The Sun. — London, England, 1848-07-06 00:00:00

M IILIII".--'-- "'' ---- ------ ---- .4.- ~.........,............................----......,--. --... • - - -- • • . .. - . , e: re • , .. ..._ TII.E SUN, LONDON, TiIt.TRSDAY E 6 ) VI .1 UL 1B IR. „.....,..-, ......, ............. ....._______ EAST INDIA HOUSE. made to invalidate the adoption of the Raja, by ' had not had A srecial general Court of this company was held reference to the case of the Guignor and other THE REVEN UE FOR THE YEAR AND QUARTER ENDING JULY 5 5 1848. an y man hale , sovereign princes of India with their j;ThE ciders, ness, Jury, ar yesterday, at the East India House, for the purpose ; had no bearing whatever upon the que.F- consequently of considering the following motion, the bringing It had been attempted to be 84111 No. 1.-An Abstract of the Net Produce of the Revenue of Great Britai n in th e Y ears an d Q uar t ers en d e d s t h o f J u ly, 1847, an d st h o f J u l y, 1848, showing the tion. Under forward of which had been given notice of by Air. Sui- tion. that because the Raja agreed to the curtailment of his lncreasi or Decrease on each head thereof. might have liven :-" That the Honourable the East India Corn sovereign power as a prince, under certain circum- QUARTERS ENDED YEAR QUARTERS ENDED YEAR ' Year ended July 5. /Quarter ended July b. heirs and st pony having by a treaty concluded with Pertaub stances, that, therefore, he forfeited his right to be ( ~ , ended , .., , ended Y ,____...,.... --, failed; and, t Skean, the Raja of Sattara, on the 25th September, oct. 10, Jan. 5, April 5, Julys, 1819, ceded the territory of Sattara, in perpetual so-1848 the Hon. ex-Chairman stated, in his minute, "that, ad- ,______,' the son of a I vereignty to him, his heirs and successors, the East mitting the Raja was guilty of an infraction of the £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ .i £ x .t right he forn India Company cannot alienate the territory of Sat -5,310,835 4,514,721 4,447,673 4,519,119 18,792,348 4,936,544 4,111,862 4,392,650 4,447,832 17,888,988 Customs ..... ...... •• • • 903,360 .• .. 71,287 treaty, it did not follow that it was such as to cause CustomsEece tare from the rightful heir (of the deceased Reja his blood to be attainted. If the Reja should have Stamps . .............. 1,774,364 1,740,687 1,517,282 1,869,464 7,201,757 1,707,945 1,564,855 1,618,6G8 1,557,640 6,449,108 Stamps, ••••• • • • • •• • • -. . 752,689 .... 311,824 peared to hi Pertaub Skean) without a flagrant breach of that no legitimate issue it was competent to him to adopt Taxes ................ 200,940 1,009,899 130,892 2,075,001 4,325,732 213,585 1,914,783 143,902 2,034,133 4,306,703 Taxes ........ ..... 19,029 -.. 40,868 i Property Tax •• .. 1,972,128 450,219 2,033,072 1,036,517 5,491,936 1,918,1;45 462,567 2,041,040 monstrous pr treaty and of public faith. 988,401 5,411,253 : Property Tax ••• • • • •• • • 80,653 - - 48,116 and , his heir might be perfectly innocent, and be Post-office ......... • ... 217,000 203,000 219,000 215,000 854,000 222,000 208,000 221,000 136,000 787,000 , Post-office 67,000 - - 1 274,485 tvvphrheoop Irhilaeodtno.rs i s giN • n j e e 79,000 cumstances st The Court met at 12 o'clock, and the routine bu- justly entitled to the inheritance under the treaty." •• •• Crown Lands. 45,000 30 000 37,000 .. 112,000 40,000 21000 10,000 71,000 ! Crown Lands •• • • 41,000 10,000 -•• He (the De' ainess haying been disposed of,Miscellaneous •••• • • • • 177,910 29:657 92,593 7,461 307,621 73,126 11,746 56,307 89,022 230,201 i Miscellaneous •••• •• • •• •• • 77,420 81,561 but, it might also be said, that the Raja was a crew ...• fully justified THE RAJA OF SATTARA. i Total Ordinary Revenue 13,889,103 12,486,338 10,430,377 13,013,614 49,819,432 42,612,191 11,550,696 10,497,764 12,73 . 6,831 47,407,486 ' Total -••• • • • •• • • 2,411,946 274,312 551,095 turf of the bounty of the En - glish Government, which,Friend the Ch Mr. Suhm VAN rose to bring forward his motion, and as it had raised him from a prison to a China _Money •• - . .... 227,644 .. .. .. 227,644 .. 455,021 • • 455,021 , China Money ... • •.. 227,377 .... •• .. .... throne, way in moving the resolution of which he had givennotice, Repayments olAdvances 199,882 302,449 164,568 137,944 801,843 187,186 74,048 74,138 86,813 422,485 Repaymts of Adyncs. .. • • 382,358 .... 51,131 fallen from th( he stated that he trusted the friends of the Rajascause pleased ; that he held his dominions during his own Total ........ 227,377 2,8 2 1 2 5, 7 0 ,3 8 7 6 7 2 1 7 ) 4 ,(1 ,4 u 6 , 5 t 602,225 Opposed the in rod behaviour, or during the good pleasure of the Total Income - 14,350,444 12820,671 10,618,804 13,240,190 51,050,109 fl - -,813,214 111,665,358 11,051,379 12,912,449 48,472,400 1 would be able to adduce sufliciett t reasons . to . r again prudence and , rovernment. That was an error, as had already amount applied to con- 1 - - 1 obtruding the Sattara question upon the notice of tt - e Deduct been shown by a citation from Mr. Princep's History solidated Funds.. ... . 7,617,435 8,615,898 3,207,608 9,912,813 29,353,754 i 8,236,066 7 010 559 5 956 232 6,818,019 28,020,876 jj Increase Increase Court. When upon a recent occasion he . inquired Ditto, as Advances .•. • • 472,500 837,500 2,940,000 1,724,311 5,974,311 398,084 ' 340:830 ' 149:059 231,111 1,119,084 II of Lord Hastings' Administration, in which the Raja whether instructions had been sent to India rellitive Ditto, as Ways & Means of the Year - - ...... 6,260,509 3,367,273 5,461,196 7,113,698 22,202,676 5,126,232 4,889,744 4,946,008 Decrease Decrease treated. Neit 5,863,319 20,825,383 I. on 2,587,709 011 the 327,741 to the disposal of the Sattara territory, the answer was avowedly , alluded to as an inde independent soverei i in the treat which regulated the political p affairs got'the Year. Quarter. was that no such instruction had been sent, but that Total.,. • • 14,350,444 12,820,671 11,608,804 18,750,822 1 57,530,741 13,760,382 ,12,241,133 11,051,379 12,912,449 49,965,343 il ( Friend Mr. L( the (limit were expecting information on the subject ..,..... e -,- Y ~ made to invalidate the adoption of the Raja, by reference to the case of the Guignor and other sovereign princes of India with their jsgliE eiders, had no bearing whatever upon the ques tion. It had been attempted to be ad that because the Raja agreed to the curtailment of his sovereign power as a prince, under certain circum stances, that, therefore, he forfeited his right to be treated as a sovereign prince. With great truth had the Hon. ex-Chairman stated, in his minute, "that, ad mitting the Raja was guilty of an infraction of the treaty, it did not follow that it was such as to cause his blood to be attainted. If the Raja should have no legitimate issue it was competent to him to adopt, and his heir might be perfectly innocent, and be justly entitled to the inheritance under the treaty." But, it might also be said, that the Raja was a crea ture of the bounty of the English Government, which, as it had raised him from a prison to a throne, was at liberty to put him down whenever it pleased ; that he held his dominions during his own good behaviour, or during the good pleasure of the Government. That was an error, as had already been shown by a citation from Mr. Princep's History of Lord Hastings' Administration, in which the Raja was avowedly alluded to as an independent sovereign in the treaty which regulated the political affairs of that day. In confirmation of that citation, he (Mr. Sul livan) would read two extracts, one from a letter of Sir Thomas Munro, and the other from a letter of Mr. Elphinstone, which would put that matter be yond all question. On the 9th of March, 1818, Sir Thomas Munro thus wrote to Mr. Elphinstone : " I am anxious to hear that the ceremony of placing the Raja of Sattara on the musnud has been per formed, because it would probably hasten the termi nation of the hostilities and the settlement of the country. The limits of his principality might be defined for the present. He should be required to summon Bajee ltao, and his principal chiefs, to his presence, and, in case of their not obeying, to pro claim Bajee Rao, and ; all who adhere to him, rebels ; though the natives would understand perfectly well the relation between the Raja and the British Govern ment, and the natives which dictated this proclama tion, this would not prevent it from having the desired effect. The chiefs who have left Bajee Rao, as well as some of those who still follow him, have, in their commu nications with us, always brought forward the dis grace they would sustain from the charge of rebellion and ingratitude, were they to abandon them, and have often called upon us to point out how their cha racter might be saved from such a reproach. The orders of the Raja of Sattara will, I have no doubt, be received both by the chiefs who have already de serted Bajee Rao, and by those who wish to leave him, as a full justification of their conduct; and those orders will also, I think, have a considerable effect in intimidating even those few chiefs who are really attached to Bajee Rao, and in inducing them to for sake his standard, and it might likewise be advisable to send them to the Killedors of all forts, command ing them to surrender." Mr. Elphinstone, in ad dressing Lord