The Sun. — London, England, 1849-04-30 00:00:00

What did the Governor-General say ? Why simply • this— " The old and respectable families connected with the Durbar will lament the extinction of the dynasty of Serojee, and feel the loss of influence, and of employ ment, and the sudden cessation of the expenditure oc casioned by the presence of a native Court will affect the industrious classes in the city and its neighbourhood. These are among the immediate evils attendant upon all great changes, and however much to be regretted, can not be avoided. Ile was aomewhat astonished at the confidence, nay, be would venture to say the presumption be trayed in this language of a Governor-General, who Rae scarcely warm in his seat, and whose attention during the short time he had been in office had been limited to one object, namely the Punjaub. Was not this too bad to see a man pronouncing so confi dent an opinion upon the political system of India ? What was it but a proclamation to the people of India that the policy of the East India Company vas to annex territories, and to take advantage of every oppor tunity that might offer to extinguish every principality and annihilate the arist ocrac y of India ? Really he could not understand why such language should be allowed to be publishe d. Did the y think the Princes and aristocracy of India took no notice of all this ? If they did they were much mis taken, for it could not possibly have any other effect but to alienate their feelings from the British Power.—(Hear, hear.) The Princes and chiefs of India were but men—they felt like men, and did they suppose if they tickled them they would not laugh, or if they injured them they would not revenge the injuries ? Nor could they hear their death-knell sounded without feelings of the most rigorous hostility towards their oppressors.—(Hear, hear.) And what were their motives for entering upon this course of spoliation ? The reasons as signed were the military advantages held out by Messrs. Reid and Willoughby, the military agents of Bombay, who declared that this policy would result in a great acquisition of their military strength ; but then, on the other band, they had th testimony of Sir J. Littler, who told them that this was all flummery. The political advantages held out by the policy advised by Sir George Clerk were of one character, and those of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Falkland of another ; but no doubt Lord Dalhousie and Lord Falkland had spent all their time in India studying the political system of that country, and they felt that the exis tence of suchonative states as Sattara was positively a source of weakness, while Sir George Clerk, who no doubt had passed all his time in St. James's-street, thought the existence of Sattara was a positive source of strength. —(Hear and laughter.) It was very proper that the Court of Directors should act upon the opinion of those most competent to give one, and therefore in matters military let them listen to the representa tions of Sir John Malcolm, and in matters political to the views of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Falkland. —(Lear, hear.) But these reasons were all pre tences, as the real motive avowed for this policy was the getting possession of the country of Sattara. They had already attained that object by extinguish ing the political existence of the Raja, but they bad not yet succeeded in extinguishing the Mahratta people, who still lived impatient to repress the inju ries they were suffering, and deeply attached to, and ready to take the pare of their native Princes. It would, therefore, cost theta ten or twelve years' re venue to put down an insurrection in Setters, and he would rather have them listen to the inspirations of Sir John Malcolm than" the preaching of either Lord Dalhousie or Lord Falkland. Let them remem ber that Sir John Malcolm had written this : " I cannot conceive it possible for any one to dispute the policy of taking advantage of every just opportunity which presents itself for consolidating the territories that already belong to us, by taking possession of states which may lapse in the midst of them; for thus getting rid of these petty intervening principalities, which may be made a means of annoyance, but which can never, I venture to think, be a source of strength." * * If they wanted money let them get it honestly; but if they were determined to have money, then let them follow the practice of the Mogul Emperors. But could the Satarra state afford to pay them, seeing that the greatest amount of misery and distress would arise from their annexation ? They could not pretend to say that they meant to give Sattara a better government, for its good government had been the perpetual theme of their laudation from its very commencement down to the time of its extinction. The question was what the people thought, and the people had answered that question in the most em• phatic and unmistakeable manner. They said they preferred to live under the most despotic of those Governments, rather than under our rule. They went from our territory, and very often in flocks ; but come into our territory they never did. If the Company was to have no increase of military strength, who was to benefit by that annexation? The Bombay civil service would gain a little additional patronage, and the Best India Company would get a few lass of rupees ; but, per contra, at the irreparable loss of their character, and in losing their -character let them re member they lost their strength. They could not disaffect the native populati )n without sooner or later prejudicing their disposition of that people. In that aggression on Sattara, for once under that happy system of government under which the responsibility was al ways between two stools, they had the opportunity of fixing the responsibility on the Court of Directors. That was their own peculiar bantum, their own act. They had been left to deal with the question in an evil hour, and they had damaged their reputation. In the face of a solemn treaty, without allowing those who had claims on that treaty to have a hearing, they had passed judgment, and absolutely rejected the very evidence which would have enabled them to pass a fair judgment, namely, on the evidence of the gentle man who made that treaty.—(Hear, hear) Did they think those things could be done with impunity? Ile would venture to tell them that was only the beginning of the matter. There were al ways two parties to transactions like those—the injured and those who inflicted the injury—and in the breasts of those who were injured revengeful feelings always rankled. Ile could show, if time permitted, that they had fla grantly broken their treaties with many of the native Princes. He was too much exhausted to go into the documents he had with him, to show the feelings they had against the Company when the Seikh inva sion took place. What was it that had led to the excited feelings of the peasantry of the Punjaub against the Company ? It was that the Company introduced into that country what he (Mr. Sullivan) said advisedly was the accursed system of questioning the rights of the people to their own lands, a mea sure by which they had swept three millions into their treasury, tied made three times three mil lions of people their bitterest enemies. He would tide them, in conclusion, why they, who could not touch a hair of the head or decree ' the property of the meanest of their own subjects but by a strictly legal process, had stripped Princes of their territories by their mere sic cold He would say heavy indeed was their responsibility on that ac count; for by every one of those instances of what he might call the reckless and wanton extinction of a native state, they were undermining their own power, and taking a wide stride towards the subversion of that mighty empire which had been entrusted to their charge.—(Applause.) The Hon. Proprietor concluded by moving the following resolution " That this Court is of opinion - that the treaty con cluded by the British Government, in 1819, with Per taub Singh, Raja of Sattara, and subsequently renewed with his brother and successor, the late Appa Sahib, con ferred upon and guaranteed to those Princes the heri ditary so►ereignty in the principality of Sattara; and this Court being farther of opinion that the heirs and successors to those Princes, whether by adoption or in right of blood, are entitled to the inheritance under the tenure and conditions of the said treaty, this Court consider it to be right and necessary to record its opinion that no case has been made out to justify the annexation of the said principality of Sattara to the British terri tory." General BRIGGS rose to second the motion. In doing so he feared he should be unable to add much to the luminous arguments adduced by his Hon. Friend in favour of the motion. He had, he thought, grappled with all the reasoning of his opponents in England ; and he (the Gallant General) felt he should not be wrong in follovving his example, and taking up those of the parties in India. Among those Mr. Willoughby, the member of Council in Bombay, stood most co ns pi cuous , an d from his long standing, his talents, and zeal, it could not be surprising that his i views were adopted eve n t by the Governor- General himself, He had little doubt that those indi viduals who had taken different views from those which he entertained on that subject had been influenced by the same motives which actuated himself, and by the intention of acting rightly ; but he did thik that a e vast deal of ignorance prevailed respecting the right of adoption and the right of appropriating the territory of the independent Princes India. h He should have been happy if the gentleman to om he had alluded (Mr. Willoughby) had confinedw his observations to the subject then before the Court, but he was sorry to observe by the minute of th e 14th May, 1848, that he had rather gone out of his w a y t o attac k an unfortunate individual now no more. Not only h a d he done this, but he had thought proper to attack the motives and intentions of those who had supported the cause of the late Raj!i. of Sattara, and among others he had mentioned him (General Briggs) indi vidually, with respect to which he was anxious to set himself right with ,the Court. It would h ave been better, he thought, if Mr. Willoughb y had on such a theme conflued himself to the st r i c t truth, and had observed the maxim De mortis's nil nisi bonum.