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

, . EVR‘NING . THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY JULY 18 , 18 , _ 1 6, • • '----- , had reHei iidn n eao. c o tdnoe t .rs 1 s I;i h g a :edni d i eet ......... pAmimp...... , the EAST INDIA HOUSE. made to invalidate the adoption of the Raja, by reference to the case of the Guignor and other THE REVENUE FOR THE YEAR AND QUARTER ENDING JULY 5 1848. i any man have 1 the A srecial general Court of this company was held sovereign princes of India with their jagheerdari, P ness, jury, ac yesterday, at the East India House, for the purpose had no bearing whatever upon the due;- ..._____..........- No. 1.-An Abstract of the Net Produce of the Revenue of Great Britain in the Years and Quarters ended Lth of July, 1847, and sth of July, IS4B, showing the consequently of considering the following motion, the bringing : 1 thetion. It had been attempted to be saidtion. Under forward of which had been given notice of by Mr. Sul- Increas or Decrease on each head thereof. that because the Rdja agveed to the curtailment of hismight have liven :-" That the Honourable the East India Com sovereign power as a prince, under certain circum pany having by a treaty concluded with Pertaub 1 , stances, that, therefore, he forfeited his right to be r QUARTERS ENDED A YEAR 1 i l ended ' , @traumas ENDL•'D YEAR II ended Year ended July 5. Quarter ended July 5. heir s and su , failed • and, t Shean, the Raja of Sattara, on the 25th September, , Oct. to, I Jan. 5, April 5, July 5, July 5, , Oct. 10, Jan. 5, April 6, July 5, July 5, , ,------,:---, r ______,_ lace, treated as a sovereign prince. With great truth bad 1846 1847 1847 1847 1847 1847 1848 1848 1848 1848 , Increase• Decrease. Increase. I Decrease. were then ask the 1819, ceded the territory of Sattara, in perpetual so • the Hon. ex-Chairman stated, in his minute, "that, ad• icing vereignty to him, his heirs and successors the East miffing the Raja was guilty of an ibfractim of tlx. £ £ £ £ x £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ right he fern - India Company cannot alienate the territory of Sat- customs . . [lees,treaty, it did nut follow that it was Such as to cause Lxcise•---...... , • ~ , - ~ , , "-. '' , ' , , , -' ~ -., , ' ' • • • • •• • . 903,360 .... 71,287 ••• • •• 4,181,926 3,608,155 1,652,565 3,291,052 12,i 33,1)8 3,539,946 3,246,883 9,002,601 3,4 i 3,803 12,263,933 Excise •••••• • . • . .. •. .. 470,765 182,751 consequently 1 the tarn from the rightful heir (of the deceased Rc.ia his blood to be attaintcd. If the Raja should hays Stamps. .............. 1,774,364 1,740,687 1,817,282 1,869,464 7,201,707 1,707,945 1,564,855 1,618,668 1,557,640 6,449,108 ' Stamps .••• • • • ... •••• • 752,689 .... 311,824 geared to hi aold, no legitimate issue it ~~•aS competent to him to ado p, Taxes -•••••• • • " • • • • 200,940 1,909,899 130,892 2,075,001 4,35,732 213,58‘ , 5 1,914,783 143,902 2,034,133 4,306,703 ; Taxes ... •• • ..... .. .. • • 19,029 ... 40,868 Pertaub Shears) without a flagrant breach of that 1 roperty Tax .......... 1,972,128 450,219 2,033,072 1,036,517 5,491,936 1,918,645 462,567 2,041,640 988,401 5,411,233 Property Tax - .... monstrous pe the treaty and of public faith. and ; his heir might be perfectly innocent, and b :.... 80,653 .... 48,116 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 .... 79,000 CUmstances 1,11 caost The Court met at 12 o'clock, and the routine bu justly entitled to the inheritance under the treat ~ Crown Lands •- .. •• .-.• ~ . 45,000 30,000 37,000 Miscellaneous ........ 177,910 29,657 92,593 112,000 40,000 21,000 10,000 • 71,000 ' Crown Lands .... 41,000 10,000 He (the Del siness having been disposed of, But, it might also be said, that the Raja was a cre y a . - 7,461 307,621 73,126 11,746 56,307 89,022 230,201 - .Miscellaneous.•- • • 77,420 81,561 •• • • •• •• fully justified lock, THE RAJA OF SATTARA. ture of the bounty of the English Government, which, Total Ordinary Revenue 13,889,103 12,486,3'28 10,430,377 13,013,614 49,819,432 12,612,191; 11,560,696 10,497,764 12,736,831 47,407,486 hose Total •••••• • • .... 1 2,411,946 274,312 551,095 Friend the Ch 227,644 455,021 :•• 455,021 1 China Money •••_ • • 227,377 .... ce in Mr. SULLIVAN rose to bring forward his motion, and as it had raised him from a prison to a Chins Money.... ..... 227,644 imprest Moneys, &c. • • 33,815 31,884 53,859 88,632 208,190 •• • • 43,537 ; 30,614 24,452 88,805 187,408 ! ImprestMoneys,&c. .. .. 20,782 173 •• „ • Mr. GEORG, Ties' in moving the resolution of which he had given notice, throne, was at liberty to put him down whenever it pleased • that he held his dominions during his own Repayments otAdvances 199,882 302,449 164,568 137,944 804,843 .... 