The Sun. — London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

effect w ith respect to temporali ies. That principle was ad kaulitteui;icaseshy Dr. Wisenian; and , by Mr. Bowp-r in his able Z et, I n cases where oish.ips having territorial dis et, ps cl a i med t h e r i g h t o f appo i nting pr i es t s to benefices, that right being resisted by Roman Catholic laymen, or of of the merely exercising ecclesiastical functions , the force canon law, if an appeal were made to the Court of t racery, the appointment of the former would stand , or if Il e anointment of the latter were in force, the Court would those priests from their benefices. Now this was an illus tration of the mode in which the canon law could come 41 7 6 force. It might, therefore, be introduced to a consider it extent with respect to temporal matters, and be belie ved ritild be most unjust to allow trustees to be appoicted by „, Gr eigtl potentate, or through the nomination of a foren tleatate, to exercise those temporal rights over persona p ot L l g in this country. This was the case of a foreign lk, - ', t ata appointing and having control over bishops, '" Which means they . would exercise control over British th at He believed he spoke the truth when he said he t there were no spiritual functions which could not f o P e Jformed in all respects by persons exercising episcopa l e "aus as by territorial bishops. He had not hea r d 411,, gentletnan mention a matter of spiritual interest which (aired the bishop of a territorial district to perform. - ' , ti e : r, hear.) Did ordination, collation to benefices, clispen lit 1 4 the administration of governments—did any one of b il e i B l e matters require to be exclusively performed by the of a territorial district? He invited Honourable 4emen who spoke after him, to mention , if they could , toy spiritual , Pirt matters which could be administered by the 'QaP of a territorial diocese, but could not be administered t ti bishop nut belonging to a territorial district. Now , if a /tet t be so—and if the appointment of territorial bishops does th te ach the spiritual but the temoral part of the matter, .ea it w ag idle to talk about this measure being an act of crleetition and tyrannising over the Roman Catholics. It tb , l4 not a measure to interfere with the rights, and func treat, and freedom of religion, but a measure to check and thel a direct species of machinery which transferred into k i "Qs of a foreip potentate certain property to a con % stable extent belonging to the inhabitants of this lie tillt rY. and allowed that foreign potentate to deal with it. 4 41 ." ever complained that the full performance of spiritual cholla had not been carried out within the last fifty Cl aitim re in this country by vicars-apostolic? — (Hear , h ear. ) .42E hoer matters stood in the Bill before the House. oitl, li tilouse was now asked to read the Bill a , " e intention on the part of the Government second to omit %4 the clauses except the first clause. He admitted there % difference between the case of England and Ireland in matters. In Ireland, for three hundred years, the Ro orT:Ca tholic Church had heen . governed by means of bishops erntorial dioceses, while in this country that system existed.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite obvious that it t :: / different matter to put an end to a system tat had i et l :ted for three centuries, and to prevent its introduction 5 5 a eountry where bishops of territorial distric were G recognized. That was a strong reason why the latter tiwke of the Bill should not had obe a th ppl ughtied to fit Ireland. He re- e td that t to reject thore 5 0 .. 1144 4 and to confine the Bill to the first clause. With re , to the opinion given by Mr. Bethell, of the Chancery v i i i t.tespecting the operation of the Bil l, he did not a g ree "i that opinion, but he should state how far he considered l on e Orrect. It was undoubted law that a contract or liabilit y h i ..."glit to be established in a court of law by a person calling l o 'lelf Archbishop of Westminster could be enforced. No ct i la t gar would they dispute that proposition. The Court of the Archbishop would only look whether the person styling himself Archbishop of Westminster was clearly entitled to the 4 . 14 which he bed made. To this extent , and this ex would the second claim be included in the first. •avr of Ireland for the last 21 years was the same as now h. - Posed, and in no court of justice was any case raised, and tt w as sure his Learned Friends of tha English bar would k t r e e admit that at no bar could there be found mote as *iv! More l earne d, or able gentlemen than those connected h e . LI the Irish bar.