Hastings upon the 18th of June, 1818, wrote as follows :—" Your Excellency's instructions left me the choice of giving him (the Raja) a jagheer or a small sovereignty, and I was inclined to adopt the latter plan for various reasons at the time when I had to decide. The Mahrattas showed no disposi tion whatever to quit the Peishwa's standard, and it appeared not improbable that the dread of the com plete extinction of their national independence, and still more that the entire loss of their means of sub sistence, from the want of a Government likely to employ them, would induce them to adhere to Bajee Rao with an obstinacy that could never have been produced by affection for his person or interest in his cause. It therefore seemed expedient to re move those grounds of alarm by the establishment of a separate Government. Your Excellency will have observed, from General Munro's letter, the opinion of that experienced officer, that a state like that of My sore should be formed for the Raja; and although I did not think myself at liberty to act on this plan to its full extent, 1 was deeply impressed with the same arguments that had occurred to General Munro, on the importance of leaving for part of the Peishwa's subjects a Government which could afford them service in their own way." Was it not then evident that both those eminent per sons saw in the Raja a most important political card, upon the skilful playing of which depended the suc cess of the political arrangements which were then forming? The restoration of the Raja was in fact the pivot upon which all those arrangements turned. It was, confessedly, through the medium of the Raja's restoration that they hoped to arrest the war then raging, to conciliate the Mahratta people, and reconcile them to the change then about to take place in their condition. With as much justice might the Allied Powers of 1815 have called Louis the Eighteenth the creature of their power, and have ' claimed the right, as they put him up, also to put him down, as the British Government might with justice put the Raja down. They might hare done it upon the same principle, and even with more reason, for the restoration of the French mo narch was as distasteful to the French people as the restoration of the Raja of Sattara was grateful to the whole Mahratta people. In fact that was the very reason which induced the Government to place him on the throne. These, then, were in brief the reasons which had induced him (Mr. Sullivan) to submit the resolution, which had been read, affirming the fact, that the alienation of the Sattara territory would be a violation of the treaty of 1819.—(Mr. Sullivan concluded a most able speech amidst con siderable applause.) M.P., in s econ di ng the resolution, Mr. Hurts, stated that he might have waited to have heard the arguments which would be brought forward against the reasonings of his Honourable Friend Mr. Sulli van, but the Court were placed in an awkward posi tion. They were there, as the East India Company, judges in their own cause ; they were, unfortunately, placed in a condition in which there were two parties to a treaty, one claiming to have justice done them, and the other taking upon themselves to decide the question. Such was the unfortunate circumstance of all persons entering into engagements with the India Company, that there was no umpire, no inde pendentaappeal anv independent autlmrity au to tho a r r it b y itra to te. could be made, he would be willing to leave the Raja to maintain his rights under whlofm there n were the treaty, and the India Company to main tain theirs; then, indeed, there would be a sem blance of justice in whatever might take place. He (Mr. Hume) was aware that the India Board ought to be that tribunal ; but they had been parties throughout the whole transaction, and had partici pated in those acts, unjust as he alleged, which had been perpetrated against the Raja of Sattara. They had become parties, and could not therefore be fair judges. If there was any tribunal to which to ap peal, he (Mr. Hume) would be content to submit the case to it, whether that tribunal was the Queen in Council, or any other tribunal, if it could be referred to them. He (Mr. Hume) could not but approve entirely in the sentiments expressed on a former oc casion in that Court by Mr. Tucker, in the protest which had been entered by him, which protest was based upon the soundest policy and supported by principles of the strictest justice, which ought to have been carried out honestly and liberally. He (Mr. Hume) was fearful that the East India Company was led astray in the matter by a desire to support their own servants. The fact was, their servants had conic to a hasty conclusion, and the authorities in this country, without due and proper information as to the facts, had confirmed that decision, and given their sanction and approval, to those acts, and had subsequently been deterred from doing justice by a fear of undoing that which they had hastily done. That was the position in which the case of the Raja of Sattara stood at that moment. The East India Company were all-powerful, and he (Mr. Hume) would, therefore, appeal to them to be just ; having all authority within their own power, they ought to use that authority mercifully, and not act in an arbitrary manner, for arbitrary it must be if they decided upon their own case. If there was any doubt of what the animus was at the time of the formation of the treaty, the Honourable Gentle man who sat near him had produced a letter, on a former occasion, which any man who perused it carefully must be satisfied with. It was an extract from Colonel Munro's letter to Lord Hast ings, showing what the intention was then. The company were then using the Raja, to use a common phrase, as a trump card in the game they were then playing. They were anxious to detach the Mahrattas then in arms, at a time when the company could not tell what they might be able to effect, and to attach them to some individual under the semblance of the old Mahratta Government. No man within that bar, if he would honestly and carefully examine the arti cles of the treaty of 1819, and the correspondence which took place at the time, could fail to perceive the animus which governed the whole proceedings, or could have any doubt whatever that the thing intended was bond fide and honestly on the p ar t o f L or d H astings. to give to the _ a f r e nd may say government thatwhicht all shouldreaties are continuetobe l fo lasting, ever. My ver: ut b they kn ow h ow very often they were interrupted and broken, but they were only to be interrupted by co urses which were patent to the whole world, and ' w hich could bear explanation, and upon good and sufficient grounds to a ccoun t f or t h e changes. Had anything a of that ki n d t a k en as w rerence to Certainly not. The place Raja ith wasremoted, ut due consier (Mr. Hume) :and many ot h ers within witho he the bar had. contended,atien. u most e( r Hume) unfairly, o a u n l d d d not hesitate for one moment to s u b m it t o any men within the bar,whether,he case b e f ore t h em at the time if they h a d h a d all the in formation respecting t. that they decided which they now had, one of them wou l d have concurred in so wh i n i e ci t h u t r e any us a prooeeding &s that which had take n place ? The A srecial general Court of this company was held yesterday, at the East India House, for the purpose of considering the following motion, the bringing for ward of which had been given notice of by Mr. Sul liven :—" That the Honourable the East India Com pany having by a treaty concluded with Pertaub Shean, the Raja of Sattara, on the 25th September, 1819, ceded the territory of Sattara, in perpetual so vereignty to him, his heirs and successors, the East India Company cannot alienate the territory of Sat tara from the rightful heir (of the deceased Ri.ja Pertaub Sheen) without a flagrant breach of that treaty and of public faith. The Court met at 12 o'clock, and the routine bu ainess having been disposed of, THE RAJA OF SATTARA. Mr. SULLIVAN rose to bring forward his motion, and in moving the resolution of which he had given notice, he stated that he trusted the friends of the Rajas cause would be able to adduce sufficient reasons for again obtruding the Sattara question upon the notice of the Court. When upon a recent occasion he inquired whether instructions had been sent to India relative to the disposal of the Sattara territory, the answer Was that no such instruction had been sent, but that the Court were expecting information on the subject from the Supreme Government. Unwilling to act with precipitation, or in anticipation that the Supreme Government would deal with the ques tion in any other way than what was just, they thought it advisable that the subject should drop until the expected information should have been laid before the proprietors. Upon inquiry, however, they found that the Governor-General had already pronounced a positive judgment upon the question, having formally refused to recognise the adopted son of the Raja. As it was manifest that that refusal could only have proceeded from one of two causes— either from a denial of the right of the Raja to adopt a son, or a claim of a right on the part of the Governor-General to inflict penalties on the son of the Raja so