Enclosures of Letter to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India, No.213, dated 27 November 1874: Nos. 3 to 31 of Abstract of Contents, from Foreign Department, Fort William [‎38v] (76/102)

Maharaja, you stated that you informed the Gaekwar that, as regards His
Hio-h nets signing an agreement to make over his to any one whatever,
except the British Government, I looked upon the very proposal on Mr.
Dadabhai 's part as an offence agamst the severe,gnty of the British Power
A wain as already quoted in paragraph 6 of the Government letter. No. 25P. o,
24th ultimo in reference to Mr. Dadabhai s supposed advice m the matter ot
N S Khanvelkur's appointment, you observed, " that if this was the kind of
reform His Hio-hness was going to carry out under Mr. Dadabhai's administration
it could end only in one result, and that very shortly."
7 But the clearest proof that you did not contemplate the independence
of the Gaekwar as regards the choice of Mr. Dadabhai is to be found in your
letter to Government, No. 261 of 15th August 1874, in which you protested
ao -ainst any recognition of Mr. Dadabhai 's appointment which had been made
cm the part of Government. It does not appear to have occurred to you that
bv this protest you were ignoring the express orders of the Government of
India since any Minister would be in a false position if denied the customary
recognition on the part of Government.
8 In conclusion, I am directed to state that His Excellency in Council
hopes that you will see the propriety of abstaining from further discussion on
these points.
No. '268A., dated Baroda, 31st August 1874.
From—Resident at Baroda,
To—Secretary to the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. , Poltl. Dept.
In reply to your confidential letter No. 26P., dated 24th August 1874, in
which you require me to explain why I called upon His Highness the Gaekwar
to make suitable provision for all the immediate members of the Gaekwar
family, and to permit the ladies to reside away from Baroda, I have the honor
to point out that a reperusal of my yad to the Durbar A public or private audience held by a high-ranking British colonial representative (e.g. Viceroy, Governor-General, or member of the British royal family). , No. 15330.11, will
show that I did not call upon His Highness to do as you state, but 1 merely
^ 0 ~ ii * mentioned the subject * (which is one of the most
•1. Paragraph 8, Gioup 11 of the . ^ i i xi • • \ tt* tj • i_ >
Commission Report. serious treated by the Commission) tor His Highness
2. jhso appendix a., Case 42, Sche- serious attention prior to authoritative advice being
duie ii., &c., &c. and others. offered if necessary. I purposely mentioned no
individual, either male or female, in consequence of the orders of His Excellency
the Governor, and though I might have mentioned Rukhma Baee, yet, as her
case was then before Government, I thought it best to defer that also.
2. Thus, whilst agreeably to the orders of His Excellency the Viceroy and
Governor-General, I have invited general attention to this class of cases with a
view to their settlement according to equity and reason, I have not committed
the Government to the advocacy of any case in particular, whether amongst the
male or female relations of His Highness the Gaekwar, and it is thus in the
hands of His Highness to do justice to these much oppressed and ill-used
persons, without further intervention on our part if he desires to do so, but that
justice has to be done to them is clear from the orders issued on the subject.
3. Since writing my yad dated 11th to the Durbar A public or private audience held by a high-ranking British colonial representative (e.g. Viceroy, Governor-General, or member of the British royal family). , 1 have received the
orders of Government in Her Highness Rukhma Baee's case, and I will now
speak to His Highness' Minister on the subject.
No. 30P., dated Bombay Castle, 7th September 1874.
From—Secretary to the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. ,
To—Resident at Baroda.
1 am directed to acknowledge your letter No. 268A. of 31st August last,
answering the request of this Government for an explanation of your having
G6