— (Hear, hear.) They would take an ob tht,4oll to the system if they could, and the House woo d find i t during that length of time that no interference what- Ch l/r was attempted with the concerns of the Roman Catholic die. rel l in that country. He admitted there was a cons iderale ho t l re ace between the case of Ireland and that of England, c.„ 'men objections were made against the Bill on th at ac- Cult, the House would allow him to call their attent ion to t o : Veration of the clause. The Bill proposed to do nothing 1111: 1 than this; it said that if new bishops were m ade in n d ad they should be exactly in the same position as the th and that if new ones were appointed in this country , 4 should be placed in the same position as the Irish of 11 , ( 1 )11 Hear, hear.) Now that was really the effect te",..?_ Bill, and where was the monstrous persecution the 7ei ch they had heard so much, and against which k o deople had been stirred up to the depths of their in- Ile feelings ?—(Cheers.) Surelygthere must be some leiltlgniore in it than what there appeared on the surface. Of b i e 3 , l ! similar measure was introduced into the Relief Act 0 111 , 4 , was it not then considered a great boon, and did any th e "&elnan say then, lk at the tyranny which existed, and Thy outrage offered tomen's consciences ?—(Hear, hear.) -eta tiod where was the abandonment of the principle of civil e h . e .eligious freedom? So far from it, that when , in 1829, b o i l existing for three hundred years was changed in thetau, no complaint was raised against it ; and where was dship, or why exclaim against it , when introduced this country to meet a case for the first time , a nd when th e reallY different system formerly existed? It was, strange that it should be said this was a tli c ." o , s ti of civil and religious liberty; and, as reg arded English Members who opposed the measure, he be te yd it was done from a belief that the Queen ought not to e Of% th Supreme head of any church. That was the cause ! great schism which occurred in the Scottish Church, p ee ',Oat opinion was also entertained by a great mass of the j 4 of this country. With respect to the observations 4 1 ,7 1 by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, that the present kiaosure was a persecution of Roman Catholics , he (tl'e r ues-General) did not think his Honourable an d Learn ed eittlld himself believed it. He, for one, and those connec ted c lli a; had the strongest possible affection for his Raman atholic fellow-subjects, and desired that they should have fu llest and freest exercise of their religi on ; and sorr y et %Jr: ll d he feel, were he a party to any act which would re ltiD.l,4l, them in that exercise in the slightest degree. His tar Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, in his eloquent 44:14brilliant speech, which was listened to by the douse with to o I leh admiration as pleasure—(Cheers) - referred to a per -1514g0.in a spech of his made on the occasion when the Di- Lk, atic Relations Bill was before the House. His Right hi',„:. Friend would, h owever s e e, if the House would allow kt Z to refer to that passage, that his opinions then were in b„'tt accordance with those which he now entertained. In liLat of fact, what he then said might be fairly construed a prophecy of what occurred in September last. A Won was proposed by the Hon. Member for Lambeth (4' C. Pearson), and in resisting it, he (the Attorney ilk, etc) said that as the law now stood, the Pop e ma y it eel out the county as he pleased, and if the motion were teed to his power would still be the same, but that the only mode of preventing it was to open dip lomatic ta e ,` i alle with the See of Rome.—(Hear, hear.) Now that li m 7t nothing more than this—namely, that be was de- Cus there should be a Bill to prevent such a measure as was to:,,ilvards introduced, and that opinion was strictly in ac nirace with the opinions he then held. Thera certainly hop nothing in the law as it stood to prevent the assump tot af ecclesiastical titles, and parcelling out a territory te et c i l c i aceses in England was not illegal ; and as to the sug- Itu ti 'lls thrown out that a prosecution ought to have been tho ed. he acknowledged that he and his Learned Friend ti t , o olicitor-General were most reluctant to do so, an& tity ri .g l 7 dissuaded the Government from having recourse to !Ibl v ' 4 ,9 1 proceeding.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The It ,'„ e uence committed was that of publishing the bull ; and ee ol - 4 1ght to be recollected that every newspaper in the vVi o ,`„, r l committed the same offence as Cardinal alite r ,`"ati in that respect. Then with respect to stopdiplo tln relations with Rome, it ought to be recollected that „ r aeasure was rendered inoperative and inefficient, be liha Noble Lord had in another place introduced clauses ~4 4 0te eanipletely crippled the measure, and yet that Noble - I,yras now opposed to the present Bill.