187,486 74,048 74,138 86,813 422,485 ' RepaymtsofAdvncs. .. - 382,358 .. • • 51,131 fallen from thi wcre he stated that he trusted the friends of the Rja's caus Total Income .. 14,350,444 12,820,671 10,648,804 13,240,180 (51,060,109 12,843,214 11,665,358 11,051,379 12,912,449 48,472,400 ! hick would be able to adduce sufficient reasons tor again good behaviour, or during the good pleasure of the y Amount applied to Con- Total ...... .. 227,377 2,815,086 274,485 602,226 Deduct / „, „, Deduct 1 ,, 74,488 tt p pwhrrreheoufdt Government. That was an error, as had alread - , loin-: Increase j '''-' '-' ' Increase " The obtruding the Sattara question upon the notice of been shown by a citation from Mr. Prince ' 5 History solidated nine.- - 7 617 435 8 615 898 3,207,608 9,912,813 29,353,754 ; 8,236,066 7 010 559 5 956 9 32 6,818,019 28,020 876 I Court. When upon a recent occasion he inquired of Lord Hastings' Administration, in which the Raja Ditto, as Advances .•... ' 472:500 ' 837,500 2940,000 1,724,311 5,974,311 388,084 ' 340,830 ' 149,659 231,111 1,11.9,t;84 . the Ad- whether instructions had been sent to India relative was avowedly alluded to as an independent sovereign 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 5,863,319 20,825,383 Decrease Decrease on 2,587,70 on the 327,741 to the disposal of the Sattara territory, the answer in the treaty which regulated the political affairs of - - the Year. Quarter. ivate was that no such instruction had been sent, but that ______.:-.5. lisc,srmittinn on the sniiipet ~ . 5 -.-Total... • • 14,350,444 12,820,671 11,608,604 18,750,822 57,530,741 ;13,760,382 j 12,241,133 111,051,379 ;12,912,449 49,965,343 Friend Mr. Li - -- - ivate nour d at ruce, 'lmes 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 forward of which had been given notice of by Mr. Sul livan :—" That the Honourable the East India Com pany having by a treaty concluded with Pertaub Shean, the neja of Sattara, on the 25th September, 1819, ceded the territory of Sattara, in perpetual so • vereignty to him, his heirs and successors,.the L,ast India Company cannot alienate the territory of Sat tara from the rightful heir (of the deceased Reja Pertaub Shean) without a flagrant breach of that treaty and of public faith. The Court met at 12 o'clock, and the routine bu siness 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 Raja s cause would be able to adduce sufficient reasons tor again obtruding the Sattara question upon the notice of the Court. When upon a recent occasion he inquir• ed 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 infor mation o n the sub j ▪ ect from the Supreme Government. Unwilling to act with precipitation, or in anticipation that the Supreme Government would deal wi▪ th the ques tion in any other way than what was just, they thought it advisable that the subject should dro - p' 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 Satta ra ques tion—not a question relative to the guilt or i nnocence of the late Raja—not a question whether they should or should not redress injuries done to that man—but it was altogether a new questi▪ on 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 Raja Pertaub Shean ;" but not only to the Raja Pertaub Sheen, 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 Lim 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 th ose wor d s i nto t h e treaty with a full knowledge of the Raja's rights, what could those expr ess i ons mean b ut a so l emn p l e d ge from the Government themselves never to divert the territory of Sattara f rom t h e R a j a P ertau b Sh ean , his heirs and successors. Th e fi rst quest i on t h at pre sentedi 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 Satt ara territory, but a posit i ve stipulation in their ori g i na l treaty, mak i ng the suc cession of the adopted son - cont i ngent upon the r i ght of the British Government. That treaty contained no such stipulations. If; then, it was proved that this adoption had been ma d e i n str i ct con f orm i ty w i t h the Hindoo law, and with the usages of the .Raja's caste, the adopted'son would stand in the plenitude of his father's rights,. personal and political, and tren c h 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 th ose examp l es we re quite beside the present question. The Guignor, and the other Pr i nces, whose c ases h a d b een quo ted, then dealt with their own subjects and dependents, according to the esta blished l aw o f th e coun t ry , j us t e s the Raja of S attara dealt with hi s su bj ects an d d epen d en ts, allowing the succession of some adopted sons, denying the suc cession of other s , an d, upon a ll occas i on s, dictating the terms upon which that adoption was to be allowed. But the R a j a o f S a t tara was no t a " sub ject, ' lf the British G overnment, nor a d epen d en t upon it i n any sense of the word. He (Mr. Sullivan) would assert, upon