—(Cheers.) Why he should have dragged forward this unfortunate individual he was utterly at a loss to understand. Surely enough had been said with respect to him. The Gallant Officer then proceeded t o c l ea r himself from the as persions cast upon him by Mr. Willoughby, an I to say that b e never pre di c ted that the Raja would ever engage in hostility ;with the British Government. It was said that he had sent for two of the native officers of one of the regiments, that he told them he was engaged in hostility with the British Government, on which they took their leave in the usual form of the country. Now was it not absurd to say that he had sent for these people to tell them this story, since he thereby made it certain that what he had stated to them would be disclosed in the space of twenty - four hours, and himself with his throne? The General was proceeding to deal other matters on the same subject, when A PROPRIETOR suggested that the Hon. Proprie tor should confine himself to the exact subject before the meeting, otherwise those who were disposed to support him would be compelled to leave. The Gallant Officer willingly yielded to the sense of the Court. He would not inflict upon them again the story of the former Raja, but he could not help adverTing to that part of the dispatch of Mr. Wil loughby which reflected on the dead.—(Cheers.) Now, with regard to adoption, he maintained it was a common practice and right of every Hindoo, and consistent with the law of India. In " Stracey's Elements of Hindoo Law" he found it written :—" In a transaction so important as one transferring a young person from the family in which be was born to a new one, and, with a view to succession, int er p os i ng by substitution a comparative stranger between the adopter and his existing heirs, the law stipulates for whatever is calculated to give publicity. H ence at tendance of relations, with notice to the local magis trate or ruling power is expected." Mark, Sir, this is not requisite even, but no permission is ever de manded. " The purohita, or priest of the family, who performs a correspondent office in marriage, is the medium through whom the boy to be adopted is solicited of those by whom he is to be given ; and in a rite that has for its object th e f u t ure peace o f t h e soul, it were strange if religious ceremonies were not enjoined." Mr. Frere, wh o i s one o f th e b est authori ties in India upon this subject, s tat e d di s ti nct l y t h at both these children, the one adopted by the ex-Raja, and the other adopted by the late Raja, stood in the same relation to th e ir a d o pt ers as t h e i r natura l heirs, and he bad not th e l eas t d ou bt i n hi s own mind at all upon that being the law of India. He should like to hear from those whose opinions were at variance with his own of any instance of adoption not being recognised by any other power in India but our own Government.—(Hear, hear.) They could, indeed, prevent the succession of a feudatory to a lapsed estate ; but he would show before he sat down that there was a great difference be tween a feudatory and a prince. He hid some ex perience in the matter, and could, with the per mission of the Court, explain the difference. Now the Raja of Sattara was quoad a lord paramoun over his dominions, and whenever a feudatory died the first process was for the lord paramount to send an agent to resume the estate. The next process was for the heir to come into the presence of the lord paramount, do homage and pay a relief, and then the estate was rendered back to him. In one instance two feudatory chiefs refused to do homage to the Raja of Sattara, who wrote to Mr. Elphinstone upon the subject ; and what did Mr. Elphinstone reply ? Why, he wrote to him thus : " With regard, however, to the terms proposed to be annexed to the adoption, it must be observed, that al though you and your heirs are to hold your jagheer on certain stipulated terms, yet that on a total failure of heirs it must revert to his Highness, and that if his Highness allows it to be continued in such case by adoption, or otherwise, his Highness is at liberty to attach what conditions he thinks expedient to the per mission. As to the terms, this Government has no rea son to think that the Raja's demand will be unreason able, and will recommend your case to his consideration. You, however, must recollect, that you voluntarily p. e ferred the Raja's sovereignty; the decision must, there fore, rest with his Highness, the British Government not being able to interfere unless there be a breach of engagement." " That the whole of the transactions have occasioned much regret to the Governor in Council that the Raja's ancestors have from the first been servants of the Raja o' Sattara, and that at the late settlement, when it was left to the choice of Futtra Singh Rija to become depen dent on the British Government, or to remain under the Raja of Sattara, he preferred the service in which his ancestors had acquired distinction. That it is therefore inconsistent with Mallejee's o ein good sense, and with the loyalty of his family, to enter into dispute with the Raja of Sattara; that he ought, on the contrary, to con ciliate his Highness' good will in all respects, and to con sider his prosperity as depending on the favour of his sovereign. That in the hie affair he appears by no weans to have remembered the respect due to the Roja of Setters, and that he had every reason to be satisfied with the forbearance shown towards him ; that the Go vernor in Council hopes that the Akulkotekur will hence forward pay more attention to'conciliating his Highness' regard, and that while he serves him with ficlvlity, he is sure of the Company's protection; but if he neglects the duty he owes his own prince, it will be impossible fur the British Government to interfere in his behalf." He had once seen a feudatory—a natural heir, not an adopted one—pay homage to the late Raja of Sattara. The feudatory came into court without a sword, unknighted. He was brought in between two other feudal chiefs, and after a formal introduction, he put his hands upon the feet of the Raja of Sattara, and it was not till then, and then only, that the Raja hung the feudal belt and sword round his neck. He was then reinstated, and a new grant was made out conferring on him his ter ritories. Such was the custom with regard to feudal chiefs in Julia, but that process was very different to what was exacted from the successors of independent Princes who died without lineal heirs or adopted successors. With all the eyes of the world upon him, the reigning Raja adopted his sue censor, who entered upon the rights enjoyed by his predecessor without any one having the power to extort feudal homage. They would therefore fall into a groat error if they dealt with a prince in the same way as they would deal with a feudatory. Another point to which his Hon. Friend had alluded was the adoption of the children by the two late Rajas, but they were not feudatories, since that was an inhe rent right which every native Prince enjoyed —(Hear.) Allusion had been made to the arbitrary practices of the Moguls, but even the Moguls themselves had some regard for the constitution and the laws, and never interfered in such cases.—(Llear, hear.) This, therefore, was one of the most important measures they had ever passed, namely, that of assuming the privileges of a lord paramount, and doing away with the treaties relating to the right of principalities. It was impossible, however, that he could adl strength to what had been so ably said by his Honourable Friend who preceded him. He had taken the lib-rty to point out the difference be tween a feudatory and a native prince, and with these few observations he would conclude his remarks by cordially seconding the motion which had been made by his Hon. Friead.—(Cheers ) The CiLtiamass said it now became his duty to address the Court. He should eo so as shortly as possible. He thought it would be better for him and that Court to adhere as closely as possible to the question actually before them.