The Sun. — London, England, 1849-05-01 00:00:00

violated, and that their own just rights were not circumscribed or altogether set aside.—(Hear, • bear.) There could be no doubt that to that extent their sanction was required and ought to be enforced. It had been stated, and no doubt very justly, that in cases of private adoption a notice from the Raja was required. But Sir Henry Cole brook considered that the adoption was proved, and his opinion was in strict accordance with the universal practice at Bengal. He (Mr. Maokenzie) was familiar with thousands of instances in which estates had been carried from one to another by adoption, while he was not aware of any one case in which a court of law in India had deckled that the adoption must fail in consequence of a proper notice not having been given of the person adopted. It was highly important to recollect, when they spoke of the sanction of the G overn ment being required, that they meant such a sanction and recog nition as was necessary to avoid disputes, and to maintain the peace and tranq uillit y of the country. —(Hear, hear.) In the c ase of notion., Lord Auck land, in a letter dated 30th August, 1841, lamenting duty of illness of Harce Row , ur g ed u p on him the of providing for the future disposal of his affairs, especially in a prince upon whom thousands of pounds depended, and advised him to exercise prudence and foresight in selecting one who, in case of his demise without issue, might succeed to his property. That led to the adoption of Dundee Row, the son of Bapojee Holker, and accordingly that sum did succeed. Therelwas: also the case of Sindiah, in which the adoption by Byza Biaaw was recognised, the only question being whether the adoption was made in accordance with the laws and rites of the country, and with the concurrence of the chiefs. The sole objection in sanctioning the adoption was the peace and tranquillity of the country, and the idea of doing so for their own benefit never entered into the minds of those who administered under the Governor-General. Sir Charles Stirling, whose opinions were entitled to very great respect, not only for his perfect knowledge of the Hindoo language, and for his anxiety to pro mote the public service, but for the benefit he derived from being in constant communication with Sir Charles Napier, had entered into a full discussion of the relations between the Supreme Government and the states, but never dreamt for a moment of sanc tioning such a view, which said that the rights of others should be withheld because they wished to put money into their own pockets.—(Hear, hear.) There were many other cases to which he might call the attention of the Court, but he thought he need hardly go over them. He would, however, mention the case of the Raja of Nagpore. There was a most valuable report on that subject published in 1827, by Sir Richard Jenkins, which was full of valuable information and research, and in that work Sir Richard Jenkins laid it down most decidedly that the Raja was hereditary in the male line, but that it might be changed by adop tion by the ruling Prince. In that report Sir R. Jenkins went on to say that if there was no heir male, and there was no adoption by the Raja, the prin cipal widow might adopt. In that case the Raja was the adopted heir of the former Raja ; he having no son he adopted a distant relation of the family. In that case the Raja had no army of his own, and the treaty proposed by Sir It. Jenkins was more stringent in that case than in that of Sattara. He was not allowed any military force, and he was, in fact, to be a sort of partner with the Raja, because he was only to enjoy a part of its revenues. Sir R. Jenkins therefore decided that the Raja was hereditary in the male line, and that not only might the Raja adopt, but that his principal widow might do so also; but not a single word was said regarding the escheat, with power of claim on the part of this country. Sir R. Jenkins said that in the case of Nagpore the Raja had no son, and therefore the question, if adopted, would recur, but he never dreamt that, subordinate as that Raja was, utterly without claim as he was to the sovereignty of an independent state, that the British Government had the title to escheat if there was a legal heir. Now this, ,in his opinion, was one objection, and a great and valid one too, to the course puksued by,the Court, and the orders that it had made upon the subject, because the principle laid down in those orders would not only apply to Sattara, but to all Indian Chiefs, because;they all held their ter ritories on the same ground. If the orders that had been issued by that Court were to be adhered to, these Rajaa, as far as their sovereign power was concerned, were to be at the will of that Court ; and he believed that it would excite one universal shoat of surprise in Sattara if that Court was to say their independence was on its will. All authorities condemned such power as un- English, unjust, and impolitic.—(Hear) Mr. Tod, in his excellent work, and a better authority he believed could not be found ; for his own part he believed every word of his book, and con sidered it an authority of the highest descrip tion. Mr. Tod said that the hereditary prin ciple was unalterable, but that adoption preserved honours and titles, and that neither Raja nor great feudatories ever lived without heirs, but that smaller ones did. Then there was the case of the Ragpootara; there the right of adoption was admitted and acted upon. Then with respect to Colaba, there the treaty of August, 1822, expressly reserved the entire supremacy and right of conferring inves titure. There the adoption was by a widow of Raghopi, the predecessor of Kanoope, whose de cease made the vacancy in the Musnud. Then in the case of Mundwee there adop tion similarly occurred by the widow of the Prince preceding him, whose death made the vacancy. Then there was the case of Kotah—the right to adopt was admitted. Then in the case of Dorregapoore and Pertaub Shean, there Pertaub Sheen became entitled to the principality of Dorregapoore by adoption of the Raward. The chief objection to the union of the two states—he adopted a boy to occupy gaddee of Dorre gapoore, he continuing Regent during his minority. On the question of second adoption, Col. Sutherland said he did not understand by what process a Rajpoot principality, with which they were only connected by treaty, could'.become an escheat to the British Govern ment, since there must always be collaterals or adop tions, and the Governor-General, in reply, stated there would be nu objection to the second adoption in the event of the death of the adopted son, so little did he think the East India Company were entilted to the power they had secured. Then, in the case of Kishen gark, there was the adoption of the widow with the consent of the chief recognised as voted by legal custom, and in that case it was decided that in such a case the British Government were bound to recognise such succession without raising the question of Wazzeorra. Now, with respect to the present case he thought that instead of the case of Sattara being weaker than the cases he had reverted to, was much stronger. It was, in his opinion, of high political importance that the natives of India should know thaie best tenure they possessed was British justice. He would not now go into the question the Chairman started yesterday ; but he would say this, that he should be sorry to see a vote carried in that Court which would have the effect of putting in jeopardy the rights and cus toms of the people of India.—(Hear, hear.) As every honest Englishman regarded that Court, acting under Parliament as de facto for the time the rulers of India, and every statesman would hold England bound for its acts as the acts of the Crown. But the treaty which had been entered into gave the Raja a better title than any other, and it was not the mere ques tion that he was deposed by that Court that -would affect his right. It might be said that the family of Sevajee was not of antiquity, he believed that the Sevajee race was more antiquated than was supposed ; but admitting it not to be of antiquity, it was to be remembered that the Mahratta race existed long before Sevajee, and that his power depended, not upon what hap pened subsequent to him, but that which was • long before him. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Raja of Sattara gave no consideration for the treaty, and that he was of no importance ; when the treaty was made he was considered to be a person of the highest importance and the fact of his joining this country was looked upon as most important for the future peace of the country. /St?. Prinseps spoke of the Raja as the greatest prize of the day to get possession of. Sir James Monro, who had been so long in India, considered that the family of ;Sevajee had such a hold upon the people, that he suggested to Mr. Elphin stone whether the Company should not get itself pasted to the Sattara territory. Sir James Monro attached th e hi g h est importance, as well as Lord Hastings, in getting the Raja to join the British Government, and to become dependent upon it, if they pleased, in fact to become part of the British empire, and it was an important circumstance to consider that in doing so he s e p ara t e d himself from all the hostile spirits that pervaded the country. They might therefore as well be justified in considering the state of Sattara as part of the dominions of the country, and setting its Raja aside, as they might consider the House of Han over as a dependent upon the country and set it aside. The Raja did possess, as it was evident from the cor respondence, a very great influence over the public mind. It was of great importance that he should separate himself from the hostile part of the Mahratta nation. Now, they might take his territory from him, and deny his title, but in the minds of the Hindoo people the family of Sevajee would still remain. The people of India were abundantly tenacious in matters of rightful tenure, even where the title to a Hindoo village was only concerned ; therefore it would a great pity to suppose that he had not p ower, r'IEWSPA*:hen had not authority w ith him. He had that er" - ±i: which con s tit ute d the best p o wer of a Sovereign, namely, a stro ng h o ld over t h e minds of great mul titudes of peopl e . Th ey m i g ht as wall say that a S THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1849. would quote some of the decisions in the Supreme Court of Bengal ; there was scarcely a case in which the Court had not decided that an adopted child was the legal suceesor of the adopter. Let, them just consider for:a moment such a case as Gwalior, a much larger territory than Satter*, whose Raja ha l a right under treaty to name any child he chose to adopt, and therefore, as far as the question of adoption went, unquestionably they were bound to admit it, but who was to be selected? The misfortune here was not so much the right of adoption, but as to who was the individual adopted. No one would say that if a jaghadeer adopted a son, add that son paid the fine of 500 horses to the lord paramount, he might be allowed to succeed to the state, but in all cases of jaghadeers, un less the Government gave its content, they could not adopt. That, however, was quite a distinct case from adoption for privae rights. Nu body could question that right, though they might the right to adopt, where there were conditions of lapsing to the Government.