irrefutable authority, that he was not even a dependant " prince" of the British Government, True it was that h e agreed to hold his dominions, not in subordinati on t o t h e B ritish Government, bUtin "subordinate co- o p erat i on " with the British Govern ment, and the mea n i ng o f t h ose terms w ex plained in the tr ea ty, w hi c h defined what as he clearly was and d was not allowed to do. But in agreeing to that restriction upon his p owers as a sovereign prince, he did not abandon fur a m oment one iota or his charac ter as a sovereign prince ; for, upon all occasions, and under all circumstances, h e reta i ned 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 treaty stated that it was concluded by virtue of powers delegated to agents of the respective Govern ments, showing , beyond dispute, that, in point of character, the Raja treated with the British Govern ment upon a footing of perfect equality, just as the the King of Saxony or th e Ki ng o f Wi rtemburg treated with Napoleon, up on a f oot i ng of perfect equality ; fur there was the same relative difference in the powers of these petty German Princes and the power of Napoleon, as there existed between the power of the Raja and that of the British Go vernment. By the first article of the treaty, the British Government ceded the territory of Sattara to the Raja in perpetual sovereignty. The first proclamation issued by Mr. Elphinstone, in February, 1819, stated " the Raja of Sattara, who is now a prisoner in Bajee Rao's hands, will be released and placed at the head of an independent sove reignty." Lord llastings, iu his letter to Mr. Elphin stone expressed as follows :—" 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 of the establishnfent of the Raja of Sattara in an independent sovereignty." There was, therefore, a distinct recognition, both by Mr. Elphinstone and Lord Hastings of the Raja as an independent sovereign. Upon all occasions, under all circumstances, and in all documents, the British Go vernment had treated with him in that character ; that, therefore, was the bond against the Govern ment, and that was the obligation they were bound to fulfil ; more than that the treaty required not, and less than that they could not refuse to concede without a gross imputation on their good faith. Were there any persons present who would again take up the note which had been formerly sounded, that the blood of the late Raja was tainted, that the alleged crime of the father vitiated the claims of the son ? If so, then he (Mr. Sullivan) demanded upon what authority that statement was made. Was that authority found in the t rea ty ? Th e fifth article of th a t treaty made it p ena l f or th e Raja to hold correspendence with foreign states, but it expressly limited the penalty to the Raja himself who had so offended. That article ran thus :—" The Raja for himself, and for his heirs and successors, en gages to forbear from all intercourse with foreign Powers, and with all sirdars, jagheerdars, chiefs, and ministers, and all persons, of whatever descrip- tion, who are not by the above articles rendered sub ject to his Highness's authority ; with all the above persons his Highness for himself, and for his heirs and successors, engages to have no connexion or correspondence with foreign Powers ; any affairs that may arise with them relating to hi s Highness are to be exclusively conducted by the British Government. If (for the purpose o f forming matrimonial connexions for his Highness's family, or for any similar purpose) his Highness has occasion to communicate with persons not rendered subject to his authority by this agreement, such communication is to be made entirely through the political agent. This article is a fundamental con dition of the present agreement, and any departure from it on the Raja's part shall subject him to the loss of all the advantages he may gain by the said agreement." The attempts, therefore, that were s at cala, made to invalidate the adoption of the Raja, by reference to the case of the Guignor and other sovereign princes of India with their jaglieerdana had no bearing whatever upon the queF hon. It hail been at tempted to be said that because the Raja agveed 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 bad the Hon. ex-Chairman stated, in his minute, "that, ad. miffing the Raja was guilty of an ibfractian of tit( treaty, it did not follow that it was such as to cause his blood to be attainted. If the Raja should havt no legitimate issue it was competent to him to adop', and ; his heir might be perfectly innocent, and he 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 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. Iu 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 Rao, 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, I 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 may." 