—(Hear, hear.) He observed throughout the Hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Sullivan's) speech that he laid the greatest possible stress on the question of right. Now that undoubtedly was a question before all questions, and more espe• cially it was the question upon which the family of Sattara had the only claim upon their notice, because if that right should not prove to have been sustained, then, upon the general question of policy, they had nothing whatever to do—(Hear, hear)—than any other of the individual families in Hindostan whose names had been mentioned. But they had heard a great deal about the antiquity of the family of Sattara. His Friend on the opposite side of the Court said it was among the most ancient dynasties of India. Now, instead of that, Sevajee was not born until nearly the middle of the seventeenth century. He did not exist until the year 1627, and that indi vidual, of whom they had heard so much, was not otherwise distinguished than as commanding a troop of irregular horse in Beejapore, a Mahomedan state. He retained that by force or by fraud, and that was the origin of the family of Sattara. Now, how did that family prosper ? Why, it lasted but three generations. After that it had been maintained for the last 100 years. Mr. LEWIN rose to order. There was a general impression in that part of the meeting where he sat that those observations were not relevant to the ques tion.—(" Hear, hear," and "Chair, chair.") The CHAIRMAN begged that he might not be interrupted. He continued they knew the Mahrattas as a people were not recognised in India until the commencement of the 18th century, or in the year 1701 ; and they were allowed to collect what was called the " chout" in certain districts of the Deccan. Now, it was perfectly true that the Mahratta state did prosper. But how did it prosper ? By the oppression of their neighbours entirely, to such an extent that he might safely say there was not a tribe in India which was not more popular than the Em perors of the Mahrattas. Now, they were told that this was a question of right, and that we granted an independent sovereignty to Pertaub Singh and to his heirs and successors in perpetuity. Now, he (the Chairman) denied that. The word " independent " was not to be found in the treaty, but the articles of the treaty were so completely opposed to the idea of independence, that he had never read a treaty with any power in India which contained so much of re striction as that which was en t ere d i nto i n 1819 b y Mr. Elphinstone with Pertaub Singh. Now, the idea of an independent sovereignty was this , that an independent do s ht o hs v ee e l r u et absolute pn treatyo w er ee He to w h a n t o w p o e r w e e the r . tHererhimself.wesapso t n o s ß i g b ue l e t : a territory " sufficient for the maintenance of his family in comfort and dignity, and he was to be in subordinate co-operation with, and to be guided in all matters by, the British Government."—(Elear, hear.) Iyho ever heard of an independent sovereign being guided by any other power ? It was of great I importance to consider the terms on which the treaty was granted ; it was the terms, and not the mere ex pression of the preamble, that were to be considered. He was to be " guided in all matters by the British Government." Well, besides that, he bound himself not to write, or to speak, or to have any intercourse whatever with his neighbours without the cognizance and sanction of the British Government, even on the most delicate subject, that concerning the marriage of any of his family ; and he was to hold no cor respondence with them except through the recognised Resident of the British Government. Now, after that it was impossible to imagine that it could ever have been the intention of the British Government, or of Mr. Elphinstone, to grant to the Raja of Sattara an independent sovereignty, as it was called by the gentleman on the opposite side of the bar. But it was said that it was an independent sovereignty, and that it was also in perpetuity. Now, he had already stated that it was not, in the terms of the treaty, an independent sovereignty, and he denied there was any power in India that was competent to grant an independent sovereignty, in the sense in which the Hon. Gentleman explained it, to any individual whatever. Ile (the Chairman) maintained that if their representatives in India were to grant an independent sovereignty to any individual, that act would be totally illegal, because it went to this extent, that they had the power of actually dismember ing the British empire, because what was the meaning of an independent sovereignty ? It was to confer absolute power on the sovereign, and so grant out to him every atom of right in that sovereignty ; it was, therefore, a dismembering the Government which they were bound to maintain. But the rights granted by the treaty were so excessively stringent that it was impossible for one moment to listen to them ; but it was important also to show what the understanding of 'Mr. Elphinstone was when this treaty was made. Now, it was considered a matter of importance, a: a former Court, that reference should be made to Mr.i Elphinstone, to ascertain what his views were when he granted the treaty ' • but as 30 years had elapsed he (the Chairman) thought it would be more satisfactory to the Court to know what his views were at that time, as expressed by himself; and he (the Chairman) would read to this Court what Mr. Elphinstone intended to grant to Pertaub Singh. " It was not only desirable," he said, " to gain the Raja's good will, but it was recognised both by the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief, and for their own security, to provide for the firm estab lishment of the supremacy of the British Government. Unless these points were secured the machine which we were setting up would be liable to be turned against us—(Hear, hear)—and the release of the Raja of Sattara would prolong the disturbances occa sioned by his rapacious treachery." Now those were the instructions Mr. Elphinstone communicated at that time to Captain Grant, Now, let them see how the Raja himself understood the terms on which he got the territory of Sattara. Captain Grant said, " the Raja was desirous that a political agent should at no time interfere in regulating the interior of his family ;" so clearly did he understand that he was to be guided in all matters and to be under the control of the British Government, and that he was afraid lest—what ? Why, lest that agent should interfere in the management of his family. He was anxious , that that should be a stipulation in his treaty, and so certain was he of the wretched position in which he stood that he was anxious to prevent the interference of any British Resident. Now, how did that square with the idea of an independent sovereign ? Captain Grant assured the Raja there was no occasion for stipulating that in the treaty ? Why ? Because there was no intention to exercise any such interference with his family. " Th en ," Captain Grant goes on to say, " the Raja asked what was the use of being a Raj I, unless he could act according to his oam inchnations ?"—(Laughter.) That was a very sensible question. The Raja then said to Cap tain Grant, "You are a great blockhead—(Laughter) —don't you see I may do whatever I like, provided I do what is right." Was that independence ? After that, it did seem to him very extraordinary that the idea of an independent sovereignty of the Sattara territory should be maintained in that Court. —(Hear, hear.) Now with respect to the question of the right of succession. By the treaty, it was agreed that the territory was to go to the "heirs and successors " in English, and in Mahratta to "farzand warisan are kaim mukanan," but the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) refused to acknowledge that the Eng lish was the original treaty. Now it was quite clear, in his opinion, that when the British Government were the grantors, the treaty or arrangement must, necessarily, be drawn out in the first instance in the English language. It had been decided by the Government in India, and by the authurities at home, that in cases of disputes upon words, used in treaties or other documents the original language in which they were written—the English— must be referred to. But, whether that be true or not, he maintained that the words in the Mahratta version were stronger, if anything, than those in the English language in favour of the view which he was putting. He would now go to the version of certain words in the treaty, as represented to them by Rungo Bapojee. The meaning of farzand warisan are kaim mukanan, it is said, is " sons, heirs, and successors" perpetually from generation to generation (musuluni bad musulum). Now what was the mean ling of from generation to generation ? .Neither of the Rojas hal any heirs, nor had they any generations. Now, that was of very great importance, for the Mahratta language said, that it n as not intended that the succession should go to any who were not gene rated by those in lividuals. The word farzand was translated into English by " heir," or " issue," and meant the issue of the body of the individual who got the treaty. He did not think that the word maris had a contrary meaning to farzand, but that it was introduced to show that it was intended to include heirs, not being lineal descendants. It was a word taken from the Mahometan language, and meant not merely heirs of the body, but all who were entitled to share in the property of a Mahometan who died intestate. It comprehended women and children, and also children by fosterage.