars should remove all apprehensions and ought to be taken as a sufficient guarantee of the prosperous development of this part of my Dominions. It is a guarantee in consonance with the very methods that are in the process of adoption for the governance of British India. Your Excellency's

letter omits to take notice of my offer and the undoubted security it provides for the prosperity and the advancement of the Beraris. But apart from the offer I have made and the guarantee which it assuredly conveys, the solicitude of the Government of India however laudable can hardly give rise to " obligations" that can vary the character of the trust which the assignment bore in its origin and inception. As Your Excellency is aware there are numerous instances of the Government of India transferring and restoring large territories to Indian Princes without such obligations" being allowed to out-weigh political or dynastic claim. Mysore and Benares are but two instances out of many where the higher consideration was given preponderance. These changes took place after many decades of British rule in the territories transferred or restored, and without such a guarantee as the offer of a Constitution I have made for assuring the moral and material advancement of the Berars. If my claim to restoration rests upon sound contentions, as I maintain it does, the solicitude for the interests of the Beraris should advance my claim and not retard it accompanied as it is with definite proposals of giving them self Government.

12. In touching upon the incidents of the Agreement of 1902 I greatly regret and deplore the demise of Lord Curzon who was the Viceroy then and a Member of His Majesty's Government when Your Excellency wrote to me the letter under reply. In the presence of the death of so brilliant and distinguished a personality as his, my task in dealing with the Agreement that he concluded with my father has become mournfully heavier than it was before. Let me at the outset assure Your Excellency that however much I challenge the validity of the Agreement of 1902, I have never intended to cast any imputation serious or otherwise upon the honour and the good faith of this great and patriotic English nobleman. He had no personal interest in the matter. As the representative of the British Government, his watchfulness of British interests does him credit and in the annals of British history his name will ever remain honourably associated with burning patriotism. My letter of the 25th of October, 1923, was written in the light of his own Minute of the interview he had with my father and also of the Note of the Nizam sent to his Minister on his return to the Palace from the Residency where they had met. I mainly rely on these two documents for the contentions put forward by me. They are in substantial agreement. Paragraphs 23 to 26 of my letter of the 25th of October, 1923, bring into relief the principal points on which I have relied. Lord Curzon's Minute and my father's Note bear them out. The position in brief as clearly established from these documents was that Lord Curzon proposed to the Nizam that the perpetual Assignment already provided for by the Treaties" should be replaced by a lease in perpetuity, and that no British Government would at any time restore the Province to His Highness. My grievance is that though there

was in fact no assignment in perpetuity it was conveyed to my father that there was such an assignment under the Treaties. So also the rejection of the representation of the Regents was not invested with the character of finality as to restoration. This contention is borne out by Lord Salisbury's Despatch of 1876. Far be it from me to say that Lord Curzon was aware of the inaccuracy. His Minute shows that he was genuinely under the impression that the position stated by him was according to fact and consequently he expressed his estimation of what the disposition of the British Government with reference to the restoration would be. On this part of my case I receive no assistance from Your Excellency's letter. There was assignment in perpetuity before 1902 nor was there a final resolution of the British Government to refuse the restoration

at any time. A pronouncement like this vested with high Viceregal authority and delivered personally to my father left him no option but to agree. He had no reason to doubt the authority of Lord Curzon for what he stated. There was nothing to put to the proof. It is true the proposal to lease out the Berars in perpetuity to the British Government was put to my father for full two months before the interview, but it is also true that it had been rejected by him. His Highness. had called a Council of his principal Noblemen and after due deliberation had decided to press his claim to restoration. It cannot, therefore, be said that he went to the interview with any disposition to accept the proposal. On the contrary, Lord Curzon's Minute and my father's Note show his intense desire to have the Province restored to him. It was only when he saw the fruitlessness of resistance against the attitude of the British Government as conveyed to him by Lord Curzon that he yielded. His dislike to the lease in perpetuity continued for some days even after the interview as a perusal of paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Memorandum sent with my letter of the 25th of October, 1923, will show. There can be no doubt that if on the one hand he had no intention of going back on his " pledged word" given in the circumstances narrated above he was on the other hand suffering from a "qualm of conscience" and was exploring the possibilities of a personal appeal to His Majesty King Edward VII for even a partial restoration of territory. When he found that even this course was not open to him the Nizam lost all heart and ceased to struggle. What followed was only a sequel to the surrender he had made at the interview. Your Excellency in paragraph 12 of your letter has referred categorically to these sequels. They are but the reflex of what transpired at the interview and do not affect in any material degree the issue raised by me. I seek an examination on this point in the light of Lord Curzon's Minute and my father's Note.