adopted, for the alleged crimes of his father—consistency and justice, therefore, seemed to require that they should not lose a mo ment in affirming positively the right of the late Raja to adopt, and of denying , as positively the right of the Governor-General to in flict penalties upon the son for the alleged crimes of the father. That was what he (Mr. Sullivan) would endeavour to do in a few brief sentences. Before doing so he would remind the Court that what they had then to deal with was not the old Sattara ques tion—not a question relative to the guilt or innocence of the late Raja—not a question whether they should or should not redress injuries done to that ill-used man—but it was altogether a new question regarding the rights of the son, as secured to him by treaty; in other words, it was a question whether the British Go vernment were to be bound by that treaty, or whether they were to be at liberty to violate it at their pleasure. He (Mr. Sullivan) was desirous of reminding the Court that, by the treaty of September, 1819, which ceded the territory of Sattara—not, as had been boldly stated by a paper which was read at the last Court, and which paper was known to speak the sen timents of the Raja's enemies—not as " a branch of the house of Serajee ' " but "to the Raj a P er t au b Shean ;" but not only to the Raja Pertaub Shean, without reference to his heirs and successors, as had also.. been boldly stated by the same paper, but "to the Raja Pertaub Shean, his heirs and successors"—not to his heirs and suc cessors in a limited sense, but in a sense the most comprehensive, which had been shown by statements from the Persian and the Mahratta copies of the treaty. Not only did the British Go vernment cede the territory of Sattara to the Raja Pertaub Shean, his heirs and successors, but they ceded him that territory " in perpetual sovereignty." He (Mr. Sullivan) entreated the Court to weigh those expressions. What did they mean, or what could they mean? When the British Government introduced those words into the treaty they knew that the Raja had, as a Hindoo, an inalienable right to adopt a son, in failure of the heirs of his own oody. Not only had he a "right" to adopt, but it would be his positive duty to exercise that right, in failure of the heirs of his body. Well, then, he (Mr. Sullivan) would appeal to the Court, and ask, introducing those words into the treaty with a full knowledge of the Raja's rights, what could those expressions mean but a solemn pledge from the Government themselves never to divert the territory of Sattara from the Raja Pertaub Shean, his heirs and successors. The first question that pre sented itself was, did the late Raja die with heirs ? Heirs male of his own body avowedly he had none. No one had denied his right as an Hindoo to adopt, and nothing could bar the succession of the son so adopted to the Sattara territory, but a positive stipulation in their original treaty, making the suc cession of the adopted son contingent upon the right of the British Government. That treaty contained no such stipulations. It, then, it was proved that this adoption had been made in strict conformity with the Hindoo law, and with the usages of the Raja's caste, the adopted son would stand in the plenitude of his fathers rights, personal and political, and trench upon them the British Government could not without an infraction of the most solemn obligations. Instances had been adduced of the Guignor, and other sovereign princes of India, having disallowed the succession of adopted sons ; and inferences had been attempted to be drawn from those examples to show that no adoption could be made by the Raja of Sattara without the previous assent of the British Government; but all those examples were quite beside the present question. The Guignor, and the other Princes, whose cases had been quoted, then dealt with their own subjects and dependents, according to the esta blished law of the country, just as the Raja of Sattara dealt with his subjects and dependents, allowing the succession of some adopted sons, denying the suc cession of others, and, upon all occasions, dictating the terms upon which that adoption was to be allowed. But the Raja of Sattara was not a " sub ject" of the British Government, nor a dependent upon it in an y sense of the word would assert, uponirrreiefnuctabloetatuhthornive,(rl‘hlart.hSeu.c‘l,laiavanno)t even a depend an t ~p True it wa s th at h e agreed to ho e l ß d r h it ia is d h o Government, minions, not , in subordination to the British G "subordi na t e co - operation " with the British but in ritish Govern ment, and the meaning of those terms was clearly ex plained i n th e treaty, which definedwathe was and was not allo we d t o d o. But in ag restriction upo n hi s powers as a sovereign rice thathe did not aband on f or a moment one iota or 1113isccha'rac ter as a sovereign prince ; for, upon all occasions, and under all circumstances, he retained his character as a sovereign prince. He never placed himself in the same situation towards the British Government which his own dependents stood towards himself. The preamble of the tr ea t y state d that it was concluded by virtue of powers d e l egate d to agents of the respective Govern ments, n ments, sho w i ng , b eyon d di spute, that, in point of character, the Raj a t rea t e d w i th the British Govern ment upon a footing of perfect equality, just as the the King of Saxony or the King of Wirtembur treated with N apo l eon, upon a footing of f g perfect equality; f or. there was the same relative difference in the po wers o f these petty German Princes and the power of Napoleon, as there existed between the power o f t h e Raja and that of the British G overnment. • B the .British GyosTtrhnemefinrtsteeadretdiclethoef ttehrreitotrryeatao'f, Sattara to the Ra first proclamation issued in perp e t ua l sovere i gnty. The by Mr. Elphinstone, in February, 1819, ary, 9, stated " the Raja of Sattara, who is now a prisoner in Baj h 'e e e d ßao's hands, be released and placed at the reignty." Lord Hasti of an independent sove atone expressed as follows a in his letter to Mr. Elphin •—" The Governor-Gene ral has already signified to . you his entire assent to the force of those considerations which induced you to extend the original objects o f th e establishment of the R a j a o f S attara in an independent sovereignty." There was, therefore, a disti nct recognition, both by Mr. Elphi nstone and Lord Ha s ti ngs of the Raja as an indep en d ent sovereign. Upon occasions, the Britishu de r G a o l . Go vernment had tr ea t e d all circum s t ances, and in documents,allwitphcall. m aga i i n ns t t ha th t e ch G ar o a r c e t r e n r . ; . . - that, ther e f ore, was the bond ment, and th at was the obligation they were b ound to reuired not, and fulfil ; mor e t h an that the less th an t h at they could not reefauts q y e to concede without a gross imputation on their g any p ersons present who ood faith. Were there note whi c h h ad been f again take up t h e wo r d blood of th e l ate Raja was or t ra amtely •sounded, th at t h e d, that the all ege d crime of th e fa ther vitiated the claims of the son ? If so, then he (Mr. Sullivan) d emanded up on what authority that statement that authority found in the Was F a de' Was article of that treaty made t r t ea ty The fifth Penal for the Raja to hold correspondence with: foreign states, but Raja himself r icl: an r t d a li n e thus :—" The it expressly limited the penalt who had so offended. That ar 3 t essor s , en . agheerwdith foreign Raja for himself, and for his heirs i gages to forbear from all intercoursesuc des c i chiefs,p- Powers, and with all sirdars, and ministers, and all persons, of whatever tion, who are not by the above articles rendered ject to his Highness's authority ; with all the above sub persons his Highness for himself, and for his heirs above successors, engages to have no connexion and corresponden ce w ith f ore i gn P owers ; any affaiorrs that m a y ar i se w i t h them relating to his Highness are to be exclusively conducted by the Briti s h G overnment. If (for the purpose of forming matrimonial connexions for his Highness's family, or for any similar purpose) his Highness has occasion to communi ca t e w i t h persons not rendered s ubject to hi s aut h or i ty by this agreement, such c ommunication is to be made entirely through the politi ca l agent. This article isa fundamental con dition of the present agreement, and any departure from it on the Raja's part shall subject him to the 1055 of all the advantages be may gain by the said agreement;' The attempts, therefore, that were 13,760,382 Exclusive 12,241,133 of Advance: 11,051,379 12,912,449 and inclusive of Loan. No. IL—lncome and Charge of the Consolidated Fund, in the Q uar t er s ended the nth July, 1847, and the sth July, 1848. Quarters ended July 5. Quarters ended July S. 5,744,711 609,120 2,957 691,298 9iii,243 520,941 1,864,311 9,531,581 9,233,717 the . ler. ;axe )ie- 18,765,298 5,768,685 580,628 1,461 98,467 415,585 231,111 7,096,140 5,827,735 12,923,175 1,435,398 5,863,619 5,627,735 35,854 had not had a fair trial ? What fairer trial could any man have than one which made him his own wit ness, jury, and judge? Ile had himself confessed ; consequently he could have no fairer trial or