— (Rear.) It could not, however, be interpreted in contradiction to the word farzand, which was the original word in the treaty. Then what was the meaning attached by them to the word " heir ?" It always in our language meant an heir of ' the body, and we never admitted any to suc ceed to property as a matter of course, except such as were the heirs of the body. Mr. Elphinstone, who was Governor of Bombay, had clearly shown that the word "heirs" in the treaty was meant to include heirs of the body. According to his view and interpretation, it comprehended the heirs of an individual, and not whet was called by his Hon. Friend, Mr. Lewis, heirs generally. Was it possible to conceive that the British Government, in administering Government in India, on perfect equality both to the Mahometan and to the Ilindoo, could give a grant to the Hindoo, which com prehended not merely his heirs, but, in fact, ,his assignees, and to the Mahome tan, who comprehended only the heirs of his own body ? To suppose anything of the kind was perfectly preposterous. The meaning which they were accustomed to of the word " heirs" included those who were entitled to succeed by the act of God ; thus, when a person holding property died, it was by the act of God that his heir came in and suc ceeded him ; but when an adopted son was the heir, he was not heir by the act of God, but the act of an individual. Then with respect to the meaning of the word " successors," Major-General Briggs had stated that kaim muham signified a person standing in the place of another. In the present instance it meant exactly what was mentioned in the book of Kings, where it was stated that David died and was gathered to his fathers, and Solomon, his son, reigned in his stead. But the writers laid much stress upon the point that the late Raja was satisfied that no adoption would be valid unless it was confirmed by the British Govern ment, and that he should have done this in time to receive the assent of that Government. But his de scendant was not named until he was at the point of death. He felt the full force of the position in which he was placed. He knew that his eldest brother bad adopted a son, and that the son so adopted would become a formidable competitor to his own son. What he said to Mr. Frere certainly bore out this view. Now, he put it to the Court of Directors whether an adoption made under such circumstances could in any way determine the sense of the treaty; but there was another Power which seemed lost sight of—that the late Raja had only a life interest in the treaty. Let his ambition be what it may, it could not affect the in terests of those who came after him. He put it to the Court whether, when they made a treaty with a Hindoo Prince by which they ceded him a territory, and for his heirs in perpetual sovereignty, anything could bar the rights of the collateral heirs but a posi tive stipulation ; but he found that the Court had already decided the question. They had done so in several cases, particularly in that of Ghoolab Singh l a i n m d ite o d f . ot l li f e t r he P y r w in a c n es ted w t h o os k e no succession t e r h p a r d e t a b t e i o e n n i p t u a t s u i p t on w t a h s e treaty o before f him th e late Raja when he they as must studying its Provisions before he signed it, and that he did tell Mr. Frere— "The British Government," he says, "in considera stitoonweodf oan e so fa v m er i e ly ig b n e ty in , g in a Maharaj Chuttraputtee, his descendants. heirs, maunAdlre wv ehriyc ancienth it presentatives (furzund-wu•waris wu seriouslyshollldal w i lls (Isudhearvdeut)noenjleogyittihmeaßteaj.m a l e am is n su o e w ; very t m rp s ) theretore desirable that a reply sbould speed i ly be re turned to the Yad transmitted to the British Go- • vernment." ; Here they saw him dwelling upon the obligations which he contracted with the British Government under that treaty, and upon the understanding that the territory was to be prepetuated in his heirs for ever. This was no new idea, for they found that he had made the same observation some twenty years before. It was true the adopted son was not the lineal descendant, but the Raja having no children he was the next heir. Then Sir James Carnac merely renewed, in 1839, the treaty of 1819, without any modification. It had the same meaning as the other, and if they wanted to know the nature of the treaty of 1819 they must have recourse to the foun tain head--they must have recourse to Mr. Elphin stone, who made the treaty, and to Mr. Grindoff, who interpreted the treaty to the other party. Motives of delicacy could not have prevented the Court from seeking information from Mr. Elphin stone, because he found from a letter, written by Mr. Shepherd, in 1838, that they wished to have re Course to that gentleman ; they could easily do so. but they dared not do so, because he would have confounded them by stating his reasons at that time If they had asked him what the meaning of the terms were that he used, he would have told you that the terms in the Sattara treaty were the same as those that were entered into with other foreign Princes; that when he ceded the territory to the Raja and hie heirs in perpetual sovereignty for ever, it might, the same as the other. No , w he got on tender ground. Let them take care that the sword they were going to use did not cut both ways—that it did not cut in twain the right by which we held possession of India. Upon what tenure did they hold the pro vinces of Bengal, and a number of other territories ? By agreement with the native Princes, to whom they were ceded in perpetual sovereignty The ex-Raja was a party to the interpretation which Mr. Elphinstone put upon the word " heirs." If he had understood the treaty differently it was his duty to have mentioned the fact; but the Raja acted upon the interpretation of Lord Elphinstone which was a clear proof that he attached that mean ing to the word at the time. Lord Elphinstone gave a tacit admission to that being the meaning, and that we had no right to withhold confirmation or adoption. By the power which they possessed in India they claimed to be considered lords paramount ; but in the case of the territory of Sattara they had a particular right to be so considered, since the power flowed from them—it flowed from the Government of India. This power was a question which had been set a t res t, be cause there were several instances on record of property being taken pos-ession of by the Crown, and after wards restored to the rela tives of the family to whom it had for merly belonged. An unfertunate Raja had com mitted suicide, and the disposition of his property was referred to the Government. Her Majesty's, Government, being the supreme power in India, de cided that the property shouid be restored to the family. There was another case in their recollec t tion. A Major Stewart died in India and left several natural children, and his property was ordered to be restored ; and there was then a case of the same kind before that Court. He conceived, therefore, it was in . the power of the Court to alter any decision that had I taken place upon any matter of this kind. With re spect to the right of adoption, he believed there was I no doubt whatever that according to the Hindoo law I the power of the Crown influenced the Government either to prevent or sanction adoption. They knew by the Hindoo law, that it was a condition in all cases of adoption that the choice should be confirmed by the King. It was well known that it had been the practice for Hindoo:ltsjas, in all ages to claim the right of exer cising that power. This was a strong; case therefore he thought there would be no doubt that the ruling power had a right to interfere in matters of adoption. Nothing, in his opinion, could be stronger than the opinion of the late Raja himself. He said " he had heard that his brother had adopted a son, but that this was entirely out of his power to do, as it was con trary to usage—it could not be done without the sanction of the British Government," and in his last words he declared that the individual so adopted cou'd not be his heir. A great lawyer had stated that whatever was the law originally, no doubt the Hindoo Rajas had claimed the right of adopting their succes sors ; and another Resident, Colonel Robinson, had stated that the right of adoption gave the right to succeed, unless it was confirmed by the Sovereign. There was nothing more certain, in his opinion, than that this was the case. Well then they must go back to the terms of that treaty which states that the individual who obtained this gift actually bound him self to be guided in all matters by the law of the British Government. Now it did appear monstrous to maintain that a man who should have thus bound himself in matters of a minor nature, hould yet be left to exercise unlimited the highest power of all, namely, the disposal of his territory in spite of the Government to whom he had thus bound himself. It was absurd to say that he was to be guided by the British Government in the most trifling matters, and yet do what he liked in the highest matter of all. Now, with respect to that, he did think that