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.) Mr. Hums, M.P., in seconding the resolution, 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 pendent authority to arbitrate. whm an If o there appealwere any independent authority to could b eßaja to maintain made, hewold his r be rights under e willing to leavethe r the treaty, and the India Company to main tain theirs ; then, indeed, there would be a sem (bmlanrc. Fume) eofj wasustice aware a N r v e ha t t h e a ve t r t m he ig l h o t d t i a a k i l o p a l r ac d e. oug l t to be that tribunal ; but they had been parties throughout the whole transaction, and had pa rtici pated in those acts, unjust as he alleged, which h ad 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 come 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 be (ilr. 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 part of Lord Hastings. to give to the Raja a government which should continue for ever. My friend may say that all treaties are to be lasting, but they know how very often they were interrupted and broken, but they were only to be interrupted by courses which were patent to the whole world, and which could bear explanation, and upon good and sufficient grounds to account for the changes. Had anything of that kind taken pace with reference to Sattara ? Certainly not. The Raja was removed, as he (Mr. Hume) ,and many others within the bar had contended, most unfairly, and without due consideration. He (Mr. Hume) would not hesitate for one moment to submit to any men within the bar, whether, if they had had all the in formation respecting the case before them at the time that they decided which they now had, whether any one of them would have concurred in so iniquitous a prooeeding so that which had taken place? The Saxe i the , was 3taia 13,760,382 Exclusive j 12,241,133 of Advance en t. een's 11,051,379 12,91 . 2,4491 and inclusive of Loan. No. ll.—lncome and Charge of the Consolidated Fund, in the Quarters ended the sth July, 1847, and the sth July, 1848. Quarters ended July 5. Quarters ended July 5. 5,744,711 609,120 2,957 691,298 98,243 520,941 1,864,311 9,531,581 9,933,717 18,765,298 tie :, the sses . it of ucted drille .sty's with t, the ]ead- ore a The and ure. !OMB, need, iying i the per- Ivita- Saxe Die assy; ~ and 'arian iniun 1 Mi- ci, le igny, ;e de aron New "53111 , 01 n or el C o- IA ot 'G. ;o n; II; ,t, ns al 3. a I a iof r., •d try, ald bra 1 by ,t 4 11 to 1 na 1 en till, 3 t eit► 5,768,885 580,628 1,461 98,467 415,585 231,111 7,096,140 6,827,735 5,863,619 5,827,735 12,923,575 1,425,398 35,884 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 ; consequeut ly he could have no fairer trial or cons ie• thin. 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 he 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. Ile (the Deputy-Chairman) therefore felt himself fully justified in seconding the motion of his Gallant Friend the Chairman. Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON, 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 falle n f rom cer t a i a Honourable 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 Pertaub Sheen upon the appoint; ment by that Prince of Syed Meer as his agent tc 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 breach of that treaty to send an agent to lay his 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 Rsja 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, Senaputteo. 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. The 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. Ile (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 assurad 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 inhabitant. of the state of Setters, save the very small who might still foster bad and feelings, and would also communicate 'ieke pleasuretis and satisfaction to a large number of persons in n felt country. Had the Hon. and Gallant Chairman at liberty to hold out the prospect of the final this country. of the question, in accordance with the wishes which had been expressed, it would have s) mind.h ave been an ' indescribable relief' to his (Mr. Th o mpson In the discharge of a solemn duty to the memory the House the late Raja, he had given n otice of a motion in House of Commons. Gladly, if it were possible with honour and good faith to dosolt,. sy ying ouldbeing lessha aban don that motion, for there was no ontee disposed than himse lf to turn public accuser, or to utter a word injurious totllescliilalrta: be torldists k that r the of e an other. But if they were still Raja was a guilty traitor, and therefore incompetont 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 aad the co entry the history of that Prince's dovvnfel, and to l a y bare the acts of those who had been the chief ins truments of the ruin of a mall 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 sugeesaton. As long ago as 11,r,. Last, they were awarp that the gadee of Sattxa 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 had resolved to do was to wait for the views and opinions of Mme Government of India. Ile (Mr. Thompson) ear pestly hoped and prayed that when those opinions INCOME. Customs Excise •• • • • • • •• • Stamps • • • • • . . . Taxes . Property Tax .. • • • • . Post-ottice • • Crown Lands Miscellaneous • .. . Imprest and other Moneys Produce of Sale of old :Naval Stores,&c Repayments of Advances .