— (Hear, hear), What he said then, in the case of the Raja of; Sattara, was this, that be held the sovereignty, under certain conditions, he might, under those con ditions, be required to obtain the sanction of Govern ment before he adopted, but, in his opinion, the case did not stand upon the right of adoption. The treaty gave him sovereignty in perpetuity, to remain in his family until it became extinct. There was no doubt then that at the present moment there were seven dis tinct Sattara families in existence. There was at this moment a second cousin living of the house of the last Raja, who happened to be the adopted son of the late prisoner at Benaires, for whom he claimed nothing under the adoption, but as a de scendant of the blood he succeeded naturally to the state under the intention of the treaty.—(Cheers). If they admitted the adoption, it would give rise to interminable discussions, and instead of this being the last debate, they should have the case continually corning before them again. It must be remembered that the ex. Raja had adopted one child, and the late Raja another; and if they admitted the principle of adoption, there would be an everlasting contention between the parties. One party would be for adopting the child of the ex- Raja and the other for having the child of the brother, but if they acted upon the principle of na tural succession they got rid entirely of one of the par ties.—(Hear, hear.) It was admitted that there was a sovereignty which went to the blood, and as there were heirs enough to make it convenient for them, to use an expression of a preceding speaker, to get rid at once of the dispute.—(Hear, hear.) He would now with the permission of the Court read a passage from a pamphlet on the subject of India which would point out the evils of the policy they were pursuing in far more forcible and energetic language th an h e was master o f. The CidAIRMAN—Is there any name to it? Colonel SYKES said there was not; it was anony mous, arid the passage he alluded to was to this effect:—" The excessive encoachments upon the ter ritories of the native Princes makes every native fancy that it will be his turn next; that he will be the next victim of the policy; that he will be the next to be overturned. Only a third of the native Princes still remained, and every fresh act of spolia tion, not only excites the suspicions and jealousis of the natives, but made them turbulent and troublesome; and while this system continues to be sanctioned by the Government of India it must be unfavourable to British rule. The system ought to be changed to one which should protect the native states from aggression, and then the native Princes would repose confidence in our Government, become props to our power, and follow our example in the various arts of peace, to support us in danger; but under the present system the native Princes had no inducement to improve their states, as they were not properly protected and re spected by the paramount power." Nothing that he could say could put the case in a stronger light than that. He really thought this was a question of policy which ought at once to be satisfactorily disposed of, for a universal feeling prevailed in India against their pre sent system of ruling, and they were looked upon in the light of a party who were only anxious to make a Go vernment of officials on one side and a nation of serfs on the other.—(Cheers.) Mr. Mortal's said, the Honourable and Learned Gen tleman who commenced this argument had very properly remarked that although this was a Slitters case, it was totally different to the one which had been before the Court on so many occasions. This was the case not of the Raja, but of the Raja of Sattara ; it was not the question of the guilt or innocence of the Raja ; the ques tion was whether the Honourable Company had acted properly in having resumed the territory of that state.— (Hear, hear.) Hitherto it had been the boast of the East India Company, and the proudest page in their history, that they had never acquired a single inch of the territory which had not been forced upon them by circumstances beyond their own control. He regretted that; they had now an exception to this rule, so highly honourable to the British cha racter and name.—(Cheers.) He had read the papers which had been published in this case, and he had not been able to find anything which appeared to him to be an argument for the necessity of the resumption. Nay, he would go further, and say, with all deference to the Court, that there was no ground for it as a measure of policy.—(Hear, hear:) He was bound, as an honest man, to go further, and say that in the resumption of that territory they had been guilty of a violation of a de liberate and solemn treaty, which involved a breach of national faith, and was highly calculated to cast dis credit upon that good name which Mr. Mackenzie had justly remarked, in moral as well as political affairs, seemed to uphold the sovereignty of the state.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. Reid, one of the Learned Counsel who argued the case of the Raja in the Supreme Court of India, very properly remarked that they must be just before they were generous, and he, for one, cordially agreed in that sentiment, with this difference in its ap plication, that it appeared to him they ought to be just to the Sattara state before they were generous to them seives.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Had they been just in this case ? No, for by the treaty they were bound to the heirs and successors of the Raja.—(Hear.) That was perfectly intelligible to him, and whether that principle were large or small, unlimited or confined, the treaty conferred upon the Raja the sovereignty in perpetuity, his heirs and successors; and so long as there were heirs and successors it appeared to him that the sovereignty ought to be continued, and could not be done away with by a breach of national good faith.-- (Cheers.) Mr. Willoughby, the Secretary of the Council at Bombay, speaking of the question as to whether there were, observed that the late Raja pos sessed no rights except those conferred on him by the treaty of 1839, and he had therefore no right to adopt; but the Court must remember that when the Raja entered into the compact, he did so presuming that there would be the strictest ob servance of the laws and rules of the country.—(Hear, bean) Now the laws and usages of that country com pelled the upholding of succession by adoption, and it was shown by the papers that the Raja had not only a right to adopt, but that it was his duty to adopt.— (Hear, hear.) The Hindoo law and the Hindoo religion required that to be done, and the party so adopted be came the legitimate successor. If they bad intended to prohibit the exercise of that law in the case of Sattara, it appeared to him that it was their duty to have particularly specified as much in the treaty which, in default of that specifica tion, must be construed according to the usages and laws of the Raja's own country.—(Hear, hear.) In some Indian states the territory went by succession, not to the sons but to nephews of the Raja—the children of the sovereign's sister. Now suppose in such a case as that, and in the event of the Raja having no son, would not their interpreting the treaty according to the English law bo a flagrant violation of all law and justice?— (Cheers.) Ile insisted then, that by the adoption the Raja is, to all intents and purposes, left as heir who ought to be at once admitted as the successor. lie had seen the Mahratta version of the treaty, and certainly the words used there contained all and nothing more than was intended in the English. He had had some little experience duringithe last 25 years in the Mahratta language, and he must say that, according to his trans lation,Tmeant e rm e a s n s d a r s i u l y c c e i s n s c o l r u s d . e — d children, but . English w or d s , tiear, the h e w ear o o r t ds did not follow that the heir should be a child of theßaja. The word furzund represented two heirs dainndg with h successors te ; Englishwa rs was a Mahr a tt a word corresponding heirs o term heirs ; but the best and; most forcible Mah ratta expression for the case was kayeem mukant, for that meant simply successors.—(Hear, hear.) It was said, however, that the adoption of a son was not legal, because it was not sanctioned by the paramount power, but the worst part of that matter was, that they were the judges of their own case--(Hear.) The onus probandi, therefore, rested with themselves, and they might clearly show that the paramount power had acted up to th e law and usages of the country.—(Elear, hear.) It ought not to be ruled over, and the meaning of words taken for granted, but supposing the sanction of the paramount power were withheld simply because it might be convenient to do so. In the cases of Sindiah and Holksr the sanction was not with held, and why then withhold it in the case of Sattara?