Page 303

Appendix A

(Pages 138-12)

In addition to the fact stated at page 138 that Madhava Rao, Rao of Kirwi, was only nine years old when the mutiny broke out, and that the money paid for the-maintenance of the Banaras Temples had been alienated before he sat on the gadi, and therefore never formed part of his estate and could not be liable to seizure, whatever he might do, it may be added that at the time of the Mutiny the Government of India appointed a Special Commissioner, Mr. F. O. Mayne, to inquire into the conduct of Madhava Rao, and that that Commissioner fully absolved him from all blame (vide his report, dated September 8, 1856).

Not only so, but the same gentleman gave a special certificate to the Regent of Kirwi (who was also trustee of the Banaras Temples), dated February 4, 1859. A copy of that document, now before me, states: “Ram Chandra Ram, Paindsay, has always borne a high character for loyalty and respectability during the Mutiny of 1857. Being a relation of the Kirwi Peshwa, he was placed in a difficult position, and discharged his duty both towards the British Government and towards his master most faithfully, at the risk of his life, and with frank and open loyalty to Government. It was he who saved the life of Mr. Cockerell, joint magistrate of Kirwi. Though he has at present frankly refused any reward for his loyal and faithful services, yet he must be well paid whenever he stands in need.” This was signed by Mr. F. O, Mayne. Yet the reward Earn Chandra Ram received was the pillage of the Banaras Temples of which he was trustee.

There is thus complete evidence that a Special Commissioner exonerated Madhava Rao from all blame, and gave a certificate of loyalty to his adviser: we have the non-age of the Rao, and the fact that the Temple money had been seized by the Government two years before the Mutiny; and yet we are asked to believe that all these seizures took place in consequence of the Rao’s rebellion.

With reference to the statement made in the first edition that General Whitlock found in the palace-yard of Kirwi more than forty pieces of cannon, an immense quantity of shot, shell, and powder, &c., a friend, who has investigated the subject of the Kirwi tragedy, writes me as follows: “As to the statement made by Whitlock and repeated by you about the active gun factories and powder mills and stands of arms, the whole is a shameless lie put forward to warrant the grant of prize money. That ‘lucky’ column had a keen scent for booty. Listen to a few words of

Page 304

truth. On the death of Venayak Rao, the 6th July, 1853, Mr. Ellis, the Resident, went to Kirwi, disbanded nil the forces there, and carried away all the weapons of war. A prudent, though despotic, use was made of the change of raj to disarm this petty native State. The agent to the Government of India had full information of all that was going on at Kirwi up to the outbreak of the Mutiny. Is it consistent with common sense to suppose that a petty State like Kirwi could establish gun foundries and powder manufactories during the short period of the Mutiny? No money, however vast, and no hatred, however bitter, could possibly create such things, without the time necessary for their establishment. Your military knowledge will make the monstrous impudence of Whitlock’s assertion more apparent to you than it can be to me. He probably scraped together a few old relics and curiosities, with a few mutineers’ guns and belts – hundreds of which must have been available at such a time – and on the like trumpery the lie must have been built up.”

I give this statement for what it is worth. To me it seems that there was, at least, great exaggeration in Whitlock’s narrative; and that there were no grounds whatever for treating the Rao of Kirwi as an enemy to be plundered.

This collection transcribed by Chris Gage
hosted by ibiblio Support Wikipedia