what he had stated satisfactorily set the question at rest. From the course the Raja had pursued they were bound to adopt the measures they had dune. When territories were ceded to a Prince upon the under standing that he was not to do certain things without the authority of a certain individual, anything he might do was not valid without that authority. Now that was precisely thi case With respect, therefore, to the right of the' late Raja to adopt a child, he conceived no question could remain to be answered about that, as the Raja had never obtained the permission of the British Government to adopt that step. The Raja was bound to withhold himself from the adoption until he had obtained such permission, and the ad o pti on , t h ere f ore, could only be considered in the light of a religious ceremony or observ ance , b ut b y no means as a means to give the child any t i t l e to the property or territories of the Raja. Now, that being the case, he thought the whole question before the Court had been argued by the H on . G ent l eman upon a principle not yet decided, of the expediency of accepting that adoption. He stated that if they did not do this they would break the treati es , an d g i ve rise to renewed hostilities in India. N ow h e enter tained a different opinion, beca use th ey had not broken the treaty, and if they looked at the whole circumstances of this case from b eg i nn i ng to end, they would find that instead of their doing anything likely to offend the people of India, they had done that by which they would have them entirely in their favour.—(Hear, hear.) What was the condition of the Raja when Sattara was ceded to him ? He was totally 'defenceless when possession of the territory was given to him by treaty, and his heirs, meaning the heirs-of his own body, and he held the territories until he became ungrateful and treacherous. After that it was given to his brother, not as his successor, as the Honourable Gentleman had represented, but as a substitute for the former Raja. In what respect could the brother be considered the successor ? He admitted himself that by his brother's conduct the territory had been forfeited to the British Govern ment, and by the correspondence of the day it would be seen that he acknowledged that in consequence ; of his brother's conduct that Sattara had been for feited. Having lapsed to the Government, it was transferred to him, and throughout . he admitt e d th a t it was given to the late Rap as a matter of conces sion ; and now it was only important upon what terms Sir James Carnac admitted him as a substitute.—(Hear.) It was necessary, indeed, for him to read an extract from the terms, because after all the terms would explain all Sir James Carnac said with respect to the brother succeeding : " It became necessary to determine in whose favour, and under what condition, the lapsed sovereignty should be conferred." After Sir James Carnac had substituted the brother, a proclamation was issued to the people, and the second and fifth articles stated that the terms acknowledged the supremacy: of the British Government. It was important that the terms of this compact should lee fully understood, and it was essential that the terms of both treaties should be borne in mind, because the treaty of 1819 was necessarily modified in 1819. It would be seen at once by the proclamation that the Raja claimed no state of independence, and his proclamations were of a very submissive and obedient character, and if Hon. proprietoes w ou ld t urn to what was sa id upon thi s subject by Mr. Elphinstone, they would see a further reason for denying this right of adoption. Mr. Elphinstone said, "In all human probability, in the course of a few year s , th e G overnment w ill h ave an opportunity of making so me arrange ment with re gard to the Raja's successor, as neither the Raja nor his brother, who is t o b e su b st i tute d i n hi s p l ace, h ave any children, and at th e i r a d vance d per i o d o f lif e it i s not very likely that they will hereafter have any heirs who can claim succession by hereditary right, and, therefore, the domi n i ons o f b ot h t h e R a j a an d hi s brother will lapse to the British Government. Un less, therefore, it is deemed expedient to allow this line of Princes, to continue the question of succession should be left to future decision." Those were the conditions upon which the late Reja accepted the ter ritories, and he was aware of them at the time he entered upon his sovereignty.—(Cries of "No, no.") Nothing remained for him now but to meet the reso lution which had been proposed by a direct negative. Sir J. LAW LUSUINGTON said that on the many occasions when he had attended those discussions he had always been of opinion that the Raja of Sattara bad been rightly and j us tly d epose d, f or it wasimpossible for the British Government to overlook such a gross violation of a treaty which had been entered into with it.—(llear hear.) It was impossible that they could transmit the Raja's title to a lineal heir, much less to an heir by adoption. —(Hear.) He would call the attention of the Court to the treaty itself. The first article ceded the terri tory in perpetual sovereignty to the Raja, his heirs and successors; and by the second article the Raja, for himself and his heirs and successors, engages to hold the territory i n su b or di na t e c o-operati on w i t h the British Government. By the third article, the Government charged itself with the de • fence of the territory, and engaged to pro tect him from all injury and aggression. The fourth article required the Raja at no time to increase or diminish the military force without the previous knowledge and consent of the British Go vernment. The fifth article required him not only •o forbear from 101 intercourse with foreign powers, and with all sirdars, j agheerdars, chiefs, and ministers, but to engage that he would have no connexion or correspondence with such powers, and with persons of that description, who were not subject to his authority. If, even for the purpose of forming a matrimonial alliance, he wished to communicate with persons not subject to his authority by the agree ment, he would be obliged to do so through the political agent. That article;was a fundamental condi. Lion of the agreement, and any departure from it on the Raja's part would subject him to the loss of all the advantages he might gain by the agreement. He (Sir J. L. Lushington) did not think it was pos• sib!e to show more completely how absolute a de rndence there was on the one side, and how supreme ,rel paramount a power the re was on the other.— ( Hear, hear.) Ile was rather rejoiced to find from .he 333 Geo. 111., c. 66, that they could not rescind, revoke, or suspend any resolution which had been passed at a Court respecting the civil and military -affairs of India after it had received the approbat'on of the Board of Control, to that the general body of the Proprietors had now nothing further to do (Hear, hear.) He could assure them that in every instance where the services of those employed by the late Raja or those belonging to him could be of cenefit to the community, the Government would not rail to bring them into requisition, but he thought that the inhabitants generally were much better off and far more contented, now that the territory had been placed under the munificent rule of the British Government.—(Hear, hear.) Major MOORE said he was of opinion that the true question to be considered was not whether they should annex the Sattara territory to their own, but whether they were justified in confiscating the rights of the Sattara sovereignty.—(llear.) That was the real question.—(Hear.) The first question could not be entered into until the legality of the latter had been established, for they had no right to assume a terri tory by force, though it might be beneficial to do so both to the territory itself and to the inhabitants. There could be no doubt that such a result would be advantageous to themselves, but 'unless they were prepared to commit a deliberate and egregious act of injustice on an enormous scale, it was absolutely necessary that the legality of the proceeding should be established by some public authority. The Governor-General should not be the referee in such a case, but he thought that the point should be submitted to the Judges of India or to the Judges of this country, for their opinion.—(Elear.) Let their opinion be taken; and if it were in favour of an annexation, they could then discuss the expediency of it.— (Hear, hear.) The first article of the treaty did not lead them to suppose that the annexation of the Raja's territory to us was ever contemplated. On the contrary, a perpetual sovereignty was ceded to the Raja, his heirs and successors, and he thought the very words used implied a consent to the usual llindoo system of adoption, in default of direct issue. There was no reservation whatever made. While upon that point he would take the liberty of reading an extract from a work which might now be considered obsolete, but which was, nevertheless, a good authority—he meant the "Laws of Nations," by Monsieur De Vattel, translated by Joseph Chitty : "It is a settled point (said the writer) in natural law, that he who has made a promise to any one has con ferred upon him a real right to require the thing pro mised, and, consequently, that the lireach of a promise is a violation of another person's right, and is evidently an act of injustice, as it would be to rob a man f his property. The tranquillity, the happiness, and the security of the human race wholly depend on justice, on the obligation of paying a regard to the rights of others."