- (Cries of tett7) hear.") He thought then, as he thought now, that eti ft ...t . ineasuee would have prevented what has since oc and every subsequent circumstance confirmed him, tar e i twas a misfortune of no ordinary kind that that mea- Of tk uld not pass into a law.—(Hear, hear.) The law officers th o ,:',e Cro wn could not bring an action, nor did they fe el it * raelves justified in prosecuting under old and obsole'e Its. 4 ll ,! e `,' and the only remedy, therefore, which remained, ttt o • legislative enactment and a legislative declaration that Pe a ct complained of was illegal, and imposing certain af COLea in case of its being violated. The Roman Catholics lot th a l country were a body of men peculiarly remarkable af [ Zeit loyalty to the Throne, and their zeal for the interests tr o t hs country. In saying that he did not make any excep t their favour to the prejudice of other portions of the trl l4 l t a L linity who are equally loyal, but it would now be seen ta xi tier in their obedience to the law they would show their T11 5 ,Y to continue in the course they had so long followed. loti.., 4 tight Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon bad 41 4 ; 4 1 , the present Bill a measure of persecution_ , bat t.o * Y he could not compare it as such with the otpkation of the Edict of Nantes, or in any way approach otat7klat might be fairly termed a persecution for religious te t ,,, b atul- He' ad also, in a peculiarly touching manner, re ttlif,'" to one by whom he was bound by every tie, and to 4,_ -2141 principles he owed the position he enjoyed in that bo t 7 L e. Those were the principles in which he was educated ; ti he believed it was perfectly consistent with those prin fellrui to adopt the course which henow felt himself bound to t o "v. But perhaps his Right Hon. Friend would allow him peeler to a speech of his made on the 30th of March, 1835, !,,the appropriation clause. In that speech his Right Hon. t oe s nd said, " It may be said that I am deviating from :O se general Whig principles on which I acted since I :o,tered into public life—and if I might venture to define L a . ` !in, I should say they consisted in liberty of thought or j.`ition in all matters political and religious consistent with 17W, order, and constituted authority. lam for no death's h e :d and cross-bones—for no prayers of mercy limited to V ot iv eui but not to earth, because a Roman Catholic ot te r would not go a certain way. I feel the tloZ9st jealousy of Popery as an instrument of political krnation—(Hear, hear, and loud cheering)--an ardent ii ‘ j uncompromising attachment to the Protestant religion o 4r uY law established."—(Cheers.) He (the Attorney-Ge tooel) fully concurred in those sentiments, and with the f ere " anxious wish that the prevnt measure would not inter te With that harmony now happily existing between both e e :tries, with a ifncere desire that the prosperity now % At ti ing on that country should not be blighted by anything th * 'tad occurred, he felt bound conscientiously to vote for tlecond reading of the Bill.—(Cheers.) L ( 1 ) . • W. FAGAN moved the adjournment of the debate. tl l4 td JOHN RUSSELL said he was not going to oppose il es alotion for the adjournment of the debate; but consi ti4g' the extent and ability of the arguments used on both ‘lll Ai he hoped the House would look forward to a divisio n Tk ondav night. th e motion for the adjournment was then agreed to, and I I,lebate was accordingly adjourned till Monday next. t( ) e Consolidated Fund (8,000,000/0 Bill passed through Aikittee. MITCHELL moved for a Select Committee to in t e Into the constitution ani management of the Board of Lot Iporns. 4 e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he should t ,, sl ut s'PPose the motion, but he hoped his Hon. Friend would coo 'ansider his consent to the motion as at all implying a T he on his part as to the necessity for it. e motion was then agreed to. kr it, LABOUCHERE moved for leave to introduce a Bill 4, 4 -' 5 better amendment of the navigation-laws relating to at o e l - vessels, with a view to prevent overcrowding, and to Pr Proper accommodation to passengers. He should also o kase to extend the Act to sailing lio4 Ri vessels. em an SIDNEY wished to know whether the steam tick .Plying on the Thames would come w ithin the opera ()Ube A t c • • LABOUCHERE replied they would be included in e Col onel SIBTHORP gave notice that on the motion for Di p into Supply he should move for the production of the Of t tr granting an additional 500/. a year to the chairman to t e Commissioners of Inland Revenue • and also call at haJan to the increasing nuisance of the hu VI organs