— (Hear, hear.) Had the government of the late Raja been disgraced by misrule, or had he oppressed his sub jects, there might have been some excuse for the course they were pursuing ; but what was the case? Why, the rale of the late Raja was sound and just, and when he died his country was flourishing ; but it ap peared that this act of spoliation was justified on the ground that the revenue of the ter ritory was required for the British Exchequer._. (Hear, hear.) Such a reason, however, ought not to prevail in a ease like this. It was important that the rights and privileges of the native Princes of India should be respected, and unless these rights and privileges were respected, there would be a clog in the extensive machi nery by which India was governed.—(Cheers.) Mr. MILLS said it was not his purpose to occupy much time, as his object in rising was not to prolong the discussion, but to relieve those who were anxious to go from the necessity of continuing their attendance. —(Hear, hear.) It had been stated that this was not a Sattara case, nor could this long discussion prove to be the settlement of the Sattara case; and if that were so, all he could say was, that it was for tho security of the Directors that they should accomplish that object as soon as possible. Had they done so before he thought they would have been entitled to the thanks and credit not only of the Proprietors, blot of the eirtiee public, The Nets of tha oiise and all the argu ments ware contained in a printed paper before him, but he would not go into the details. An opinion had been stated, which, if it were not contradicted, might seem to partake of the nature of a fact. He alluded to what foil from Mr. Mackenzie with referenep to t4e Oovereoe, general. Hp Would rod his lonia All he took them. They were these i` Lord Dalhousie has de cided this case without proper information and a duo consideration of the subject. Now, if that were the case, all that he could say was, that Lord Dalhot,tsics was totally unfit for the high situation he hoid, end it was the duty of tho Coto if ally member hard the words and disbelieved them, to protect an absent man from such an imputation.—(Cheers.) Mr. MACKENZIE said he did not mean to say any thing disrespectful of Lord Dalhousie, but he did mean to say that be wanted information, and also all Leuze advantages which he would have possessed, if he had had greater ,leisure and greater experience.—(Hear.) Ho was very anxious to guard against the slightest sup position that he thought he was rash, or had decided without firmly believing not only that he was right, but that he himself had taken fair and proper means of acquiring information.—(Hear, hear.) He still thought, and he repeated it then, that he differed entirely from the conclusion which had been come to in the minutes re ceived from Bombay, and it any points of further in quiry could have been suggested to his Lordship, he had no doubt he would have proposed a reference of the case to the political department, obtained a full and cor rect account of the Hindoo meaning, and required some some one to make a very full report upon the case.— (Hear, hear.) lie could have suggested many points of inquiry which, if he had listened to, and he believed that he would have listened to him, might have had the effect of altering his opinion.(—Hear, hear). But if they thought that he had the slightest nose of meaning that Lord Dalhousie had overlooked the real merits of the case, and had been deliberately guilty of care lessness in his high office, he was extremely obliged for having had that opportunity of de nying in totn that he had entertained any such idea.—(tlear, hear.) He was not a practised speaker, and he was aware that he had spoken with some degree of warmth and agitation, and if he had made use of any words which were personally offensive to any one, he begged now to withdraw them.—(Hear, hear.) lie was greatly obliged to the Court for enabling him to give that explanation. Mr. MILLS said he had thought it right that no impu tation should go forth upon a person high in authority who was absent, and who had not essen tially anything to do with the case.—(Hear, hear.) The Board of Directors did not arrive at their decision without that anxious deliberation, that discussion, and that deference to the opinions of others which were ne cessary upon all difficult questions.—(El'ear, bear.) That decision was arrived at by a very large majority, viz., by no less than six to sixteen—(Hear, hear)—and those who differed from it, with one exception, absolved them selves of the responsibility by recording most ably drawn up dissents upon the subject, which were before the Executive and the co-ordinate authority when they gave their final assent. The decision had now been promul gated in India, and it had received the assent of her Ma jesty's Government and both Houses of Parliament. He now came to a subject which most extraordinarily had, never been alluded to in the course of the discussion, and that had reference to the resolution before the Court. That it was an undoubted privilege of that Court to come to any resolution respecting the govern ment of their Executive he most freely admitted, and that it might be safely exercised he was also willing to admit—(Hear, hear)—but in the present case the rove lution was so vague that he did not exactly understand the nature of it—whether they meant to finish with it, or whether it was intended to take ulterior proceedings. He had been at a loss to divine the real intention of the originators of it until an allusion fell from the Hon. Proprietor, Mr. Mackenzie, with reference to the re versal of the decision which had been come to, and he concluded, therefore, that the Hon. Proprietor viewed the resolution only as a preliminary to ulterior pro ceedings. Mr. MACKENZIE said he was no party to the resolu tion, though he was disposed to vote in favour of it. Mr. MILLS said, he believed the parties who proposed it were themselves divided in opinion as to whether the son of the late Raja or the son of the ex Raja should participate in the rights of the Sattara territory. No votes of that Court could have any influence with respect to the decision which, in the discharge of a great public trust, they had arrived at, being under obligations upon oath, and disregarding, as they were bound to do, the wishes and feelings of any individual proprietor. They were elected for a far higher and greater purpose than to attend to minor matters of that kind.--(Hear, hear.) Speaking for himself and his colleagues, he would say, they did not think that they deserved what was, in effect, nothing but a vote of want of confidence in the government of the Executive—([h-sr, hear)—and cheers.) He would state again that that vote, in the mildest sense, wa3 a vote of want of confidence in the government of the Executive—(Elear, hear)—and not only was it a vote of want of confidence, but it was in direct opposition to the decisions of two Governors- General of India, and of the decisions of the Gover nors of Bombay, with one exception, and he must ad mit a very splendid one, in the person of Sir George Clerk.—(Hear, hear.) There was unfortunately a great lack in the attendance of Proprietors of Stock at the East India House on those days when the Raja of Sat tare's case was brought on for discussion.—(Laughter.) And when a vote of want of confidence in so large a body of the Executive took place, it was his earnest wish that it should be passed by the Proprietors at large also. It was with that view that he had affixed his name to a requisition which was to the following. effect: —" We the undersigned deem it highly inexpedient to interfere with the responsible Executive in their admi nistration of the affairs of Sattara, and, therefore, strongly deprecate passing a resolution such as that now proposed, and we demand that the question be decided by way of ballot."--(Hear, hear.) Major OLIPHANT said the Executive had come to a decision which they conscientiously believed to be right, and therefore he could net for one moment agree with his [lon. Colleague, that the resolution was necessarily a vote of censure.—(Hear, hear.) He could not help re marking that the resolution was one of extreme mode ration, and that there was perfect propriety in the words which had been introduced.—(Hear, bear.) It was in conceivable that any body of men could always be right—(Hear, hear)—and tie thought that many of the Proprietors whom he saw before him, might be as good judges upon a subject of that sort as he himself could be, or wished to be.—(Hear, hear.) He was ready to admit that the majority of the Court for the time being might have taken an erroneous view upon the subject, but because a resolution stated that, was it a vote of censure or of want of confidence?—(llear, hear.) No such thing. —(Hear, hear.) On many occasions the view taken by the minority had ultimately turned out to be correct. He had heard in the course of the debate the opinions of several gentlemen who were conversant with India, and who had spent nearly the whole of their life there, and he attached the greatest possible importance to them, especially those expressed by Mr. Sullivan, the Hon. mover, Mr. Morris, Mr. Mackenzie, and indeed he might say all the gentlemen who had spoken that day, including 'even Mr. Prinsep, who took a some what different view of the case, but who said that he thought any heir might succeed by adoption. Every gentleman acquainted with India who had spoken on the question, he begged leave to say had spoken in a way to make him consetentiously believe that the East India Company had no right whatever to the Sattara tern tory.