13. The Constitutional issue raised by me in paragraph 29 of my letter of the 25th of October, 1923, I earnestly trust will

receive serious consideration. The doctrine has no application to an alienation of territory to irresistible Military Force, or yielded under the pressure of State or dynastic necessity. It applies to cases where neither of these two contingencies is present. The Agreement of 1902 is an instance in point. I read paragraph 14 of Your Excellency's letter my contention seems to have been missed. The doctrine does not permit the repudiation of all alienations. It applies only to cases where the surrender is voluntary and not under Military pressure or any necessity dynastic or of State. This Constitutional issue deserves to be determined by authoritative adjudication.

14. As to the question relating to the financial resources of the Berars made available to outsiders who control its destinies under the Reform, my contention is that even within the terms of the Agreement of 1902 such a subordination of the interests. of my Subjects of the Province is not warranted. Your Excellency is pleased not to share my views in this connection. Here again, is a disputed point touching the very incidence of the lease.

15. As to specific requests referred to in paragraph 18 of Your Excellency's letter, I will take them in the order in which they have been dealt with.

(1) When I asked for the removal of the Contingent from my Dominions, I did so on the supposition that the Agreement of 1902 and the Treaties of 1853 and 1860, will, on the acceptance of my contentions, be abrogated and the liability for the maintainence of the Contingent by the Government of Hyderabad will be cancelled.

(2) Having questioned the validity of the Treaty of 1853, I naturally laid stress on the regulation of the strength of the Subsidiary Force in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of 1800.

(3) The outstanding financial obligations to be settled relate to an adjustment of the account of the excise revenue of Secunderabad and Jalna and the savings effected by the British Government by the reduction of the strength of the Subsidiary Force.

(4) As the raising of the Contingent was an unnecessary and wasteful measure and I have asked for its abolition, I am prepared to forego, to the extent of the strength of the Contingent, the services of the Troops of the Indian Army for the use of the Hyderabad State, relying upon the clauses of the Treaty of 1800, relating to a general Defensive Alliance concluded between my House and the British Government. The alternative proposal of cash security was put forward by me in the event of the British Government holding the Hyderabad State liable for the maintenance of the Contingent Force. This was put forward to remove all objection to the restoration on the financial basis. As regards any obligation of that Government to the inhabitants

of the Province to retain it under their administration the point is met by the offer of the Constitution I have made to be entered clause by clause in the Instrument of Restoration.

16. I thank Your Excellency for having submitted to His Majesty's Secretary of State for India my letter of the 25th of October, 1923, with its enclosures. That was my wish. Your Excellency will lay me under a further obligation by forwarding to the Secretary of State my present letter with the practical proposal I make below for the solution of this vexed question of the Berars. My excuse for this request is that I feel very keenly that I shall be failing in my duty to my House if I did not press on the attention of His Majesty's Government this solution which to my mind would assuredly prove satisfactory as much to the British Government as to me and my successors.

17. I propose that the issues in dispute over the Berar controversy be referred to a Commission for enquiry and report. It should be presided over by a British gentleman of high standing and judicial experience nominated by the Secretary of State for India and should be composed of six Members besides the President. Out of the six, two should be the nominees of the Government of India, two chosen by me, and two representative Beraris elected by the non-official Berar Members of the Central Provinces' Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly and the Council of State. The Commission so constituted should be given definite but comprehensive terms of reference with a view to a thorough examination of all the questions on which there is unfortunately a difference of opinion between His Majesty's Government and myself on the Berar controversy. The terms of reference can be agreed upon by Your Excellency and myself after a discussion of the issues by an officer of the Political Department of the Government of India and a nominee of mine. My Government will bear the entire cost of the Commission.

18. I need hardly assure Your Excellency that in putting forward the above proposals I am actuated by the earnest desire that once for all Berar controversy may be ended by the help of an investigation conducted by a body of men who would be representatives of the various interests concerned and at the same time impartial in the discharge of their duties as Members of the proposed Commission.

19. Let me once again lay stress upon the friendly spirit in which I request Your Excellency to help the solution of this controversy.

Yours sincerely,

(Sd.) MIR OSMAN ALI KHAN.