• • ..... • • • • To Cash, being the first Instal ment of Loan of 8,000,0001. .....• 4,519,119 3,305,526 1,869,464 2,075,001 1,036,517 215,000 7,40 88,632 137,944 13,254,666 5,510,632 18,765,298 4,447,832 3,485,529 1,557,640 2,034,133 1'88,401 136,000 10,000 9,227 88,805 79,795 86,813 12,923,875 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. flume) maintained that they would be acting unjustly if by deciding in their own case they appropriated that money to themselves. lie (Mr. flume) 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 Sheen 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 adoptjagheerdar could 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 jagheerdars. 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 spoken (Mr. Hume), and the Honourable Gentleman near (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 Oude, 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 Sheen arrived in that country he was one of those who thought that a period had arrived for terminating all agita tion upon the Setters question, by admitting the right of his son t o succee d: to the musnud on the death of Appa Sahib. He (Mr. Lewis) was emboldened to think so, because he 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 1647. 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 the late Raja Pertaub Shean had recognised; not because he had been adopted by Pertaub Shean, but 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 Sheen, but of Appa Sahib. It was under the impression that that course would have been adopted that he (Mr. Lewis), with others, waited upon the President of the Board of Control, by whom they were received _ with al from which meeting they left with the impression would be done in the case. But when l couy, and rtes that justice wou put a question to the present Chairman whether itny dispatch had been sent to India, or any communication d f the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Sullivan) at the next court had been made to the President of the Board f Control The CHAIRMAN denied that Mr. Sullivan's ques tion had any reference to the Board of Control. his memory LEWIS had a strong impression upon memory that it had ; they were, therefore, at is sue upon that point. At all events it was understood that nothing had been done or was intended to be doneeh obtain h information until adispatch r a hadm the been Governmentse nt out i f n India. , order to The CHAIRMAN assented to th e correctness of tbat statement. Mr. LEWIS—When they con s id e r e d the nature of the case, that it put an end t o a ll the misfortune had taken place—wh en th e y c onsideed the treaty, and with whom it h a d taken place, it was high ti me , i n hi s (Mr. of Lewis's) judgment, having regard to the honour of an integral part of the British empire, that the di rectors should come forward and 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) should 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 upon the construction of the treaty ? He would venture to affirm that the meaning of the treaty entered into between the two powers was clear and _ definite, and that there could be no doubt whatever, or any objection at which human in genuity could by possibility cavil, or any pretext upon which human rapacity could justify itself in wresting from a sovereign his territories. The East India Company had made themselves judges in their own case, and their was no help for their opponents CHARGE. Permanent Debt .. •• • ..... ....... ...... .......