convic tion. Under those circumstances, any rights which might have been supposed to belong to his heirs and successors through that treaty had failed; and, therefore, by adopting the child they were then asked to recognise, they would be adopting the son of a man who had denuded himself of the right he formerly possessed under the treaty, and consequently of the Raja of Sattara itself. It ap peared to him (the Deputy-Chairman) a most monstrous proposition, to say that under such cir cumstances such a boy should succeed to the throne. He (the Deputy- Chairman) therefore felt himself fully justified in seconding the motion of his Gallant Friend the Chairman. Mr. GEORGE ThomesoN, M.P., said that what had fallen from the lips of the several gentlemen who had opposed the motion before the Court fully proved the prudence and necessity of convening that meeting of proprietors. He must say, that he, and his friends who had signed the requisition, had not been fairly treated. Neither his Hon. Friend Mr. Sullivan, nor the Hon. Member for Montrose, nor his Learned Friend Mr. Lewis, had in the least degree re-opened the question of the guilt or innocence of the late de posed Raja, but had confined themselves exclusively to the question of the alienation of the territory, and the claims of the adopted son. The remarks, how ever, which had fallen f rom cer t a i n Ifonourahle Pro prietors would fully authorise the discussion of the whole subject. The Honourable and Gallant Deputy-Chairman had taken an entirely new view of the case, and had rested his defence of the treatment of the deceased Raja Pert aub Sheen upon the appoint: ment by that Prince of Syed Meer as his agent to prefer certain claims on his behalf before the home authorities. Was the Deputy-Chairman aware that Sir Robert Grant had virtually admitted the right of the Raja to depute that person ? If it had entered into his (Mr. Thompson's) imagination to conceive it possible that that act of the Raja's would be cited as a breach of treaty—as a crime justifying the punishment of deposal—he would have come down with the proof that the Governor of Bombay at the time had himself admitted the Raja's right to send an agent here. What was the doctrine that would now go forth to the world, and be promulgated throughout India ? it was this, that any prince with whom the East India Company had a treaty, and at whose Court they had a resident, daring to appeal by an agent of his own from the injustice of the local authorities to the supreme authorities here, would be guilty of a crime justly punishable by deposal. Mr. Elphinstone, if in that Court, would laugh to scorn so monstrous a dogma. The treaty was designed simply to restrain the Raja from correspondence on political affairs with the native States of India. Under what circumstances was Syed Meer appointed ? After the Raja had discovered that his papers had for twelve months been kept back from the Court of Directors, after the suppression of the dispatch of September, 1834, and after he had been treated with systematic neglect for several years in reference to a matter which he regarded as of vital importance, that of his sovereignty over the jagheerdar. It was quite true that the Raja had been referred to the terms of the treaty, but he ably and successfully argued the point with General Lodwick, and proved that it could be no 1 breach of that treaty to send an agent to lay bis claims before the authorities under this roof. Throughout the whole affair the Raja had acted with the utmost frankness, and never until now had his appointment of that agent been construed into a vio lation of his engagement. The Raja had again been declared guilty of the acts imputed to him, and that declaration had been made for the purpose of vitiating the claims of his adopted son. It should be known, however, that many gentlemen in the Court of Direc tors, and some in still higher places, now admitted, privately, though they would not do so openly and publicly, that they regarded the charges made against the Raja as the offspring of the malice and ingenuity of his enemies. But, admitting them to be true, was it not the fact, that the Raja was not deposed on ac count of what it was alleged he had done, or intended to do, but for contumacy—for refusing to agree to the terms proposed by Sir James Carnac ?—(Hear.) He was offered the favour and protection of the Bri tish Government if he would admit his guilt; and for refusing to make that admission, he was deprived of his sovereignty. It was now the opinion of every person with whom he (Mr. Thompson) had conversed that the act of Sir James Carnac was unnecessary and severe—that no political reason existed at the time for the removal of the Raja—that his intentions, whatever they might have been, could not by any possibility result in danger to our power in India— and that, at all events, he had no opportunity given him of rebutting the secret accusations made against him. Under these circumstances, it was not too much to ask that the territory guaranteed by solemn treaty to the Raja and his family for ever, should be be stowed upon the individual whom the Raja had adopted. Proprietors might be told that the Raja's brother, Appa Sahib, had adopted a son, and that the child so adopted had a claim to the throne. The papers recently laid before Parliament would show that Appa Sahib had acted in direct opposition to the advice of the resident, Mr. Frere, in this matter. That gentleman had distinctly told the Raja on the Ist of April, that he could not sanction any adoption, and the Bombay Government had approved his con duct. The adoption took place while the resident was absent, and Dr. Murray, who was in attendance on his Highness, was a most reluctant witness of a ceremony which he had no power to prevent. On the return of Mr. Frere, that gentleman distinctly informed the widows of Appa Sahib, and all the chiefs assembled, that it was impossible for him to recognise the adoption that had taken place, or to pledge himself to the decision of the Government. It was the fact, also, that the boy adopted was sent for at the moment—that there was no discrimi nation exercised in the selection—and that the father of the child was not present to relinquish his claim upon his son. He (Mr. Thompson) hoped, therefore, that this adoption would not be regarded as opposing any difficulty in the way of recognising the adoption made by the deposed Raja in 1845. Every circumstance connected with the case pointed to the boy at Benares as the person entitled to suc ceed to the vacant gadee. He was nearest of blood —he was the child of a man of whom every European functionary, who had ever been at Sattara, spoke in terms of commendation, upon whom the breath of suspicion had never lighted—whose con stancy to his cousin, the deposed Raja, had brought about his own early death. If any child in India was, above all others, a fit successor to the throne of Sivajee, it was the child of the late Balla Sahib, Senaputtee. That child and his relations had been cherished by the late Raja. That child had been formally adopted in 1845, and the adoption duly notified to all parties concerned. '['he elevation of that child to the gadee would be the strictest observance of the treaty that could, under the circumstances, take place, and would, there could be no doubt, give satisfaction to all but a few, whose selfish designs might be frustrated by sueh a selection. He (Mr. Thompson) would not resort to any un worthy means to induce the Court of Directors to take the step he desired them to take, but he thought he might be permitted to remind them of the position of the question in this country. There were many, himself among the number, who fully believed the late Raja innocent,' and who were, therefore, anxious to see justice done to his memory, and some compensation made to his surviving relatives. The elevation of his adopted son would be most grateful to the feelings of all such. The Court of Directors might be assured that there was no disposition to turn what they might do into the triumph of a party. —(Hear.) The ends they sought were of a higher and purer nature. They wished to see those who had been long in exile restored to their native state. They desired to put an end to feuds and divisions which evil-minded and mischievous persons were al ready fomenting. They desired to end the discus sions, often angry and painful, which had for eight years prevailed in that Court. They desired to see that done which would give joy to every inhabitan t of the state of Sattara, save the very small d number who might still ' foster bad and wicked feelings, and would also communicate pleasure in this and satisfaction to a large number of country. Had the Hon. and Gallantt persons Chairman final at liberty to hold out the prospect of h settle ment of the question, in accordance whiathvethbeewenishaens which had been expressed, it would indescribable relief to his (Mr. Thompson's) mind. d u ty to the memory of In the discharge of a so the late Raja, he had g iv l G e em n ia i n d l o ly2 tice if of it a w m e o r t e ion po i s n si t b h l e e House of Commons . with honour and goo d faith to do so, would he aban don that motion , for there was no living being less disposed than himself to turn public accuser, or to u tter a word injur i ous to the