—(Hear, and cheers.) He should not have risen ou that occasion if he had not had a desire to call the attention of the Court to a statement which was made by the Hon. Chairman on the last day of meeting, but he presumed unintentionally, that Sir J. Carnac had made some sort of stipulation with the late Raja of Sattara at the time of the renewal of the treaty, that adopted sons were not to succeed. Now, upon what authority did that rest? I t was i mpossible that the Raja of Sattara could know the sentiments of Sir J. Carnac, who was but one party to the treaty. In a letter which he wrote to the secret committee he stated is effect—" It may be necessary to set up this man (the brother of the Raja), but if you were you would have an opportunity of remedying that act, because he is not likely, to have a son to step in and take the terri tory." Now that was the real meaning of what he wrote. He now would call the attention of the Court to the way in which that gentleman promulgated setting up the Raja. While he was writing to the East India Company, informing them that they would soon have an opportunity of taking the territory, in what terms did he notify to the Mahrattas the succession of the Raja. Tho following paragraph from the proclamation to the Mahrattas was extracted from the official documents : " The British Government having in view no personal advantage or aggrandisement has resolved to invest the brother and next in succession to the Raja with the sove reignty of the Setters, estate, according to the limits fixed by the treaty of the 27th September, 1819." He, therefore, thought that there was not one tittle of evidence to war rant the assertion that the Raja was cognizant of the letter of Sir James Carnac, and had agreed that an adopted son should not succeed.—(Hear, hear.) No one could dispute the legality of the adoption—(Hears hear)—it was in no way called into ques tion because the adoption was made in the life time of the adopted father, and, therefore, the adopted stood in the position of a natural born son. The treaty said that "on account of the contiguity of his race" his " heirs and successors should" succeed to the territory, and the question, there fore, was whether or not the claimant to the territory was adopted according to the Hiedoo law, and was the natural and rightful heir?—(Hear, hear.) He thought there could be no doubt of it but it was from him, al though they could nut deprive him of his sovereignty, that the dispatch of the Court of Directors choose to take away the Sattara territory.—(dear, hear.) Captain SHEPHERD said he never dreamt of construing the resolution as a vote of censure upon the directors, he hoped his Lion. Colleague (Mr. Mills) did not still enter tain that opinion.--(Hear, hear.) For his part he dis claimed any such idea entirely. No other proprietor getting up to address the Court, Mr. SULLIVAN rose to reply, observing that the sooner they closed the discussion the better. lie hoped it would not be imputed to them that they supposed for a moment that they had the power of rescinding any reso lution which had been passed by the Board of Directors j and received the sanction of the Board of Con trol. But although he admitted that it would be mischievous for them to have such a power, they nevertheless had conceded to them many important privileges. They, as a body, were regularly consti tuted by the Legislature to watch over the interests of India; and it was their business to discuss every sub ject connected with India, to approve of everything that they considered good for India, and to reprobate every thing that was detrimental to the interests of India. He held that those were very valuable privileges indeed. ---(Hear, hear.) If they were not to discuss subjects oonnected with India in that Court, he would ask where they were to be discussed? In Parliament there was no time, less inclination, and, perhaps he might say, less knowledge.---(Hear, hear.) Here they had the reqeieite time and the requisite knowledge, and shame upon them if they had not the inclination.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Mills had stated that the resolution was in distinct, and that it meant nothing; but he would tell him that they had only taken the liberty of expressing their simple op,;,nien, and if they were so fortunate as to carry the resolution, but he was afraid that they would ;Ise defeated by the tactics of the Hon. Gentlemen, they would then consider what further course it was desir a bl e •- k) pursue, Ile cotlld pot but think it was a y0;37---b-a";:a arrangement that the decision of this matter should be turned over to 2,000 or 3,000 iaffie, and g' ntlemen, who kiiew mailing a hatev, r stmt if. rtie Ilonourribla D . rector, Mr Mills, bail told them that no resolution they could come to would at all influence the du!ci sion of the Court, and hs would lia,a3 led them to believe that the Court had never reversed any of its decisions. Tne fact was, however, that the records of the Court, showed many instances in which a new light bad beamed upon the Directors with respect to certain cases, which had induced them to overturn the decisions which they had previously arrived at. There was the case of Tangore, in which the decision of the Directors which was sanctioned by the Board of Control, was ul timately reversed. There was also that of Lieutenant M•Neale, who was Paymaster-General, and whose ac counts on heing audited were not found to be correct. —(Hear.) It was said that he was in debt to the Company. The company remonstrated again and again, but no good resulted until at last Sir Thomas Munro took up the matter, unravelled the accounts, and proved that Lieut. M'Neale not only did not owe the company anything, but that the company was in his debt to a considerable amount.—(Hear, hear.) Tne consequence was that he was released from his responsibility. Of course it would be unnecessary for him to say that he had no intention of expressing any want of confidence in the Directors. If he entertained conscientious views upon any subject he presumed that he was bound to bring them before the Court, and he thought that by such discussions much new light was thrown upon disputed questions. He would, however, pass from that to what they had heard from the Hon. Chairman. On his first setting out he told them that he would stick to the question, and he thought he should have heard an elaborate exordium upon whether it was just or unjust, or whether or not it upheld the dignity of the British character, that the majority of the Court of Directors should pass a re solution to take possession of the Satarra territory. That was the question which he had expected the chair man to have given a deliberate opinion upon; but he passed off at a tangent to trace the history of the house of Sevajee. The Chairman then proceeded with a learned dissertation on the meaning of the native terms in the treaty, on which he came to a conclusion directly at variance with Sir George Clerk and General Briggs, and many others, all of them eminent Oriental scholars, and said, in expounding the words "heirs and succes sors," Mr. Elphinstone meant to limit the succession of the territory to the heirs male of the Raja of Sattara. Now, it was beyond the ingenuity of both the Chair man and Mr. Prinsep to say that when Mr. Elphin stone was about to make two treaties at the same time with two native Princes, the object of which, they said, was in each case to limit the succession to the heirs male of the lineal heirs of each Raja, why when he came to cede certain territory, under a treaty to the Rao of Cutch, concluded a few months afterwards, he limited the succession to his legitimate offspring, an infant son of the Rao. Now, let the Chair man, or Mr. Prinsep, explain, when Mr. Elphinstone at that very time was making those two treaties, he worded one treaty to " his heirs and successors," whilst in the treaty to the Rao of Cutch he worded it to " his legitimate offspring," the treaties hay. ing one and the same object. Why, in the case of Ghoolab Singh, was the succession limited to his lineal heirs of his male issue? Now, he asked was it not a surprising thing that their time should be taken up in discussing the meaning of the terms of the treaty —the native terms and the English terms—when they had the fountain head to go to ?—(Hear, bear.) His Gallant Friend, the Chairman, had written a book; if he happened to be in doubt as to the meaning of a passage in that book, was he to ask the Gallant General what he meant in that passage ? Everybody would take him (Mr. Sullivan) for a fool if he relied upon that book, in a matter of doubt, when be could go to the fountain head for information. They had only to put the question, when they made the treaty in 1819, did they mean to limit the succession to his lineal heirs? That was the course which every just-minded man would take. Sir George Clerk said, should any doubt be entertained, Mr. Elphinstone and Captain Grant, who made the treaty, could be referred to as to their under standing of the words. That was the course that every honest man would take if he wanted really to be en lightened; but their deeds were evil, and therefore they did not go to the light. Why did they not go to Mr. Elphinstone? They must answer that. He (Mr. Sulli van) did accuse Lord Dalhousie of having come to that decision without consideration ; he told them, "if there was a shadow of doubt about it, by no means touch it;" and he told them that with Sir George Clerk's elaborate minute before him. What was the use of Governor-Generals if men like Sir George Clerk were to be whisked away by any Johnny Newcombe of a Governor-General?—(Laughter.) This was what the Governor-General said—" I am unable to admit the force of the argument advanced by Sir George Clerk for its continuance, which is founded on the happy and praiseworthy government of the late Raja."—(" Go on.") There was nothing more from Sir George Clerk. Mr. lITEEDoN—Read the remainder of the paragraph. Mr. SULLIVAN—That was the end of the para graph. They were quite aware that the argument of the Governor-General went to cut the root and branch of all the treaties with the native Princes, to whom we had guaranteed the possession of their territories to them, and their heirs and successors. In 1816 they ceded to the King of Oude the territory of that kingdom to his heirs and suc cessors in perpetual sovereignty. According to the doc trine that had been promulgated from the chair, when ever the present King of Oude died, the claim of his de scendants to his territory ceased. They were to come down to the British Government as vassals, and ask for re-investiture of the sovereignty of his kingdom, not by virtue of his title as king, but out of their bounty as the paramount power of the state.