• ••• • • • ...... Terminable Annuities... • • Interest on Exchequer-bills issued to meet the charge on the Consolidated Fund ... .. .... .. .. Sinking Fund ........... . .. ...... .......................... .......... ...... ... . ..... . The Civil List .. . . . .. .... • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • Other Charges on the C onsolidated Fund •••• • • • . . ••• • • For Advances, Including 1,724 ,3111., in July, 1847, Quarter, to Ireland, per Act, 9 and 10 Vic., c. 107 .. • • • . • • • • .. Total Charge .. .. .. , ... The Surplus ~..... . . The Amount of Exchequer Bills issued to meet the Charge en the Consolidated Fund for the Quarter ended April 5, 1848, and p a id out of the growing produce of that fund for the Quarter ended July 5, The Amount issued i n the Quarter ended bth July, 1848, in part et the Sums granted by Parliament out of the Consolidated Fundupply The Surplus of the Consolidated Fund, Quarter ended sth July, 1848 • •• • The probable Amount of Exchequer -bills required to meet the Charge 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 proposition in 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, his 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 had the 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 vary 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 hail they not expressed it in the treaty, according to every rule which applied to the construction of treaties ? Ile (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. There will be no security in conventions, no stability in grants or concessions, if they may be rendered nugatory by subsequent limitations, which ought to have been originally specified in the deed, if they were in the contempla tion of the contracti ng part ies." 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 held in good faith, and not to be put aside by the artifices of more refined p o liticians. Adopting the same rule in th e construction of the present treaty, it was quite clear that there was no limitation or re striction whatever. The treaty was to him and his heirs; the subject -matter of the treaty was property lying in the Deccan ; that property, so far as the R a j a was co ncerned, w as sub ject to the 'E n d o() l aw, Baja as a contracting party was him se lf a Hindoo,n the Hindoo, and knew no law but that which conferred upon him the right of adoption, the most valuable privilege in the Hindoo code of laws. But there were, moreover, specific words used which precluded all doubt upon the question of adop tion. The word " successor was introduced as well as " child " evidently contemplating the probability of some person succeeding who should not be the lineal descendant of the Baja. If the translation of the treaty was looked at in the Persian and in the Mahratta, it would be found that specific words were used, denoting the two 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 possible question upon the subject. Having said so much upon the construction of the treaty, he (Mr. Lewis) would then submit a few observations to prove to the Court that it ought to place the child adopted by Pertaub Shean on the throne. 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 Pertaub Shean was tainted. The boy to whom h e a ll u d e d c l a imed both as t h e son of Pertaub Shea n an d th e h e ir o f Appa Sahib. Th e 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 Shean, and the father 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 Sahib and 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 ext remely remote relative from generations back, and the ac t o f adoption having also been wrongly performed, at a time when the Appa Sahib w as i n ar ti cu l o mortis. The boy Shahoo, therefore, was entitled to succeed to the musnud, because h e b e l o nged to the elder branch of the family; and, secondly, because the adoption which was so made was a complete adoption, which the other W as not, the father of the boy said to have been adopted by Appa Sahib having been o a u t r tH t hteoe (Mr. time stultify, itself by affirming, con traryact which rendered the whole Lewi s ) did not at all call upon decision, the inn oce n ce o f P er t au b Shean, in so recognising his ad opte d son ; b ut b y so re cognising him they would meet the end s of justic e an d gain the important collateral a d van t age o f p u tti ng nugatory.a'the to b s absent itsn Court former n endthe questio n . F or th ose the motion of th e Hon. Mr. FIELDErs said that th e C ourt had had a great Proprietor, a reasons begged Mr. agitation Sullivan.t o support upon 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 Shean 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) h a d li stene d w i t h great at tention to Mr. Sullivan's narration of what had passed between Mr. Elphinstone, Colonel Munro, and Lord Hastings, who only admitted what everybody else admitted, that at the time of the formation of that treaty there was a bona fide intention to perform its covenants. It was not the fact, as bad 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 heirs and 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 be 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 liqn. 