in the streets of London. ge itinerant te 'louse then adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. tit t :iiLie Marchioness of Lansdowne was somewhat better. yea ""Y morning. Her Ladyship is At 330w00d Park, Wilts. THE SUN, EAST INDIA HOUSE. A Quarterly General Court of Directors and Pro prietors of the East India Company was held on Wed nesday, at the Company's House, Leaden hall street. James Shepherd, Esq., Chairman of the Court of Di rectors, presided. The minutes of the last quarterly Court having been read and confirmed, The CHAIRMAN announced that certain papers, in cluding correspondence between the Government of Bombay and the Government of India, relative to the annexation of Sattara, ordered by the House of Com mons to be printed, were now laid upon the table. The Hon. Chairman also informed the Court that a Bill was about to be laid before Parliament, for the purpose of awarding compensation, to the amount of 10,0001., to James Silk Buckingham, Esq., for losses sustained by him in consequence of the acts of the company. Colonel DICKINSON then brought forward the motion of which he had given notice, as follows : " No. 1. That collectorate abstracts of the nndermen tioned items in Statement No. 7 of the Parlilmentary Accounts for the year ending 1848 of the Annual Ter ritorial Revenues and Disbursements of the Bombay Presidency, indicating such portions thereof as will and may lapse to the East India Company, explanatory also of their last year's increase, collectively amountirg to rs. 33,37,971, be laid before the Court of Proprietors. Allowances and assignments payable out of the revenues in accordance with treaties or other engagements, including those of the ex-Paishwa and his Minister Allowances to village officers and enamdars 93,31,642 " No. 2. That a statement of the undermentioned item contained in the same account, indicating such portions threof as are of a general more than a local charge, be also laid before the Court of Proprietors, viz.— Charges for civil and political establishments, including contingent charges Rs. 35 ; 83,565." He thought it was most important that these accounts should be placed in such a state as would be more conducive to the character of the company. He re ferred particularly to the revenue and expenditure of the Presidency of Bombay, and observed that although the expenditure had considerably increased during the last ten years, the revenue had also increased in a still greater proportion, and would have been ade quate to afford a surplus but for the charges with re gard to the army in Affghanistan, in which Bombay had been most unfairly dealt with. The Hon. Pro prietor entered into a variety of details connected with the accounts of the presidency, for the purpose of showing that it would be much more satisfactory to the public if the items of expenditure were more fully stated. He trusted the directors would have no objection to supply the information required, and if an improved system was adopted he had no doubt the deficit now shown in the accounts would dis appear. Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the motion. He had fre quently heard Bombay taunted with its deficit, but nothing was more easy than by a particular arrange ment of the accounts to show that a deficit existed in any particular presidency. The expenditure on ac count of the army could not fairly be charged to any one presidency, but to the revenue of the Company generally. He had seen accounts laid before Parlia ment so cooked and so spiced that it was impossible to understand them, and hoped they would so be arranged that it would be known what sum should be fairly charged to each presidency. The CHAIRMAN said, with a view of meeting the motion of the Hon. and Gallant Member, he had given directions to have abstracts of these accounts prepared and laid upon the table. The Hon. Proprietor wished, further, that some different system should be adopted with regard to the accounts, in order that they might ascertain what sum should be fairly apportioned to each presidency. It was clear that the expenses of the army and navy were for the benefit of the government of India generally, and could not be distinguished or di • vided among the several presidencies; and independently of that, they were obliged to prepare the accounts in the form prescribed by the House of Common. It appeared to him that the system suggested by the Hon. Gentleman would not be by any means an im proved one. As regarded the particular items the Hon. Proprietor moved for, these abstracts would give not only the items but the names of the parties. He had no objection to the motion, but he could not con sent to have the accounts in future divided between the different presidencies, as it would be utterly im possible