—(Hear Now, his Gall an t F r i en d G eneral Caulfield challenged them to produce a precedent in which the paramount power of the state intefered with the right of adoption in those vassal sovereigns. He gave two or three in stances. In 1750, the Raja of Sattara, though in the plenitude of his power, acknowledged himself to bo a vassal of the Mogul, and to show that the Mogul at that time interfered with that adoption, when his sanction to it was requested he refused that sanction. A similar instance was to be found in 1776, in the case of the Ram raj of Sattara, and in the same year another precedent was found in the Rao of Kohlapore. These were all precedents, and if the Court of Directors disputed them, it was for them to show that they were groundless, and if they did not do so, the irresistible inference would be that their case was a bad one, and thst they were totally unable to make it out. The lion. Gentleman then re sumed his seat. The CHAIRMAN then intimated that a requisition de manding a ballot having been presented to him, he had fixed the ballot to take place on Tuesday next. The Court then separated. HER MAJEST Y'S STATE BALL. The Queen gave a State Ball last evening at Buck ingham Palace to a party of sixteen hundred, compris ing the Royal Family, foreign Princes in this country, the whole of the Diplomatic Corps and their ladies, the Ministers and Members of the Administration, the Ladies and Gentlemen of the Household of the Queen and Prince Albert, the Queen Dowager, and the rest of the Royal Family, and many of the Nobility and Gentry. The distinguished circle all appeared in Court dress, the ladies having new dresses of great elegance and beauty, the officers of the army, navy, and ordnance wearing their respective uniforms, and Ministers of State and Officers of the Royal Household, being ha bited in their official costumes, and the Knights of the several Orders of Knighthood wearing their respective ensigns. AC nine o'clock the company began to arrive, and con tinued setting down for a❑ hour and a half, passing up the Grand Staircase. The distinguished visitors were ushered into the magnificent Picture Gallery. The Guard of the Yeoman Guard lined the Staircase and its approaches, under the command of lUr. Edmund Bellairs, the Exon in Waiting. Sir Seymour Sadler, the Exon of the Yeoman Guard, was also present. The entire suite of State Saloons were opened for the Fete, and were most brilliantly illuminated, while groups of the most beautiful and fragrant flowers filled all the recesses. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge and their Royal Highnesses the Hereditary Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz, arrived at halt-past nine o'clock, attended by Lady Augusta Cado gan and Mr. Edmund Mildraay. His Royal Highness Prince Leopold, Count of Syra cuse, was attended by his Excellency General Prince Castelcicala and the Chevalier Colonna. Their Serene Highnesses the Princesses Amalie and Elise of Hohenlohe Schillingsfurst, and Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, were also present. The Queen received the royal family in the Yellow Drawing-roam. Shortly before ten o'clock her Majesty and Prince Albert entered the Saloon, accompanied by their royal and illustrious guests. The Queen wore a dress of pink tulle, with two petticoats trimmed with pink and white gauze ribbon, ornamented with pihk and white roses, green leaves, and diamonds. Iler Maje s ty' s head dress was composed of a wreath of pink and white roses, green leaves and diamo rids to correspond to the dress. Her Majesty was attended by the Duchess of Suther land, the Marchioness of Douro, Lady Caroline Somers Cocks, Hon. Matilda Paget, Lord Byron, Colonel the Hon. A. N. Hood, and Colonel Buckley. Prince Albert was attended by Lord George Lennox and Lieutenant-Colonel Seymour. The Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Steward imme diately preceded the Queen and the Prince, and con ducted her Majesty and his Royal Highness through the Saloon into the Ball-room, the general company follow ing the august circle. The Lord Chamberlain formed a set for a quadrille, and her Majesty opened the ball with his Royal Highness the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburgh Strelitz. Waltzes and Polkas followed. Herr Strauss and his band attended in the ball-room and performed the following dances :—Alici Polka (composed for the occasion)—Katinka Polka—Fortune Polka—Eisele Polka—Des Wanderers Lebevvohl Wal zer—Sorgenbreiher Walz-r—Die Sob walbeu Walzer— Aether Traume Walzer—Eldorado Quadrille—Louisen Quadrille--Haut Vol6's Quadrille —Schafer Quadrille. Dancing also commenced in the Throne-room, which was fitted up as a second bull-room, and where a quad rille band of 30 performers, led by Charles Coote, was stationed. Her Majesty visited this ball-room during the evening, and sat occasionally in the elevated seats prepared in both apartments fur the accommodation of her Majesty and her illustrious visitors. The following dances were danced in the Throne room: Qiadrill,s—Melainie (Coote), Carlo (Tinm , y), I Lombardi (Coote). Les Troubadours (Musard), Enrico (Tinuey), Stradella (Coote.) Waltzes ---Alberta (Tinney), Mpg° MO dem Bohmer walo (Libitzky). R inelie (Fessy), (Coot©), toria (Liosfsio). Ernnier (D'Albert). Polkas —Arundel (Conte). Ariel (Ttnney), Gra ss an Woiii (Labitzlt) ), (Coote). The Green Drawte,:,•rthitu w:s appropriated for re" freshmei.ts, which were se rv e d throughout the evening' and in the aping -room the supper was served in the usual regal style, splendour, :old inavi,ificence. PIIILAISTHItt,PIC SOCIETY'S FARM SCHOOL. This institution, established tor the reformation juvenile offenders, has been for many years located 10 St. George's. fields, Southwark, but last spring it was, (1 e ~ termined that it should b e t rans f erre d to a country sit.. ation, where the boy s cou ld be employed and trained t o farm labour and gar d en i ng, and be brought up in s plainer and more healthful system than is possible hi d, London establishment, an d th e i r con d it i on as to tb° f clothing, &c., be more th or o ug hl y ass i m il ate d to that o the ordinary l a b our i ng classes'', to which the grea t e r part of th e m b e l ong , an d to ra i se them above w hic, while subjected to r e f orma t or y di sc i p li ne for the i r fat'l ll and misdemeanours, would be highly objectionable. In consequenc e , a f arm o f 123 acres has been ta ken at Redston e , S urrey , i n t h e i mmediate vicinity o f tea Red• hill and Reigate Station, on the Brighton a n South-Eastern Railways. The buildings to be erected in the first instance are chapel, a school-room, and two houses capable of O n. Wining 60 boys eac h. Th e f arm h ouse now on the Wet will accommodate, with a slight addition, about 60 ta re , : j and the instituti on w ill b e thus sufficient to receive ~ boys by the Ist of August; but it is expected, by v., support, and the successful working of the school, in very few years to increase the number to 500 boys. Yesterday having been fixed by his Royal Highnei, Prince Albert f or t h e i mportant ceremony of laying. t"h ; foundation-ston e o f th e c h ape l , &c., great preparatwi?„ were made by the South-Eastern Railway Companf l ; the decoration of the State Saloon and the Bricklayer, 6 Arms Station, fo r th e d ue recept i on of his Royal gig°. ness and suite. At a quarter past two o'closk his Royal Highness, s t ; tended by Lord G eorge L ennox, Li eutenant-Colone l tu Hon. C. B. Phipps, and Lieutenant -Colonel Seyni° l/4 arrived at the Brickl a y ers ' A rms S tat i on, and was ie ceived by J. M'Gregor, Esq., Chairman, T. Eensba"' n Esq., Deputy-Ch a i rman , severa l o f t h e directors, and v. S. Herbert, Esq.. Secretary of the South-Eastern CO I ' pany. The special train, under the charge of Mr. Fi ll : nigan, and driven by Mr. Cundreth, the formulaic' superintendent, arrived at the Redstone temporary s tir tion at three o'clock, when the royal standard was iml oB. diately hoisted, and the band of the Royal Artilleci struck up " God save the Queen." His Royal Highness was received by the Duke ° I Richmond, the President of the institution, and by the Marquis of Westminster, the Earl of Harrowby,„t l ;.l Bishop of Winchester, th e Bi s h op o f N orwich, the Pl'd of Ellesmere, the Lord Mayor, Mr. Alderman 6 , 11 Sheriff Finnis, Mr. Sheriff Goodhart, Sir W. H. jolliP e ' Bart., Alderman Si r G. C arro ll , W. E. Gladstone, Pt' M.P., and other officers and friends of the institutit; who formed i n t o p rocess i on w i th the committee, the boys now in th e sc h oo l, t h ose w h o have left the sch° L the clergy of this and a dj aceat di str i cts, including O." Rev. Sydney Turn er , th e c h ap l a i n, e tc., by whom Royal Highness was conducted to " the stone," place d beneath a large pavilion, in which were about 600 ladie s and gentlemen. _ The architect, W. R. Moffatt, Esq., of Spring garde' bore the plans ; th e trowe l , co i ns, inscription plate, t cups with wine, c o r n , & c ., b e i ng carried by the prineir. officers. The coins of the present reign, consisting of a soil' reign, a half-sovereign, a crown, a half. crown, a shilling. a sixpence, a fourpenny piece, a penny, and a halfpennt were enclosed in a glass vessel, closely stoppered, sybi e ,,; together with th e scro ll s , p l ans, &c., were placed in the depositum, upon whi c h was affixed a plate bearing the following inscription:— " This foundation st o n e o f th e Phil anthrop i c Soc i e tY . o 0 Farm School, Red stone -h i ll , R e i gate, was laid by hi d Royal Highness P r i nce Albert, K.G., on Mo n d a y, Apt. 30, 1849." The stone having been lowered, and declared by his Royal Highness to be fixed, the Lord Bishop of Wi ° ,; chester, the Diocesan Bi s h op, o ff ered up an appr opriii'd prayer, when the youths who have left the institutie; presented an appropriate address, which was read by 0° of the youths named Henry Waters. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, in a brief but e% d : pressive address, co m pli mente d t h e youths on the ad vantages they had gain e d by t h e i r connex i on with 0; institution, and express e d a h o p e f or t h e success o f tha t about to be establi s h e d on t h e new principle, and t" s , foundation-stone of whi c h, b y t h e des i re of the Preside° and officers, he had that day assisted in laying. At the conclusion his Royal Highness was lona l l cheered, and " God save th e Q ueen " having been su e 4, by a select choir, u n d er t h e di rect i on of Mr. Limpus' t ':, s procession was ref orme d, an d hi s Royal Highness CO,h' ducted to the station, and with his suite returned irern diately to town by th e s p ec i a l tra i n, amid the loud c heers of the vast assemblage. The rest of the distinguished visitors and officers, i e. eluding a large numb er o f e l egantly-att i red l a dles' amongst whom were th e C ountess o f Ellesmore, L 9 ' do # Bradie, Lady Ashley, the Lady Mayoress, &C., B°4 repaired to the ma gn ifi cent tent ( which, toget h e r wit o °, the pavilion, &c., we re erecte d b y M r. S i mmon ds, Southampton-row, Bloomsbury), and partook of s mp g elegant r e p as t, p repare d b y Mr. Rolfe, of the W ijj Hart Hotel, Reigate. The Duke of RICHMOND presided, and on the retn° Ya l of the cloth proposed the usual loyal and person° toasts. His GRACE rose and proposed, " Prosperity to the Philanthropic Society's Farm School." He said the in' stitution had been established about sixty years, origl c i ginally at Hackney, but f or t h e l ast f i fty years it 1 '; been in St. George's-fields, in the same county (Surrey' but now it was found desirable to remove the childreLP, to that healthy district, w ith a v i ew to i ts esta blish' meat upon a principle w hi c h i n F rance ha d me t with the greatest p oss ibl e success. The ob j ect WI , , to promote emigration of th e b oys, and 36 had b ee n al' ready sent to A lgoa B a y. H e was i nformed t h a t the reformation had previously been 70 out of 100, but till ought to persevere if th e y cou ld on l y i n d uce 5 per cc% to reform. His Grace coupled the toast with the 111161 „ b of the Earl of Harrowhy, which having been drunk " due honours, The Earl of HARROWBY, in an eloquent speech, 14° ' knowledged the compliment. The amusements of th e d ay were enlivened by t he z a vocal efforts of M r . R. Li mpus, and a choir of you th under the direction of Mr. R. Limpus. After " the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, &c.," had been given and respond e d t o , f o ll owe d b y that of the Noble Chairman, the company broke up. The children from the various Sunday and N a tiona l Schools in the locality, an d t h ose from the union, which had been on the grou n d d ur i ng t h e d ay, were afterwards regaled with substantial fare. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Saturday was the second Jenny Lind night of the seal, end the furore seems, if p oss ibl e, i ncreased. The crush 1/ terrific, and before the d oors h ad b een opened ten minti,tl3, be the house was crammed t o su ff ocation in every part. opera was Lucia di Lammermoor, with the same cast as,r,". season—the Lind sust a i n i ng the character of Lucia, t. 15/. , '; doni that of Edgard ° , and Coletti that of Ashton. J e nn y Lind, who was received with more than the wonted thusiam, was in excellent voice, and never su nk or acted better. Gardoni, although still eviden i.. suffering from indisposition, gave the pathetic p cl ,: tions of the chara c t er o f Edgardo with excl:' site tenderness, and Col e tti was, as he always ,:, d been, the best Ashton on th e stage. Jenny was cel l on at the end of each of the two first acts, twice at the 05 elusion of the mad scene, w h en her Majesty, who honour the theatre with her p resence; j oined in the applause, oils again at the conclusio n o f t h e opera, when she was led on by Gardoni, who had likewise the honour of a call. The Queen and hi s R oya l Highness Prince Albert honoured the performance with their presence. The Royal suite eluded the Duchess of Sutherland, the Hon. Miss Paget, L or ,l Byron, Colonel Buckley, and Colenel Seymour. Her It°) Highness the Duchess o f K ent, accompanied by her Serene ' Highness the Princes s A me li a of Hohenlohe Schillia s ; furst, and attended b y Lady Augusta Bruce, tb t Baroness de Speth, L or d J ames Murray, and sir George Couper, also honoured the theatre with her Roi Highness's presence. Her Majesty the Queen Adelaide . box was occupied by h er S erene Hi ghness the Prince!, Elise of Hohenlohe Schillingsfurst, his Serene nightie': Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, his Serene Highness Pr. f ir ie g , William of Hesse Philipst a hl, t h e C omtesse d ' Erfa, the Vin count, and Viscountess B arr i ngton , t h e H on. Mi ss Mitchell and Captain Bedford. Hi s R o y a l H ig h ness the p r ior . Leopold of Naples (Count o f S yracuse ) , attended by . Chevalier Colonna, also visited the theatre. Amongst t,,`„ company were—his Grace th e D u k e o f W e lli ngton an d Ladd Charles Wellesley, the Duke and Duchess of Cleveland ep Lady Alicia Paulet, the Duchess of Leeds and Miss 1 4% 13 Fox. the Duchess of B eau f or t, hi s E xcellency the Bassi 0 Minister, the Baroness Brunnow and Mademoiselle de 13t 00 0 now, his Excellency the Swedish Mini s t er an d t h e Barone:. Rehausen, his Excellency the Austrian A m b assa d or an d Countess Colloredo, his Excellency the Neapolitan Ancibn sador, his Excellency the Brazili an Mi n i ster as Madame de Lisboa, his Excellency th e D an i sh Minister , the Marquis and Marchioness of Ailesbury, the Marquis ° Clanricarde, the Marquis of Granby,the Marquis of nuntlePf the Marquis of Sligo and the Ladie s B rowne, the Marqu is 1 , Stafford, Marquis Donegal, the Prince Petrola, his Exc e f lency the Charg6 d'Affaires from C osta Rica, the Marlizige Ely, the Marchioness of Headfort, the E ar l o f Liverpool, ttio Earl and Countess de Dunstanville, Count Wi e denbrile,7; the Earl of Cardigan, the E arl and Countess of Norbury, r'd Earl of Falinouth, the Earl and Countess of Wilton 111 . t party, Viscount Cant i l upe, Viscount Enfield, Viscount C!lt, den, Lord Feversham, Lord Charles Wellesley, Lord I:, 11° c if Lord Cranstoun, L ord Elphinstone, Lord G. Paget, Lord Dashwood, Lo r d W . Paget, Lady Maria Saunderson, Gardner, Lord Ossulston, Sir J. Shelley and Lady Shells e ;:ati. Sir G. Wombw e ll , S i r J. East, Sir Cornwallis Ricketts, ' 3 " sit Abney, Sir J. B a il ey and Lady Bailey, Sir W. Clayton, Seymour Sadler, Sir T. Duckworth, Sir T. Gage, Lieuten an t. General Si r A . W oodford, the Hon. H. Cavendish, l' adf Repton, and Admiral Sir J. Dean Dundas. MRS. TROLLOP'S'S NEW NOVEL, " Tin LOTT— OF MARRIAGE," is published this day by Mr. Colbtll and may now be had at all the libraries. Also , i tl : published, 2. R oc ki ng h am; or, T he Younger Brntyh-kr; 3. Lady Alice; or, The New Una. 4. Owen Tudor, the Author of " Whitefriars." 5. Mordaunt Hen , bi t , the Author o f " E m ili a W yn d ham. " 6. Lucille Belni°n "he Second Editi on , rev i se d . 7. The Diamon d and h-or ' Pearl, by M rs . G ore . 8 . Th e Ol d Judge by the .Anb;d of "Sam Sli c k." 9. Th e Di sc i pline of Life, Se oj , ) l, Edition. 10. The Mid n i g h t S un, b y Mi ss B re mer, I %a 11. Mildred Vernon, A Tale of Parisian Life, Se e°- Edition. Sr METROPOLITAN AND C ITY POLICE.—From 9 r be ' r liamentary paper just issu e d, it a pp ears that the of robberies committed within the bounds of the tne e o f politan police last year was 63,747, and that the v ale the property stolen was 196,0241. The value of the I: 0 0 perry r, covered was 47.341/. The number of Pe r 6g 3 s taken into custody l as t y ear was 64,480, 0, whoin 1, 1 1 71 were discharged, and the remaining 27,274 conviatea held to bail. the gracious Sovereign of this country had no andpo w •.i .i r e , r b p e a c r a l u i a s e ra e sh e t e . w T a s guided They ey knew, by strictly her speaking, the Crown of England seldom acted for itself; hut still, without armies, or weapons of warfare of any kind, the Sovereign had a hold of millions of hearts that would defy the pretensions of any usurper with possess. In the the hearts of the a h l e l ld the wh g i u e u h s t a h n e d s a e r v m e i r e e s ig h n e h m a d i g o h n t . 1 e he believed the English people, she found a title stron g er than title any actual one ; and su ch a Raja of Sattara held over a considerable part of India, and that title he gave up. In that sense he became completely a part of our Government, and thencefor ward he had no connexion with his former adhe rents, excepting those whom we placed over him. He made enormous sacrifices in consenting to that treaty, and that he did so was abundantly shown even from the words that were quoted against him, when, as "he said in his haste," he was reduced to a mere Mumlutiar.—(Applause.) So the treaty was not a nudum pactum, it was a solemn treaty; and he gave up that and became one of their empire, binding himself to act in subordinate co-operation with them, but on condition that there was to be between them and him a perpetual friendship and alliance, and that that should be continued to his " heirs and successors, in per petual sovereignty."—(Hear, hear.) Now he (Mr. Mackenzie) thought the treaty was of some importance ; but, by the other side of the bar, it was treated as if Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphinstone had given the treaty without any consideration at all. It had been almost suggested by gentlemen on the other side that Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphinstone were playing a trick upon us when they talked of heirs and successors. Now, in the Hindoo mind adoption was a thing which was perpetually I present. He had no doubt it must have been present in the mind of Mr. Elphinstone when this treaty was made, and would, if he had wished it, have been guarded against. If there were any men on earth who were incapable in the slightest degree of want of candour, they were to be found among the members of this Court; but he never in his life met with a man who had so untiring a love of truth, or such an utter abhorrence of falsehood and injustice, as Mr. Elphinstone ; and they might be perfectly sure that what he gave he gave in the highest sense bona fide.