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 re-opening 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 Setters out of that court ; that condition was, that be was " to act in subordinate co-operation to then British Government, and be guided in all . matter* 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. SULLIVAN requested the Deputy-Chairman to read on. The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN maintained that the Raja of Sattara had himself, under his own hand and seal, confessed that he had broken that article, and he would read to the C our t hi s own con f ess i on upon t h at subject. He was accuse d o f h av i ng commun i cat i on with the Government of Gos, and various individuals, for the purpose of sending them to England, in spite of the Government of India. General Lodwick, who went to him, positively told him that by such conduct he was guilty of an infringement of the treaty. Mr. MARRIOTT begged to suggest to the Gallant Deputy-Ch a i rman th at a d vantage m i g ht b e ta k en o f his going into the question to keep the Court there till twelve o'clock at night.—(Cries of " Oh.") Mr. LEWIS 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 wes 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 Raja 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, ne 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 tae circumstances in his presence to the Governor, Sir Robert Grant, and there was no objection to make him acquainted with the plan which N . vas to be phuer(stuheed Deputyin orderxthoniramvoaind) that v was not a plain demonstration, under the d Ra ja 's entirel handwriting, that he had set individuals, ex ceptnot to have intercourse with . the article of the treaty under his own control ? those who were Deputy -Cha i rman) held After that he (the . a w ll ou n id isc that the fact was not a matter of opinion , but o f de monstration.. If that was the case,. why should which.ssibeound him not have been stated over and over again that the Raja X 1,•11.1110%. came to ;hand they would be found to/acixiia l with what he and others conceived to be at oruk th4rstice and expediency of the case, and that there would be a 's::: no future necessity of taxing the patience and out- - , 7e raging the sensibilities of members of that Court. He (Mr. Thompson) would think that he was doing but sorry service to.the parties in India, in whose fate 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 ss hat 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 went 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 called to say whether he had taken suc h 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 hi 3 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 sepoys, whereas, Colonel Lodwiek, 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. I'flembers 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 th e 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 settleinent of the question, or any amicable adjustment of existing dif ferences, unless the boy Shahoo were placed upon the gadee. All political and moral considerations 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 Sattara 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 gra titude and liberality in a second degree of all parties in that state, by recognizing the adoption of the son of Pertaub Sheen. 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 sway 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 OLIPIIANT 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 bad 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 d the adoption of the boy Shahoo was a perfectly goo adoption; on the contrary he had appealed entirely to the feelings of the Court. Mr. SULLITAN, in the course of a long and able thatreply, subject, b t u ot then following effect upon the 10 th - h o e b s Governor-Generale rv e d that information had d formally ad ee . n r e f r_ u e s c e ei d v . e t d o f r o e r c h o i g a n ti i o a n e h t a n d e andeoeiplterdecseoivnedofupthoen laic Rajaarch: . A o l f , Gregor said to the " The agent here, Major commanded by his L M o i r n d is s t h e i r p ilibeshjowuvnetrnoßreG:" I e nera a l m to state things to the whole of the attendants, servants, r p e and lied pe th op e le pr o t f n y ci o p u a r l establishment. The mi nister attendants are present , the inferior persons are not present, but Then not any I have no objection to 3 o uwrilslp c ea a k u i s n e g the to m thtoemc.omTe. persons now ar ; you the Engh agent, and spea khQ e toare remain withlis her High ness fair to face ; n ow a l l i s lost therefore the pe op l e h ave become the Queen is act is the pleasur e o f t h e E nglish Go ,ha,eneracinritnlde e es n sst s7 t3h.ed' 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 not 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 Shahou Matiaraj, arid 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. What 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 G-overnmeut 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 Khimda Row, Dufterdar (the chief accountant or cluolooDor) said \