—(Cheers ) Then, with respect to the justice of putting an end to the succession of the Raja's territory, he would quote the following : " When a treaty expressly declares that it is made for the good of a kingdom, it thus furnishes an evident proot that the contracting powers did not mean that its duration should depend on that of their own Burs, but on that of the kingdom itself. Such a treaty is therefore a real one."—(llear.) There was _one other point with regard to the inter pretation put upon the treaty upon which he wished t') make a few observations. The name of Mr. El phinstone, a distinguished statesman, had been men tioned several times in the course of the discussion. lie had served under that eminent individual in a subordinate character, in his early career, and he felt a just pride in making any quotation which coincided with the opinions and views that they entertained. Talking of the interpretation to be put on treaties, the writer from whom he had already quoted said— " Let us now enter into the particular rules on which the interpretation ought to he formed in order to be just and fair. Since the sole object of the lawful interpre tation of a deed ought to be the discovery of the thocghts of the vuthor or authors of that deed, whenever we meet with `any obscurity in it we are to consider what pro bably here the ideas of those who drew up the deed, and to interpret it accordingly."—(Hear, hear.) He was aware of it at the time, and he knew that that was the condition.—(No, no.) He (the Chair man had shown that the Raja considered that he was dependent un the British Government. Now, alter that, where was the idea of independent sovereignty? Now, having thus disposed of the right of the family, he (the Chairman) maintained that the whole ques tian with respect to them was contained in that—that ww, that they had a right to it, or they had not a right to it. With respect to the expediency of granting to this family, for the third time, a territory comprehending about one hundred and fifty millions, he thought that was a question of expediency, which was open to doubt. He thought it was impossible for them, hav ing the whole weight of the government of India upon their shoulders, to give that territory to one individual, an individual unknown, and an individual of a family who never possessed the feel ings of the people of India—of a family to whom we granted everything, and who, in turn, became the most ungrateful of individuals that ever existed. With respect to the feelings of the people of India, he felt at that very moment perfectly com petent, that whatever may have been the docision of the Court of Directors, that there was not half a dozen of the states of India that cared one single farthing about the Raja of Sattara. —(Hear, hear.) He thought it was a matter for the consideration of the Government of India, and they had given their best consideration to it; but there was another consideration, and it was this—whatever they gave in that way to sine individual they must necessarily levy the same amount from the industrious people of India, who were rather over than under assessed. But he admitted, if it were tLe case of a family that was known to be popular in India, it would require a better consideration ; but he maintained that it was not such a family, and they had no right whatever to it, and it would not be justifiable to grant to an individual family like that so large a portion of the revenues of the country. lie had shown that this family had no right whatever, and that they could not, by the law and custom of India, claim possgssion of that territory by means of adoption ; that there were no heirs by adoption, and that with respect to collaterals, ~they had it on the authority of Mr. Elphinstone and the late Raja, that collaterals were not admitted, nor were they considered. And that was the universal practice ; there was hardly an instance in which collaterals, as by right, had succeeded to any princi• pality. They had refused the accession of collaterals to all the great states. There was one great case of collaterals which was disputed, but how was it dis puted ? A reference was made to the British Go vernment, and they withheld their sanction on the ground that the individual claiming was ousted by his competitor, showing that the natives of India attached the greatest possible weight to the confirmation of the British Government. There was a long list of states who had applied for admission to the British Government to adopt—Sindiah and Hollow was among them, but it was unnecessary to read them. Now, with respect to collaterals, his Friend on the opposite side of the bar claimed for those individuals, whom they had brought forward as adopted sons, the right of succes- Eion by the birth of collaterals. General BRIGGS—Not at all. The CLIAIRMIN denied that. The Hindoo law was this—when an adopted son was taken from a family by adoption, and placed in another, that he lost en tirely the blood that he inherited from his natural parents.—(Hear, hear.) He was a stranger to his own natural father.—(Hear, hear) He was adopted into the family, and consequentiy it was impossible for him to revert to his father's blood, for the pur pose of attaining collateral succession, which he never could do except through his father's blood.—(Hear, hear.) For instance, assume the case of two indivi duals ; one was descended from one parent, and another from another. Those two were collaterals, connected by blood. He was taken and adopted into this family, and the moment he was adopted into this family he became a stranger to his first family— he could not go back to the first family, he must remain in the family in which he was adopted. The British Government were the power that could annul the adoption of the ex-Raja's family ; and the adop tion having taken place, he could not come in as a collateral, because he could only come in by the blood of his own natural father. The British Government, therefore, left them entirely out of the questi on ; th ey di d not adm i t t h em t o 1?- herit as collaterals, because, having been adopted in spite of their admission, that adoption could not be done away with, and that excluded them from return ing to their father's family, without which they could never succeed. There ,could be no collaterals from the Erst person who got the grant c f Sattara, because ho had no child. There could be no right by succes• sion of collaterals from the late Raja, because he had no child ; therefore, in this question there were no collaterals, unless they were to go back to the head of the family. He (the Chairmen) knew two or three families which were excluded from succession by reason of their half' blood ; for instance, in the case of the family of Kolapoor, the children by different mothers were excluded by reason of their half blood. The family of Tanjore was excluded for the same reason. IVell, were the British Govern ment to advertise all over India to see who were the collateral heirs of the Raja ? But he (the Chair man) maintained that the collaterals of both Rajas were entirely excluded, except at the discretion of the ruling power. That they had stated plainly; therefore those two boys could not possibly be ad mitted, according to the law and practice of India, to succeed to the territory of Sattara, because, as he said before, the British Government had the power of refusing adoption ; they did not admit of this adoption, but that did not nullify the act of adop tion co their parr, because ,sith the religious part of the adoption it was impossible for the British Go• vernment to interfere, and they had distinctly declared they would not interfere with it. But an adopted son, according to law, could not succeed as a collateral ; he could only succeed by the blood of his father. The expediency of the matter was quite a different thing. lie admitted that Court had the power of questioning the decision that had been passed by the Court of Directors. They might express their dissent from that decision ; but when that decision, as in the present case, had been confirmed by the ulterior authority, it was impassible for that Court to interfere so as to reverse that decision. Therefore it was a matter for their consideration, whether or nut devolved on them the power of acting in this case as might seem to them right and proper to do. He was quite satisfied that Mr. Elphinstone never anticipated the resumption of the Raja's territory. If so he would have entered into that deed. It might be said that the territory was a free gift, and so in deed it was, for the Raja had a hereditary right, and a great deal more. Perpetual sovereignty having been guaranteed to him, we had no right to take his territory nor any other which we had ceded under similar circumstances. The precedent for setting aside adoption could not, in his judgment, in this case be maintained. Whether our policy was good or bad, they must abide by it, unless they wished to perpe tuate a name for wrong and