—(Great applause.) There was a very wide question of expediency on which he must say a word ; but he was the more willing not to enter on the discussion of the question of expediency, because it had already been power fully urged that the question was a question of jus tice, which it was after all ; and he felt confident that they would acknowledge that if the justice of it was questionable, there should be raised no ques tion of expediency. But he did attach great importance to the declaration of the Court that they kept a watchful eye over the government of India; and to their deprecation of the slightest devia tion from the straight path of honour and good faith —(Hear, hear) —he did attach great importance, be cause on that line of conduct the use of that Court mainly depended. Their office and business was to see that what men in the hurry of business, or when interest urged them to seek revenue from the slightest breach of good faith,—to see that what they did was correct—to see that what was pledged should be performed, and that, instead of its being frittered away against the weak, his very weakness should be a ground of security.—(Applause.) It was highly important that a watchful eye should be kept on all governments, and even on the best. Let that Court act on that principle, and he believed its office would be highly important. He did trust that that dis cussibn might ultimately lead to a revision of the case ; and he was still in the hope that Lord Dalhousie might see reason to review his opinion ; and when the Chairman of the Court of Directors had been longer in that chair, he (Mr. Mackenzie) did believe and confidently hope he would be able, when the Chairman had had longer experience in great ques tions, both of public policy and of law, to place the opinion of Sir Archibald Galloway against that of a great Mahometan lawyer.—(Loud applause.) He (Mr. Mackenzie) felt that he had already detained them too long. What he had left undone, he hoped they . would not attribute to the weakness of his cause, but to his wish not unnecessarily to weary them ; above all, that they would not let the good cause of justice and good government suffer from the errors of its advo cate.—(Applause.) Sir HENRY WteLocs said he considered that this was not a common case. It appeared to him that the question before the Court was of a momentous character, and he should be acting an unmanly part if he attempted to shirk it. He had been always of opinion, that the deposition of the Raja of Sattara was forced on the Government, and he had never had occasion to swerve from that opinion. But the matter was entirely disconnected with that deposition. The British Government, in raising the Raja of Sattara to the throne, virtually acknowledged that even the misconduct of the Raja of Sattara was not to effect its annihilation, and he (Sir 11. Willock) considered that on the death of that Prince the only point which the Court had to decide upon was the choice of a successor. He con ceived that Mr. Elphinstone and the Raja were hound to fulfil that acceptation of the treaty; and that in annexing the territory of Sattara a sacred en gsgement bad been violated, which would affect the public mind of India, and also the minds of independent Princes acting under their superintendence. It words had any meaning at all, the territory of Sattara was most solemnly ceded in perpetuity, both in word and spirit. He deeply lamented that the national honour had been compromised by the decision of the Court, and he feared it might be prejudicial to the native principalities of India. Sir ROBERT CAMPBELL, who spoke in a tone of voice scarcely audible, was understood to say, that in order to become master of the question before the Court, he had for months waded through the voluminous papers relating to it. He thought it very unjust to visit upon the pre sent claimants the consequences of any misconduct of which the previous Raja might have been guilty. He approved of his having boen deposed, because he thought is his conscience that the Raja did mean ill to the Government, but be did not not consider that that would justify the company in taking possession of his territory, which was given by treaty to him and to his heirs and successors for ever. Mr. Pisa ftiP said he was always of opinion, and he never concealed that opinion, that the Baja of Sattara was very harshly treated, and had been deposed from his sovereignty on evidence which ought only to have been made the ground of an inquisition ; but he saw no remedy for the mischief that had been committed, and therefore no use in continuing the agitation. It was on that ground that he had hitherto remained silent and had been content to support with his vote the authority of the Court. But now the question had assumed a different phase. It was no longer which of the two brothers was guilty ; both the brothers had gone to their long account, there to settle before a tri bunal which judged of men by what passed in their hearts, and not by their words. Both of thorn, however, had left adopted children, and the question was whether the Court was bound to recognise the adopted child of the one brother or of the other. That question, highly important as it undoubtedly was, had bean decided by the Governments of India, but not decided unanimously. There was one name, that of Sir George Clerk, their late Governor at Bombay, which always commanded the highest respect in this country, and even higher in India; he was a dissentient. Among the dissentients there were names that would carry great authority in India and in this country also.—(Cheers.) It was for that reason that that Court was entitled to expect from anybody who had filled a distinguished station in India, that they should come forward and add their testimony to the one side or to the other, in order to give effect and add authority to the judgment that might be come to in that Court. On that account he had been induced to depart from the rule that he had previously laid down, to keep silence. It was hardly necessary for him there to recur to what passed when the Raja of Sat tara was elevated to the Gadi in 1819. Still there were circumstances attending that elevation which he thought bore materially on the case. He gained possession of the territory of Sattara after the battle of Ashtee in Fe bruary, 1818, and immediately afterwards the Raja was proclaimed the immediate successor of the former occu pant of the Gadi. But the Raja obtained no territory— we had none to give him, and he held none of his own. It was not until after Bajeerow had surrendered that we had the means of giving him any territorial possession. He (Mr. Prinsep) had not come prepared to make a speech, fortified by quotations from the blue book. He spoke only from his memory, but he was quite sure that those dates were correct. We obtained possession of the territory in February, 1818, and proclaimed the Raja. Bsjeerow surrendered in July or August in the same year, and the treaty of Setters bore date in September, 1818. Now it must be evident that Whatever territory the Raja derived was derived under under that treaty, and was given by our Government.— (Hear, hear.) That was a most essential feature in the case. They were not dealing with a Raja who held he reditary succession; they were dealing with one who derived his possession entirely from us. He (Mr. Prinsep) spoke not of him as a protected Prince, bound to us in a subordinate relation, but as a person who ob tained revenue extracted by us from the country merely by our act. So complete was his subordinate relation to us, that after we had made the treaty we did not give him possession of his territory for some time. It was only after a long observation of his character, it was only on the report of the authorities whom we had placed there as Residents, that the Raja was intrusted with the pos session of his territory ; and yet that It Aja was treated as one who had enjoyed hereditary territory, and was likened to the indep e nd ent sovere i gns of Burmah, and of other territories in India, with whose possession we never could pretend to interfere. Now, having brought those circumstances to their notice, they had to consider what rights or territory the Raja had derived under the treaty. Much stress had been laid on the i words " heirs and successors in perpetual sovereignty." Now, undoubtedly, when that treaty was made, both the Raja and 'his brother were young men, in the prime of manhood, and taking that into consideration, who ever could entertain any doubt at that time of the failure of the treaty for want of successors ? The Court always " locked the stable door after the horse was stolen;" they always made provisions in treaties afor experiencing difficulties in amending them.---(Hear, hear.) We assigned this territory, but it was not only the territory that was assigned, but the state and dignity of Sattara that was engaged to be retained to the family in perpetual sovereignty. We assigned it "to him and his heirs and successors." Stress had been laid oil the word " successors," as if it would imply something other than heirs, and, therefore, that it would include heirs by adoption. .Now, it was necessary to say a word or two on that subject before he proceeded further. Our treaty was to him and his heirs and successors. That, of course, gave his heirs a right to claim. The mean ing of the words was to him and his heirs, and whom soever we should acknowledge as his successors. The word " successors " gave no body a right to claim suc cession. When succession was declared in favour of an adopted son, or of a stranger, then that party claimed our fulfilment of the treaty, but not until then. The only interpretation th a t cou ld e ff ect t hi s quest i on was that it was a pledge to continue the succession, even if there were no heirs. Then again came the question about the succession. The real question was, whether, under the word " heirs," the right of adoption was in cluded. He did not think the Raja himself had a right of adoption as derived from succession. Mr. HOPE MACKENZIE, being appealed to by Mr. Prinsep. said the word " heirs" was enough, but " suc cessors" clenched it. Mr. PRINSEP continued—Before a man could claim under those words his adoption must be admitted ; he must be a regularly adopted son. The real question was whether the adoption that had been reported to us in this instance was such as to carry conviction to their minds that it was correct. Of course the material considqration was what was the understanding of the Raja with whom we made the treaty. Whets the adoption took place, the deceased Raja might be said to have been in articulo