character or interests of another. But if they were still to be told th at t h e Baja was a g uilty traitor, and theref o r e i ncompetont to nominate a successor to the rights he formerly enjoyed, it would be his duty, at whatever sacrifice of feeling and inclination, to bring before Parliament and the country the history of that Prince's downfal, and to l a y bare the acts of those who had been the chief instruments of the ruin of a man whom he honestly believed had been excelled by no ruler in the purity of his intentions, and by no ally in his faithful regard to his engagements. He must say he had been greatly disappointed to find the Court of Directors unprepared to give any opinion on the subject of succession. As long ago as May last, they were aware that the gadee of Sattara was vacant, and it naturally occurred to his mind that the Court would immediately take into consideration the steps advisable to be pursued. The only thing, however, they bad resolved to do was to wait for the views and opinions of the Government of India. He (Mr. Thompson) earnestly hoped and prayed that when those opinions came to !hand they would be found to accord with what he and others conceived to be at once the justice'. and expediency of the case, and that there would bes no future necessity of taxing the patience and out-• raging the sensibilities of members of that Court. He (Mr. Thompson) would think that he was doing but sorry service to the parties in Indi a , i n w h ose f ate he felt so lively an interest, if he provoked any hostile feeling in the minds of any of the Hon. Directors, and especially in the minds of those who had it in their power by the counsel they gave and by the opi nions they recorded to satisfy what he (Mr. Thomp son) contended was a very reasonable wish on their part. Before he sat down, he did hope that the Hon. Deputy-Chairman would in some way or other qualify the assertion he had made, that the mission of Syed Meer to this country was a breach of treaty, and a sufficient justification for the conduct which was subsequently adopted towards the Raja. That was the only charge which the gallant gentleman had proved against the Raja, and he (Mr. Thompson) should be sorry if it Ns en t forth to India and to the world that princes and rulers of that country were committing a high misdemeanour and breach of their treaties with the British Government, if, under cir cumstances so peculiar as those under which Syed Meer was appointed, they should take the step of sending an agent to England for the purpose of bringing their claims before the Court of that Honourable Company. Let it be remembered that the Raja had become within a very few days previous to that occurrence cognizant of the fact that the statements which he prepared twelve months before had never reached this country, and were still at Bombay ; that the provocation he received upon that occasion was very strong, and that he told Colonel Lodwick at the interview, when he was ca ll e d t o say whether he had taken such a step or not frankly and openly, that he had done so. That was in the early part of the month of June, and he said that he would not send home until after the feast of the Dussera, which was some time afterwards. He (Mr. Thompson) could assure the Hon. and Gallant Deputy-Chairman that Sir Robert Grant distinctly admitted that the Raja might be justified in sending an agent to this country. When it was suggested to the Governor, by a member of his Council at Bombay, that Syed Meer should be de tained, and not permitted to come to this country, Sir Robert Grant gave hl3 opinion that he did not think it was competent to him as Governor of that Presidency to prevent the Raja from sending out a mission to England, if he thought proper to do so. Why, that was a charge which had never before been put into the indict ment against the Raja ! The conduct of the Raja in that respect showed, more than anything else, that he never could have entered into any conspiracy against the Government. The sole idea which had for years absorbed his mind was the question of - the jagheers, and yet it was alleged at that very time he was endeavouring to corrupt sepoya, whereas, Colonel Lodwick, himself, stated that he was then absorbed in preparing for the mis sion of Syed Meer to this country. The Honour able and Gallant Deputy-Chairman, therefore, had no right to impute the appointment of Syed Meer as a crime upon the Raja, which should be visited upon his heirs. He (Mr. Thompson) felt too unwell to go further into the discussion of the various matters connected with the question, but, without presuming to dictate, he hoped that it might appear, when they heard from his Lordship the Governor-General, and found that he had taken this question into his consideration— that it would appear by their subsequent course that the Directors were not indisposed, whatever might be their opinion of the guilt or innocence of the Raja, to adopt such a final settlement of the ques tion as that which was placed before them. It was only those who were cognizant, as he (Mr. Thompson) had been, of the amount of suffering which the act of Sir James Carnac inflicted, who could fully enter into the motives and feelings which animated those honourable gentlemen who took up the question in that Court. Sad havoc had been made of the interests, and even of the lives, of some of the best people with whom the British Government had ever become acquainted in India. They might bring a long list of deceased persons, holding high appoint ments, some of whom were friends of Hon. Members of that Court, who had perished from 1834 to the present time. It was their own opinion that the Raja of Sattara's days had been shortened by his re sidence at Benares, however much the British Go vernment may have been disposed, as was alleged, to consult his feelings and constitution. It was their opinion that his widow died in consequence of her exile to that place. Information had been received from Benares that divisions and dissensions were springing up amongst those whom the Raja had left behind, and that his nearest relations were falling out amongst themselves, in consequence of the pre sent unhappy state of things, and the vile machina tions of evil advisers who were seeking their own ends. The friends of the Raja's family were desirous that that unfortunate state of things should be reme died by the restoration of the territory to the Raja's heir, and the allowing his family to return to their native state and city. He (Mr. Thompson) did not see how there could be any final settlement of the question, or any amicable adjustment of existing terences, ualess the boy Shahoo were placed upon the gadee. All political and moral consideration s pointed to that course. If they set aside the nomi nation of his father, the Maharaja Sahoo would still be Raja of Sattara in the estimation of the Mahrattas. and the British Government would have two Richards in the field instead of only one ; whereas such was the feeling at Setters that, without giving offence to any individual, .the Government might readily set aside the adoption which it had never recognized of Balla Sahib, and secure the eTa titude and liberality in a second degree of all parties in that state, by recognizing the adoption of the son of Pertaub Shean. He (Mr. Thompson) trusted there would be no indisposition on the part of the Court arising out of any past proceed ings, or that any such consideration would be permitted to away them in their decision. For himself and every gentleman about him he would say they sought no triumph in the case ; they came to the Court desirous of avoiding whatever might provoke controversy, or drag them back into past debates ; but they came before the Court as honest individuals, who, whatever might have been their errors in times past in the way of temper, had been pursuing what they considered a just and upright object in regard to his late Highness the Raja of Sattara.