injustice. Then that eligibility of the person adopted did not seem to be disputed. Deeds were matters to be dealt with by law, and were not to be disposed of in a mere hypo thesis; and because they possessed a paramount power was no reason why they should act unjustly at their will and pleasure. They ought to act with strict justice, and in the case of Sattara he w as p re p are d to con tend that they had not. No one could deny that the adoption was made ia the regular way ; but it was said it required to be confirmed. Surely they must advance a better argument than that it was made but two hours before the death of the Raja, and that it could not be confirmed. Confirmation was merely named because improper persons might not accede to the throne. The person adopted was not distasteful to the natives. Why, then, did they act thus ? They were told the matter was a mere p Ant of reserve and expediency ; but what he said was, let them first of all establish a clear legal right to what they had done, and in the meantime do not let them do evil, though good might come of it. _ _ Mr. BAINES said he seldorU addressed the Court, and he hoped on this occasion that the Proprietors would bear with him for a short while. He thought if the Court would re-consider the step it had taken, that it would do well, and to urge that was the reason he had risen to address it. He did not quite see what the observation of the Chairman, with respect to the want of antiquity in the h ouse o f Raja had to do with the question. He should, however, have thought that the Chairman would have been the last man to have spoken upon the point, since, in the dispatch of September 19, the antiquity of the house was urged upon the Government as one reason why it should be granted to -them. Therefore, he thought it would have be,n quite as well if the Chairman had not introduced any men tion of this into his speech. Then the Chairman said that the question now under diacuision before the Court was one in which the people of Sattara took very little interest.—(Cries of " No, no.") He was glad to hear it ; but it appeared in the testimony of Mr. Frere that it was a matter of great interest to the state. Then no man could doubt that the supplemental. treaty of 1829 confirmed, to all intents and purposes, except in the matters therein specially notified, the former treaty. — [A Director—" Hear, hear."] It first struck him that the one superseded the other; but no man con versant with legal matters could believe that the treaty of 1819 was made by the late Raja. The treaty said that the territory should descend to his heirs or successors. Now, admitting, for the sake of brevity, that they were right in their supposition that the word " heirs" im plied heirs of the body, yet he thought many of those present would riot cgree with Mr. Frere when he said that we had nothing to do with successors unless they were heirs. They must take the con tract in the obvious meaning of the words, and he maintained that they could not strike out the words "and successors" altogether—they could not strike out the additional terms in a contract, and say they were absolute. He would take these words, as he thought they ought, in fairness and common justice, and in their honest interpretation, as they would be understood in our own vulgar tongue. It was remarkable that these words "heirs and successors" were terms well known in the statute law of this land, and they were found frequently in our statute-book with reference to our Sovereign, or rather late Sovereigns. The King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, were frequently used in the statute book, and he prayed the attention of the Court to what Mr. Justice Blackstone said with respect to the interpretation of these words. He said, "The words heirs necessarily :implies inheri tance or hereditary right, but the word ' successors' must imply that there may be succes sion without being natural heirs;" and so in this case, the word succession imported something diffe rent altogether from the natural heirs of the Raja. He maintained, therefore, most confidently that the minds of the framers o f hese treaties, if they took the words as they found them, probably contemplated that before the reigning sovereign of Sattara died he would exercise the right which the law of the country gave him power to do, namely, in default of heirs, to adopt a child under the word " successor "—(dear, hear.) A great deal had been said, both by speakers and in the minutes of Mr. Mangles, that Sattara was an entirely dependent state; but it really did surprise him, indeed, when it was argued that a sovereign could not give up a part of his independence without abandoning the whole, because it was not only opposed to common sense, but contrary to all law. Puffendorff had written upon this subject, and he distincly laid it down, that a sovereign might sur render part of his independence and retain the other, and therefore he said it was perfectly clear, by the oldest authority, that a sovereign may be perfectly independent, though he may have given up some part of his rights.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the •language of this treaty, that it did not specify for the independence of the sovereign, his answer to that was, that where a treaty was so stringent as this, the ornis , sion was a proof that the right of sovereignty was not in the least modified or restricted.—(Hear, hear.) He never knew an instance where things were so stringent as they were here, and he insisted that that which was not specified was retained by the Raja. He was fortified in this view by the case of Holkar, for in the treaty of Holkar it was strictly specified that the succession was to go to the Raja's legitimate offspring, while in the case of Ghoolab Singh, it was clearly specified that the power of adoption should extend to successors, but not to his legitimate off spring ; but there was no such restriction in this treaty, and he did say, as a matter of common fair ness to the Raja of Sattrra, the power rested with him to exercise the right of adoption according to the law of his country.--(Cheers.) The late Raja had, therefore, very properly acted upon his right of adoption ; and let it be observed, that besides re maining silent upon the question of the right, there was no limitation whatever in the treaty to lineal heirs or to the exclusion of adopted heirs.—(Hear, hear.) It was a leading principle in the law of con tracts, as, of course, it ought to be here, that the do cument should be interpreted according to the law of the country where it was made.—(Hear, hear.) That it seemed to him ought to be their guide in this in stance. Reference had been made over and over again to the letters that had been written both to the late Raja and the ex-Raja, and these letters distinctly proved what interpretation they placed upon the treaty, if they had not their acts to help them to a conclusion on that point. Now what were the acts of the late Raja ? Why, as soon as he felt that his health was rapidly declining, he sent for Mr. Frere, and communicated to him his appre hensions that he should not be able to meet the Go vernor. General, as he had previously intended, and to convey to the Governor- General his wish to con tinue the succession in the usual manner by adop tion. Did it not therefore appear from this, then, that the impression on the Raja's mind was that he was acting bona fide according to the meaning of the treaty, and according to the law of his own country? The affecting ceremony of adoption was witnessed by Mr. Frere, and everything appeared to have been done in a fair and honourable manner, and the adop tion was completed by the Raja announcing that im portant event to his people, and by the arms and ar • tillery of Sattara firing a salute in commemoration of the event, thereby announcing to the people of Sat tara that a compact by the India Company's agent hld been entered into by the Raja, and the act of adoption was afterwards recognised and confirmed by the people of the capitol. They had no right, there fore, to set that aside without the most stringent reasons, and nothing but the deepest necessity and the strictest justice should induce them to set that deliberate and solemn act aside.—(llear, hear.) That brought him now to observe, further, that with resp,ct to the other case that had been al ►uded to, it seemed to him that it did not bear upon the question at all. They_vvere bound in fairness to show that the interpretation put upon this treaty was leg►l, lair, and just, or the character for good . faith of the East India Company would he irretrievably destroyed in the estimation of the native Princes and people of India.—(llear, hear.) The Sattara treasury was found to have a very large balance in it, and it certainly was unfortunate that the East India Company should have selected this time to set upon that state—at a time when it was notorious that their funds in India were certainly not in the most prosperous condition. It might, therefore, be useful and agreeable for the Company to have an op portunity of la) ing their hands on 150,000/., or whatever it might be, in the treasury of Sattara, but their doing so would by no means elevate them in the estimation of the people of India.