mortis. Indeed the question of adoption did not appear to have been referred to in the first treaty. At that time the question was not settled ; but they must reccollect that the treaty was renewed by Sir James Carnac, when the second Raja was placed upon the throne; and they had a right to consider what passed then, as it bore essentially upon the question. The matter was brought before the Court by Sir James Carnac, and the treaty was signed by the Raja on the distinct understanding that in the default of heirs, and in the event of adoption, the selec tion or confirmation of the the fitness of the adoption should remain with the Court. That doctrine was printed, and had been before the public for years; and, therefore, on what pretence could it be said that its pur port was not conveyed to the Raja, and, indeed, that it was not well known to every officer of the Court? At Benares, and, indeed, his whole conduct throughout showed, that that was the interpretation which he put upon the treaty. Up to the time of the adoption, the matter did not appear to have troubled his mind, and it was only when he found that he should not live long that he went to the Resident and sought his sanction to the adop tion. The authority was just as necessary with respect to the act as it was to the person related. He first consulted Mr. Frere with respect to the adoption of one of his family, but he told him he had no authority to sanction any proceedings of the kind; but whilst searching as to what he should do, the disease grew upon him, and when, as he had said, he was in articulo mortis, in the presence of those about him, but without the observations of the forms ne cessary for such a proceeding, he named this young man as his heir. Let them suppose that Pertaub Singh had left a real son, or that he had a host of uncles and cousins, would they support the doctrine that an adoption of this nature was to cut off their claims altogether? Would they not say, " We never sanctioned the adoption of this person, and we therefore protest his being considered the heir of the late Raja." The Directors had, he thought, done well, in setting aside such a claim. Let the legitimate heirs come forward and make their claim ; if they had inherited any right, let it be bestowed upon them, instead of this youth, who but for his accidental presence at the time would never have been adopted at all. If there were any legitimate descendants let them come forward and make their claim—let them prove their descent. Unless they had some claim they would have no right to inter fere. The treaty spoke of heirs. Of course that meant that the heirs must belong to the family; and surely there could not be any lack of claimants since the great Mogul himself had at least 3 000 descendants.— (Laugh ter.) They could not go beyond the family for heirs, who must, he supposed, be understood as heirs collateral —but his heirs had not claimed as heirs, because they were not properly descended. He did not, however,, mean to say that the heirs of the body of the Raja and his brother would be entitled to claim. A DIRECTOR—The draft of the treaty did not say so. Mr. PRINSEP said he was stating his own opinions. He was there to rapport his convictions, and not those of any other man.—(Hear, hear.) He had held high office in India and had gained much respect, and he cared not whether his sentiments were palatable or not. It was well known that some of the tribes of India traced their descent to the sun or the moon ; but to rational minds a claim must be of a legitimate and bona fide nature, or it could not be entertained. He was perfectly ready to recognise any legitimate claim that might be set up by the family of the Raja. They were bound to maintain public tran quillity in India, and to regulate the military and police, and the natives of India looked to them for protection. It was therefore necessary that their form of govern ment should meet the wishes and wants of the people. Much had been said of the political effect which the proceedings of the Court with respect to the Sattara territory would have on the natives. This might be so ; but no one there would accuse him of advocating any cause which was unjust. In the face of all obstacles, and through good and ill repute, he had defended the rights of the natives, and he would not therefore injure the reputation he had left behind him by standing up to advocate a cause which he did not believe in his conscience to be a good one. He spoke from his knowledge of the people of India when he said that he was sure they would not view the course which the Court had pursued on the Sattara question in that light. Indeed the Raja had not shown himself in a favourable light to his people, or particularly tender of the rights of those placed under him. On the contrary, they found him considering that his rights overrode every one. The moderate government of this Company stood high in India. The case in point was an example of this. The Raja obtained the grant of a territory which was to relapse to us if he had no heirs. They, therefore, had a right to deny the act of adoption, because it was made without reference to them, and altogether without their consent. He should exhaust the patience of the Court if he were to trace the arguments by which some Hon. Proprietors contended that the Raja was entitled to do as he did. He had stated his opinion on the broadest ground, because he believed the majority of the Court, and, indeed, the majority of the people of England would decide it as he had laid it down. Without looking at the interpretation of the words of the treaty, and without reference to Puffendorf, Vette!, or, indeed, to the Hindoo interpretation, his impression was as he had stated it. He believed it to be correct, and he should meet the motion of Mr. Sullivan, therefore, with a decided negative.—(Cheers.) Colonel SYKES, a Director, said he was not in office last year, therefore his sentiments were not recorded in the blue book. He had risen to make a few observations, because ho believed he owed it to his constituents that no mistake should exist with respect to his sentiments upon the question before the Court. He would only touch upon one or two of the leading features of the discussion, as it appeared to him that a great deal of the matter which bad been introduced into the discussion might have been thrown aside altogether. The primary question was unquestionably the treaty—(Hear, hear)—and nothing but the treaty. IR the first place, they had nothing to do with the ex- Raja Pertaub Singh, whether he was innocent or guilty, or whether he was unjustly deposed or not—they had nothing to do with the right of the succession of his brother to the office of Raja of Sattara; all they had to do with these two individuals was, whether, in conse quence of their deaths, they had a right to seize the territory.---(Hear, hear.) And to enable them properly to decide upon the matter they had nothing to guide them but the words of the treaty. Their explanation to the world in general, to the people of India, and to the family of the late Raja, of the course they had adopted, must rest for its explanation upon the treaty—upon that document to which they had placed their hands and seals. Mr. Elphinstone said that the territory was ceded to the Raja in conse quence of the antiquity of the Sattara family. Mark that! Not in consequence of his own claims or merits, but in consequence of the antiquity of his family, the British Government had thought right to allot that ter ritory to his family in perpetual sovereignty for the sup port of his family, and after him to his heirs and suc cessors. To those conversant with the Arabic, the Sans crit, the Mahratta, and the Hindostanee languages, the terms of the treaty were intelligible enough. Translated into English, its terms were equally intelligible; they. therefore, ought to be influenced as to the meaning of the treaty by those most competent in the business of in terpretation. They had had the opinions of many great writers on international law. Puffendorff, one of those cited, said that if there was a disputed ques tion between two nations, that it should be interpreted favourably to the weaker party. Now, had they done so? In this case most unquestionably they had not. The words of the treaty, " heirs and successors," meant that some one should be nominated to succeed to the office. Mr. Sergeant Payne stated in the intelligent speech which he made at the last sitting of the Court, and he agreed with him in the sentiment, that as the treaty contained some strin gent conditions, if the opposite was intended that a clause to that effect would have been put into it--(Hear) —namely, that unless the Raja had a son or other lineal heir, that the - territory should lapse to the British Go vernment. Now that was not done; therefore, it was obvious that such a result was not con templated at all. He would not go further into the question of interpretation, except to say say that if there was a doubt upon the matter that they should in justice have recourse to those who, with elabo rate ingenuity, had framed the treaty. Why did they not send for Mr. Elphinstone? Why did the Directors not seek from him the interpretation which he put upon t t r h e e e t t e r e d a i t t y w a e t r e the th e time o p i e t r w p a a r s ti e m s ade. toexe T ie hse who i o nite import. con He had the pleasure:of Mr. Elphinstone's acquaintance, and he was one of those whom he revered for his inte grity and talents. It was a primary condition in the h treaty but that t the eli Raja the y did not might bringapse eo the provided questionthcer wereeildrw children, who t o were the heirs to be, having determined p rimarily and unquestionably that were there to m b u e st b e e dop h t e e i d rs, whether h whether heirs generally, or whether heirs of the blood. Now he had strong ideas on that subject arising out of his past experience in India, where ha . had ,pent a good deal of time, and in all cases where there were no stipue lations against adoption, the right to do so was always admitted. In many parts of India the natives were bound to adopt as a religious performance, and that adoption carried with it certain legal rights.—(Hear, bear.) TO 1 1 3 QW 1110 e4t 4 34 t 9 Whi94 j NI/ 94/00 he