—(The Hon. Gentleman concluded an able speech amid great applause.) Major OLIPHANT thought the answer given on the last occasion was perfectly fair, and that it was under stood that nothing was to be done in the matter until advices had been received from India. For himself he could not vote on the present occasion for Mr. Sullivan's motion, much as he considered the Raja had been injured, and desirous as he was of setting the question at rest for ever. All throughout his speech Mr. Sullivan had refrained from saying that the adoption of the boy Shahoo was a perfectly good adoption; on the contrary he had appealed entirely to the feelings of the Court. ' ve d Mr. SULLIVAN, in the course of a long and re received el a ble reply, observed that information had been _ ly refu b s n e to td that the Governor-General had te form a lly al Rays, recognize the adopted son of h in formation had been received u pon the subject to the following e a e g ff e e n c t t heuponhere, Major lo 3 t ho i t , G M r a e r go ch : "Th r said to th e Minister Eshwunt Rew, I a m commanded by hi s ts, and people of your whole of the attendants, servan ts, Lordship the Governor-General to state things to the he inferior persons g the to m th to em c . om T e. ben l h n a o v t e an n y e attendants are present, .t are not establishment. The minister replied the prin cipal - objection to your lwi present, but persons now are to remain with her Highness a ll pe c a a k u i s n e e „ ; you are the English agent, and the Qa speak thus fair to face ; no w a ll i s lost and destroyed, therefore the people have become heartless ; this act is the pleasure of the English Go vernment. After this, the Minister assembled the whole of the persons of the establishment ; her High ness the Queen sat behind the curtain of her apart ment, and outside thereof were Shahoo Maharaj, the Minister, the English agent, Major M'Gregor, and the persons of the establishment. "Major M'Gregor then said to all—' Orders have come from the Governor-General that you must be discharged, as his Highness the Raja is now no more ; after this you will not receive any allow ance. You will receive money for the expense of the journey on your going to your respective homes, as you are from another country ; , this is his Lordship's wish. My Government does net acknow ledge or recognise the adopted son which the' Raja took. In this manner the agent said this three times over for all to understand this fully, adding, do you reflect hereon and give me an explicit answer. All remained silent, when the Minister replied, before his Highness the Raja departed this life he made Shahoo Maharaj, and her Highness the Queen, heir and regent to his state and sovereignty, and then de parted this life—therefore we have a sovereign and ruler who is seated before you—then how can we be discharged ? We know not any one besides our sovereign and ruler, we do not make any request to you, the agent, for any such arrangement which you propose. W hat favour the Governor-General may be pleased to show, it will be to our sovereign and ruler, and our sovereign will regard and protect us. "The Major thus, said to the Minister—l perfectly understand what you have said, I will now say to the whole of you, My Goverameut does not ac knowledge or recognise the child as the adopted son." " The Minister replied—' Your Government may not acknowledge, but our State and Government ac knowledges him as sovereign and ruler, whom the late Raja had so made, constituted, and appointed. " Puttrajey Row Sawunt and Kbimda Row, Dufterdar (the chief accountant or chancellor) said INCOME. Excise.• • • Stamps • . •• Taxes Property Tax • • • • • ••• Post-office .. • • • Crown Lands .• .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . Miscellaneous • • • • • • • • .• • . • ••••• Imprest and other Moneys .......... Produce of Sale of old Naval Stores3,Sce Repayments of ..idTances ...... To Cash, being the flrst Instal ment of Loan of 8,000,0001. ...... 4,519,119 3,305,524 1,869,464 2,075,001 1,036,517 215,000 7,461 88,632 137,944 13,254,666 5,510,632 4,44T,832 3,455,229 1,557,640 2,034,133 !'88,401 136,000 10,000 9,227 88,805 79,795 86,813 12,923,875 1t,165,29S 12,923,875 proprietors had been told from the other side of the bar that one decision upon the case was enough, however just the claims of the case might be; but he (Mr. Hume) denied the assertion. Both the prin cipals in the family of Sevajee were then no more; and the question then was, whether the agreement entered into with their successors was to take effect ? Would the company or not follow out the article which stated that the dominions should be ceded to the Raja and his heirs in perpetuity. If they would do that, then they would act honestly ; but if they refused to do so they would violate the most sacred principles of justice, and because they had the power assumed to themselves the right of doing a wrongful act. He (Mr. Hume) appealed to the former proceedings which had taken place. He could not express his own views better than he had done then. To use a common phrase, he thought the case lay in a nut-shell. 'Whatever the sum was, whether it was 100,0001. or 200,0001. a year, which was the value of the territory, he (Mr. Hume) maintained that they would be acting unjustly if by deciding in their own case they appropriated that money to themselves. He (Mr. Hume) therefore asked them to act justly, and demanded of them, being judges in their own cause, to adjudicate libe rally ; and, as they had the power and right to be merciful, to consider what effect a contrary decision would have upon their character and interests in India.—(Cheers.) Mr. WEEDING said that he had listened with much attention to the observations of the preceding speakers, but in no one sense could he agree with them. 'With regard to the jurisprudence of the question, that might safely be left to the company's legal advisers in England or India ; but with regard to the moral point, he would take leave to state his own views. The obligations to Pertaub Shean were promised upon certain conditions ; he had violated those conditions, and had consequently forfeited all title to the advan tages of his agreement with the company. The Raja engaged "for himself, his heirs and successors,' not to violate that treaty, but he had done so, and thereby forfeited all his right. But it was said, he had adopted a successor. A successor to what ? To a sovereignty which no longer belonged to him. If he (Mr. Weeding) were not unwilling to occupy the time of the Court, he might have shown that as no jagheerdar could adopt without the permission of the lord paramount, so neither could the Raja. He (Mr. Weeding) could show by the very treaty that the Raja was as much a feudatory as the j agheerdars. He was bound to come with his troops to assist the British. Did not that show a feudal condition with regard to the British ? Was there no other party be sides the Raja to be taken into consideration ? Were the people of India to be left out of conside ration ? The Honourable Gentleman who had :Token (Mr. Hume), and the Honourable Gentleman Dear (Mr. G. Thompson), were both advocates of popular rights. Would they say that the people of India under British government were not better off than under their own native princes ? Look at the Nabob of Onde, the Nizam, and others, and what had been the condition of their countries ? The introduction of the British Government into India, without any breach of public faith, was a duty. The people of England would not allow the East India Company, in his (Mr. Weed ing's) opinion, to depart from that principle Under the English Government, by the introduction of English law, civilization, and science, the popula tion of that country would have a better chance of improvement in all matters of science, morality, and religion. That could only be done by degrees, and those degrees they would be enabled to attain by assuming the government of the country. Mr. LEWIS then rose and said, that when the news of the death of the late Raja Pertaub Shean arrived in tt ihoant t that upon period eor country a Sahara he aatrt ra w irv a ae s dqount question, of iut en r, t in h b o i yn s e a tai admitting iot tallituh ga o g u igtt the e- t rig e st of his h d i ee s amthbo son ldo to succeed to the mu snud on emboldened fnedAtpo think so paSahib ; because e He (Mr. ( L re collected that in the year 1840, when the question first came before the public, Mr. Tucker put forth his plea before the public; and if there was any justice in that plea in 1840, there was no reason why it should not be carried out in 1547. He (Mr. Lewis), therefore, felt confident that Mr. Tucker would, when chairman, have used his influence in carrying out his own proposition. When that event was followed, as it shortly afterwards was, by the death of Appa Sahib, it appeared that there was but one honest course for the Government to have pur sued, and that was to adopt the person whom Raja Pertaub Shean had recogn i se d ; not the u t becausea he had been adopted by Pert au b Sh ean , b lte because he was under the treaty really and actu ally the heir entitled to succeed. He had a double claim ; first, as the adopted heir and child of Pertaub Shean, and, secondly, as the heir under the treaty, not only of Pertaub Shean, but of Appa Sahib. It was under the impression that that course would have been adopted that he (Mr. L e w is ) , w i t h others, waited upon the President of the Board of Control, by whom they were received with all courtesy, and from which meeting they left with the impression that justice would be done in the case. But when the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Sullivan) at the next court put a question to the present Chairman whether any dispatch had been sent to India or any communication had been made to the President of the Board of Control— tio T n h h e ad Ci a r D I ; RIMe As e Hdenied t hthat o jN a l r e d .S ullivan's ofcontrol. clue; Mr. Lewis had a strong i m p r ession upon h memory that it had ; they were, therefore, at issue upon that point. At all events it was understood that nothing had been done or was intended to be done until a dispatch had been sent out, in order to li obtain information from the Government of India. The CHAIRMAN assented to the correctness of that statement. Mr. LEWIS—When they considered the nature of the case, that it put an end to all the misfortune which had taken place—when they considered the treaty, and with whom it had taken place, it was high time, in his (Mr. Lewis's) judgment, having regard to the honour of an integral part of the British empire, that the di rectors should come forward an d p u t