—(llear, hear.) lie could have wished that the promises made by Mr. Frere, upon which the Raja founded the proclamation in which he said that all his people were sure to re ceive justice and kindness from the British Govern ment, had been fulfilled long ere the arrival of this day.—(Cheers.) But it was not tan late even now for them to fulfil the pledge which Mr. Frere gave to c 1( al out to the people of Sat tare that justice and kindness; and let not the people of India say to the East India Com pany what Octavius said to the Romans, that they had grown insolent with success, and they treated their allies after the same manner they did those they had conquered.—(Cheers.) Let the Directors re member that in the west they were not in the best possible condition, but still they had the power in their own hands, and if they' acted towards the other states with justice and fairness, they would ulti mately regain security in every part of India, and the attachment and loyalty of the people.—(Cheers.) Mr. WEEDON said the only question th•zt the Court had now to consider was the expediency of adopting the child whom the late Raja had elected for his suc cessor, and it was unnecessary to discuss any other matter. At the conclusion of this gentleman's speech, The CHAIRMAN proposed that at that late hour (nearly five o'clock) it would be advisable to adjourn the debate until Friday next, as the Directors had to send off important dispatches by the mail that night, respecting the vote of thanks passed by the Court to the army in India. The Court then adjourned. ANNEXATION OF THE SATTARA TERRITORY. TO TEIE PROPRIETORS OF EAST INDIA S'l OCK. BROTHER PROPRIETORS,—On the 25th instant the following motion was submitted to a Special General Court of Proprietors:— " That this Court is of opinion that the treaty con cluded by the British Government in 1819, with Per. taub Singh, the Raja of Sattara, and subsequently renewed with his brother and successor, the late Apps Sahib, conferred upor, and gusranteed to, those Princes, the hereditary sovereignty of the principality of Sattara, and this Court being further of opinion, that the heirs and successors to those Princes, whether by adoption or blood, are entitled to the inheritance under the terms and condition of the treaty, this Court considers it to be right and necessary to record its opinion, that no ease has been made out to justify the annexation of the said Sattara Principality to the British Territory." The motion was discussed for two days, in an unusually well attended Court. Of six teen members who took part in the debate, twelve strongly supported the motion. Of these supporters, five were your Directors. Instead of allowing the question to be decided by the voters present, who were instructed in its merits, upon the motion of one of your Directors, supported by some of his colleagues, it was resolved that it should be determined by ballot. The question hinges upon the meaning of certain terms used in a treaty. The authorities under whose auspices the treaty was made, the commissioners by whom the treaty was actually made, and who explained its terms and conditions to the other contracting party, before the treaty was signed, are now living within the limits of the United Kingdom. Instead of referring to these gentlemen, as they have been strongly and re► pe,telly urged to do, to ascertain in what setre they used the disputed terms in the treaty-- the majority of the Court of Directors have resolved to refer this question to you, one-half of whom have, probably, nevi r heard of such a treaty, and nine tenths of whom have, probably, never read it. Neither can you have been interested on the subject: by the reports of the debate which are giien in the news papers, for while the speeches of those few who pp posed the motion aro given in extenso, the speeches of the many, who supported it, are either suppressed alto gether, or given so scantily as to be of no use to units termed readers. It is n, cessary, therefore, to explain to you that the question upon which you are called upon to Tote is really this, viz.:— " Whether a majority of the C curt of Directors can, in good faith, seize upon this principality of Sattara upon their own construction of the treaty by which it was ceded by the Els,: India Company to the ...Baja of Sattara, his heirs and successors, in perpetual sove reignty, whilst they refine to hear the appeals of the representatives of the other contracting parties, who claim to be heirs under that treaty, and alto reject the only evidence that would enable them !" arrive all the tru const r uctio so f i h 3 disputed terms s" And as this seizure of the principality: of Sattara is avowedly to be made a precedent tur the disposal of other independent sovereignties in India, in th It question is involved another, still more important, viz.—" Whether the East India Company is at liberty to seize upon and to appropriate the territory of any native Prince in India, whom they, the East India Company, may, 1.37 a construction put by themselves and for their own benefit, upon their treaties with such Prince, determine to have died without heirs." You will not, I am sure, be offended with me for thus pointing out to you the vastly important interests which are involved in the vote you are now called upon to give, although, from the breathless haste of the requi• sition, it is doubtful whether this warning will reach you !More your vote is deposited in the ballot•box. Whether this whole procceding is calculated,to raise the character of the East India Company in the eyes of the British pubic, or to command the respect and attach' went of ihe Princes and people of India, aro question s which I have to your calm judgment to dttermine. " I am, Brother Proprietors, yours, "J. SULLIVAN. "Bansted, 28th April, 1849." TO THE SECRETARY OF THE METROPOLITAN REFORM ASSOCIATION. Sir,—On Wednesday the 25th the Bribery at Elections Bill went into Committee, and was speedily reduced to the oddest state imaginable, by the ejec" tion of essential words in the first clause by a mak ) " rity of 146 against 54. So, that the Bill as it now stands, bears some resemblance to what is left of a crow hung up in terrorem, when the flesh and bowels have been returned to the elements. . The truth is, that so l ong as t h ere i s a determina tion to refuse the efficient measures for preventing Bribery which consist in increasing the number of voters and giving to bribers the uncertainty of the Ballot, declarations like those proposed in the Bill are simply traps, for the chance of catching an honest man and letting rogues go through. They are like spring-guns set in a man's park with the perfect privity of poachers to the means of evasion, and which consequently can have no other result than shooting his grandmother, or covering some of his little boys with pellets of swan shot. Imagine now the case (which has been before and may be again) of a Member on either side of the House, on whom a good deal of party animosity 04 concentrated ;—whom it would be a great godsend to one-half of the combatants to find some morning buried in a quicksand or in any other way removed from the field of action. And imagine that after $ hotly disputed election, all the power of all the lawyers within the borders of the hostile party and lay assistants besides, is to be concentrated upon the chance of finding out,—not what this man, for be, may be wise and cautious beyond the c h anc e o f human peccability,—but what, some whom the last makes his agents, which means anybody who has taken the same side, may have done in infringemen t of laws which in point of fact were enacted in the perfect knowledge that they were not expected to be kept. And if a remote limb of his party is found to have passed this line, the cons equence i s to b e, —not that the peccant individual is to be visited, nor that the principal who is so unfortunate as to have a pec cant supporter shall b e v i s i ted to any modera te amount, as for instance even to the vacating o f his seat,—but that he is t o b e stamped w i th li f e -l o ng disgrace in the shape of perpetual incapacity for Parliament. It would be as reasonable to decree., that the candidate should be hanged if any of his supporters was pro ve d to h ave bl own h i s nose w ith his fingers. Such an enactment would clearly be, meant only to ca t c h . I t wou l d b e an ambusca d e , s et to demolish such as should be unlucky enough to be fixed on for its operation. Some innocents cannot see this, and therefore go on glorying in the proof they give of their own purity in enc ourag i ng suc h l eg i s l at i on. What 1 5 t ° become of the Bill after the excision which has been made in it, events must show. On the same even i ng t h e Bill f or attac hi ng car" riages to the Post-office trains on Sundays in Scot, land, was unexpectedly lost by a majority of 13 ' . _ against 122. The Government, or such of there 0 .! were present, took against the measure; which 15 _ enough to account for the majority. But at the sam e _ time they declared that they did so in the confidence that the resistance was dimini,hing, and the question would filially be settled by the Scotch thernsel . ve • Poorer women might have cried at railway stations long enough; but Duchesses are dangerous. ght for' On Thursday the olicitor-Grenerel brou THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 30, 1849, .~