th e proprietors into possession of their view of the case. What was the duty of the Executive of that Court when the news of the death of the late Raja, Appa Sahib, reached this country ? Was it not—especially when various statements had been made by papers known to be in the employ of the Government—intimating that a resumption of the territories of Sattara was about to take place, and recommending such a mea sure—was it not the duty of the Bri tish Government to have come forward immediately, and to have undeceived the people of India and of England upon that subject ? By the Government not taking that course, by their hanging back, and postponing the question, and remaining altogether silent upon it, what was the inference that would be drawn from their conduct ? He (Mr. Lewis) shoulA not have been addressing the Court at that moment if any statement had been made by the directors upon the subject. Was there any doubt upo a the construction of the treaty ? He would ven Lure to affirm that the meaning of the treaty ent ,ered into between the two powers was clear an. I definite, and that there could be no do übt whatever, or any objection at which human In ge nuilty could by possibility cavil, or any pretext uPov which human rapacity could justify itself in wre sting. from a sovereign his territories. The East India C tre, oany had made themselves judges in their w— o 4 case , tod their was no help for their opponents 1,471,282 successors might otherwise have had. Mr. Lewis as a lawyer could not deny that fact. The case lay in a nut-shell, and it would be bad taste to say anything further upon the subject. The CHAIRMAN said that it was his intention to day to address a few words to the Court. In the first instance, he must take notice of an observation which had fallen from Mr. Sullivan, to the effect that he understood that positive information had been re ceived from the Governor-General ; he (the Chair man) begged leave to tell that gentleman that they were not in possession of that positive information. The Governor-General had acted perfectly fair and proper in giving his advice as he had done. There was also an observation made by Mr. Hume, who, he was sorry to say, had left the house, that there had been no authority appealed to. Now it so happened that there was an authority much superior to that Court or the Court of Directors, which had been appealed to, and that was the House of Commons. He (the Chairman) thought that it was rather hard that the Court of Proprietors should be repeatedly summoned to special courts upon points so repeatedly decided by the Court.—(Cries of "No, no.") Mr. LEWIS denied that the point had ever been decided by that Court. It was altogether a new point. The CHAIRMAN said that the point contained the whole question, as he thought the ex-Raja was a traitor to this country. Say what they would, nothing could be plainer than the fifth article of the treaty which had been quoted by Mr. Sullivan. He (the Chairman) would not enter into the subject fur ther than to say that in his opinion that article com pletely disproved what the 11 , :m. Gentleman had assumed. He (the Chairman) should certainly not detain the Court, but pursue the same course which he followed upon the last occasion, namely, to move an adjournment. After the discussions which had taken place—after having an adjourned debate in the House of Commons upon the guilt or innocence of the Raja, upon which everything hung, it was not right to bring the question again before that Court. If the Raja was innocent, the Hon. Gentleman would be correct in his argument ; if guilty, the Court could not think of taking the adopted son of a man who had forfeited all claim to consideration. Would they for a moment think of adopting such a person.? For himself, he should say not. What he said, therefore, was, that as there was an authority at this moment existing upon the subject, by the terms of that authority they were bound to abide. Whatever might.be the decision of Parliament, by that they were content to abide. He, therefore, moved that the Court do adjourn. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, in seconding the motion, said that he did so upon the same grounds as those of the Honourable and Gallant Chairman. He be lieved that the question had been got up—he would not say improperly but for the purpose of reopening the whole question.—(Loud cries of "No, no.") His Hon. Friend had positively stated to the Court, from an article in the treaty, a condition which, in his opinion, entirely put the ex- Raja of Sattara out of that court ; that condition was, that he was " to act in subordinate co-operation to the British Government, and be guided in all matters by the terms of the British agent at his Highness's Court." He would'ask Honourable Pro prietors, whether that had been the tenor of the conduct of the ex-Raja of Sattara ? By the fifth article he engaged to forbear from all intercourse with foreign powers, and with sirdars, jagheerdars, chiefs, and ministers, and all persons of whatever de scription, who were not by the above article rendered subject to his Highness's authority; and with all of whom his said Highness, for himself and his suc cessors, engaged to have no connexion or correspond ence whatever. Mr. Sum,' vex requested the Deputy-Chairman to read on. The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN maintained that the Baja of Sattara had himself, under his own hand and seal, confessed that he had broken that article, and he would read to the Court his own confession upon that w f he the went Government tohim, positively oflndia t. m h subject. He wa s accuse d o f h av i ng commun i cat i on with the Gov e r nment o f G oa, an d var i ous i n di v id ua l s, for the pu r p ose o f send i ng them to Englan d , i n sp i te o General that a Lodwick, t b ysuch old h conduct he was guilty of an infringement of the treaty. Mr. MARRIOTT begged to suggest to the Gallant Deputy-Chairman that advantage might be taken of his going into the question to keep the Court there till twelve o'clock at night.—(Cries of " Oh.") Mr. Lawn contended that the Honourable Deputy Chairman ought to be allowed to open the question if he pleased. Mr. FIELDER said the object of the party was to keep up agitation. The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN contended that the ques tion had been opened by Mr. Sullivan, and therefore he presumed he was right in making a few observa tions upon it. In the Sattara papers of 1840, at p. 5, there was a letter from Colonel Ovens, in which he stated that there was a deputation about to proceed to England on the part of his Highness, and the Raja admitted that that deputation was proceeding to England by his order. He (the Deputy-Chairman) would ask whether that was or was not holding com munication and intercourse with people not under his authority ? It might be said that that was Colonel Ovans's own statement; but he (the Deputy-Chair man) had then before him the letter of the late Raja. The Raja had bound himself to comply with every instruction of the British Government, and yet he told them that in conse quence of certain documents being differently con strued to what he thought right, he purposed to lay his claims before the Government at Calcutta, and the Hon. Court of Directors, with all the circum stances connected therewith, and in the event of its not being finally settled by them, to bring the same to the notice of Parliament and her Majesty in Europe. For those articles which could be settled it was well, but those which could; not: be so settled were to be subject to such reference. He in his own statement told them that he was employing men to go to England for the very purpose of counteracting the views of the Government upon the questions which existed between them. He (the Deputy-Chairman) should be glad to know whether that was or was not an in• fringement of the treaty ? Syed Meer, a Mahometan, residing at Bombay, was the person selected for that duty. The Raja chose a man with whom he was pro hibited from having intercourse to go as his advocate to England; and the Baja told them that that man had been made acquainted with all the papers con nected with his interests and disputed rights. That man was desired not to leave the country until he had received further orders from the Raja. At the interview which the Raja had with the resident, Colonel Lodwick, he was asked why that had not been made known to him, and what ob jection there was to consult with him (the resident) upon the subject. The reply given by the Raja was, that the resident had personally explained all the r circumstances in his presence to the Governor, Shit, Robert Grant, and there was no objection to to him acquainted with the plan which was . Now pursued in order to avoid all misconceptn that he (the Deputy-Chairman) would ask whetherthe Raja's own was not a plain demonstration, under te entirely handwriting, that he had set . aside_ h bound him the article of the treaty which not to have intercourse with individuals, ex cept those who were under his own control ? After that he (the Deputy-Chairman) held that the fact was not a matter of opinion, but of de monstration. If that was the case, why should it have been stated over and over again that the Raja CHARGE. Permanent Debt Terminable Annuities ................ . ... ••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ....... '•• • " " Interest on Exchequer-bills issued to meet the charge on the Consolidated Fund • • . Sinking Fund .. . . . • ...... ........................ ......... ... ....... Other Charges on the Cons . ... olidated iund •••• • • • • ... • • . . .. . . . . For Advances, including 1 .724,3111., in July, 1647, Quarter, to Ireland, per Act, 9 and 10 tile., c. 107 .. • ......... Total Charge . . The Surplus • • .... •• . . The Amount of Exchequer Elbe issued to meet the Charge on the Cons 5, 1848, and paid out of the growing produce of that fund for the Qua: The Amount issued in the Quarter ended sth July, 1848, in part of Consolidated Fund, for Supply Services • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • . The Surplus of the Consolidated Fund, Quarter ended sth July, 1848 . The probable Amount of Exchequer-bills required to meet the Charge sth July, 1848. solldated Fund for the Quarter ended April Lrter ended July 5, 1848.. ...... ......... the Sums granted by Parliament out of the on the Consolidated Fund Quarter ended but to submit to their decision. No doubt the in terests of the company were involved in the case, but he (Mr. Lewis) cared not for that ; he should still venture to submit it to their decision if they would come to the question with unbiassed and im partial minds. The first p ro p os iti on i n the treaty was an assertion that it was a treaty of perpetual friend ship and alliance between the British Government and the Raja, his heirs and successors. The next proposition affirmed that it was the intention of the British Government to invest the Raja with sovereign power and dignity. The third article affirmed that the Raja, bis heirs and successors, should have the perpetual sovereignty of the various jagheerdars which were in the schedule annexed to the treaty. Every subsequent clause of the treaty entered into by the Government was with the Raja, his heirs and successors. Was it possible, therefore, for any person to have made use of more re dundant expressions than were employed in that treaty ? It would have been quite sufficient to have used the word " heirs " to have given all the rights which were claimed for his son; but not only was the word " heirs " used, but his " successors," clearly showing the interest in tended to be :given by the British Government, and that the Raja was to have as great advantage from the treaty as could possibly be conferred upon him by the one party or accepted by the other. What did the word heirs mean ? Surely it h a d th e same meaning in that treaty as if applied to an estate in this country. Supposing a person had an estate in fee simple, he would be very . much surprised if he were to be told that if he left no son, his brother would not succeed, or that if he had no brother, his nephew would not succeed, or that if he had no nephew, his nearest collateral heir would not succeed. If the British Government intended merely heirs in lineal descent, why had they not expressed it in the treaty, according to every rule which applied to the construction of treaties ? He (Mr. Lewis) would read an extract from Mr. Vattel's work on the " Law of Nations," showing the rule which regulated the construction of treaties :—" Those cavillers who dispute the sense of a clear and determinate article are accustomed to seek their frivolous subterfuges in the pretended intentions and views which they attri bute to its author. It would be very often dangerous to enter with them into the discussion of those sup posed views that are not pointed out in the piece itself. The following rule is better calculated to foil such cavillers, and will at once cut short all chicanery. If he who could and ought to have ex plained himself clearly and fully has not done it, it is the worse for him ; he cannot be allowed to intro duce subsequent restrictions which he has not ex pressed. This is a maxim of the Roman law. The equity of this rule is glaringly obvious, and its neces sity is not less evident. Th ere w ill b e no secur i ty in conventions, no stability in grants or concessions, if . they may be rend ere d nuga t or y b y su b sequent limitations, which ought to have been originally specified in the deed, if they were in the contempla tion of contracting parties." Those words ought to receive the fairest, most liberal, and largest pos sible construction which could be placed upon them— such a construction as was placed upon the words of a similar instrument some years ago in the English courts of law, where a question arose relating to the construc tion of a treaty. That was the case of "Barrett v. Williams," in which, upon one view of the case, the monopoly of the East India Company would be broken. In that case the Chief Justice Eyre stated that the privileges conferred by a treaty were to be hold in good faith, and not to be put aside by the artifices of more re fi ne d po li t i c i ans . Adopting the same rule in the construction of the present treaty, it was quite clear th a t th ere was no limitation or re striction whatever. Th e treaty wa s to him and his heirs ; the subject -matter of the treaty was property lying in the Deccan ; that property, so far as the Raja was c oncerned, was sub ject to the Hindoo law, the Raja as a contracting party was himself a Hindoo, and knew no law but that which conferred upon hi m the right of adoption,. the most valuable p r i v il ege i n the Hindoo code of laws. But there were, moreover, specific words used which precluded all d ou b t upon th e question of adop tion. The word " successor" was introduced as well as " child " evidently contemplating the probability of some person succeeding who should not he the lineal descendant of th e R a j a . If the translation of the treaty w as l oo k e d a t in the Persian and in the Mahratta, it would be found that specific words were use d, denoting the t wo classes of persons—the lineal heirs being expressed by one word, and heirs by adoption being expressed by another, so that there really could be no pos s ibl e question upon the su bj ec t. Having said so much upon the construction of the treaty, he (Mr. Lewi s ) would then submit a f ew observations to prove to the Court that it ought to place the child adopted by Pertaub Sheen on the th rone. He would not for a moment suppose it possible that they would refuse to be bound by the treaty ; there was something so atrocious in the idea. They could not proceed upon the ground which had been alleged, that the blood of l'ertaub Shean was tainted. The boy to whom he alluded claimed both as the son of Pertaub Sheen and the heir of Appa Sahib. The pedigree of the Sattara family had been given by Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, in the second volume of the Blue Books, where it stated that Sahoo, the grandfather of Per taub Shean, died in the year 1777 ; that he adopted in his lifetime a relative of the name of Sahoo. The father of Pertaub Sheen, and the fath er of Balla Sahib, Senaputtee, was the next in succession ; so that the child of Balla Sahib who had been adopted was the nearest blood relation both of Appa _S a hib an d Per taub Shean. But the boy said to have been adopted by Appa Sahib on his death has stood in a very dif ferent position, being an extremely remote relative from generations back, an d the act of adoption having also been wrongly performed, AppaSahib was i n ar ti cu l o therefore, was entitled to he bel onge d to the Is a nu t toc re n t ei se a time tTo ht eh we boyhme n u ss thenhua dhbecause, elder family; and, sec on dly, b ec ause of w h itchhe was so made w as a com pl e te adoption, which the other wa s not, the father of the boy said to have been adopted by Appa Sahib having been absent at the time, which re n d ere d th e w hol e act nugatory. He (Mr. Lewis) did no t a t a ll call upon the Court to stultify itself by affirming, con- the adoption con trary to its former decision, the i nnocence o f P ertau b Sheen, in so recognising his adopted son ; but by so re cognising him they would meet the ends of justice and gain the important collateral a d vantage o f putt i ng an end to the agitation upon the question. For those reasons he begged to support th e mot i on o f t h e H on . Proprietor, Mr. Sullivan. Mr. FIELDER said that the Court had had a great deal of eloquence from the friends of the Raja of Sat tara, but never had they made so weak a case. The first question was whether Pertaub Sheen had a right to adopt, without the consent of the British Government; the next point was, whether, if he really had such right, he had not forfeited it by his conduct. He (Mr. Fielder) had listened with great at tention to Mr. Sullivan's narration of what had passed between Mr. Elphinstone, Colonel Munro, and L o rd Hastings, who only admitted what everybody else admitted, that at the time of the formation of th a t treaty there was a bona fide intention to perform its covenants. It was not the fact, as had been alleged, that the treaty had been entered into upon a footing of perfect equality. There were certain conditions, and by those conditions the Raja did not bind himself merely, but also his heirs and successors ; and . any misconduct of his vitiated any claim which his hew And g r . _ • - * \ C" 1 • Jl~i I"VdS 1 .I R/~~;