to do so with anything like accuracy. Colonel SYKES was glad the motion had been agreed to, and he was satisfied of this, that the more the ac counts of the company were sifted, the more satisfac tory and accurate they would be found. He hoped that in the course of the next year there would be a large surplus to be appropriated to valuable purposes. Colonel DICKENSON then moved, pursuant to notice : " No. 3. That publicity will be given in the customary newspapers of all notices of motion submitted by any member of this Court in the week following that in which they are presented, as well as on the third day previous to the meeting of the next quarterly Court of Proprietors for the consideration and disposal of all such !notions." Mr. LEwIN seconded the motion, and as the object of all the proceedings in that Court was to give pub licity, he did not think that there could be any objec tion to it. The CUAIRMAN observed that there was a private room in which any gentleman who felt interested in the subject could at any time see what was the busi ness to be brought forward. There was also a notice given in all the daily papers three days before the meeting, and he did not think it advisable to incur any additional expense. He hoped the motion would not be pressed. After some conversation the motion was withdrawn, on the understanding that the motions when given should be read in open court. Mr. LEWIN then brought forward a motion for the production of papers relative to the removal of a translator from a Government office in Madras. He admitted the right of the Company to remove him, but he complained that aspersions bad been cast upon the character of the individual which had the effect of depriving him of all means of obtaining a livelihood, without any investigation having taken place. The poor man was left totally without remedy, as the Company refused to prove the aspersions cast upon him in a court of law, by appealing against the juris diction of the court. He thought the individual, wbo had received the highest testimonials as to his charac ter and conduct, was entitled to an investigation; and that was all he asked for. Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the motion. The CHAIRMAN observed that the case had been twice brought before the Court on previous occasions. In the first instance it could not obtain a seconder; and on the second occasion the explanation was given in the fullest and most satisfactory manner. He hoped, therefore, the Court would not assent to the motion. 'The motion was then put and negatived. TERRITORY OF SATTARA. PROVISION FOR THE FAMILIES OF DECEASED RAJAS. Mr. SULLIVAN, in rising to bring forward the mo tion of which be had given notice, said—Mr. Chair man, I am about to make an appeal to your justice, and simply to your justice, on behalf of the family of the deceased Raja of Sattara, who, from want of that justice, have been reduced to a state of comparative destitution and distress. I wish to ask you, Sir, to restore to them that which I think I shall be able to prove you had no more right to deprive them of than and into my poc ket and You ha v e to put your h carry away all the money it contains.—(Hear, hear.) As a preliminary observation, I may here say that with r egar d to na ti ve princes in India who are despotic s overe i gns, a nd have uncont rolled dominion, it is not the usua l pract i ce t o make a distin ction be tween public an d pr i vate mon ey ; but whate ver ma y have been the general practice, it has no reference to the case of the Raja o f S a ttara, because , from the first constitution o f th at S tate in 1819, unde r an arrangement made by Captain Grant, the then Resi dent, whose advice, you will r e member, the Ra j a was by treaty bound to foll ow , a di st i nc ti o n was made be tween private and public money, between the money of the state and the purse. Raja's own An arrangement was entered into by which a sum of 3,12,000 rupees was allowed annually for the private expenses of the Raja and his family. This sum formed his private purse, and was kept in a separate treasury, under a se parate treasurer, and under the control of the Raja himself. This arrange ment was made by Captain Grant, under the fallow ing instruction o f t he Bth April, 18 18 : " The personal expenses of the Raja and his family o p u er gh o t o f o o o r m th . e Iplrieeiconmtptlooybmeonatb of this threeoug h l t ac t o b() l s of rupees ft to his Highness, with no other check than may be neces rgry to prevent his exceeding the amount allowed him." Here you see care was taken on the first constitution of the Sattara territory to make a distinction between the private expenses of the Raja, and the public money of the State; you see caution given that the private expenditure of the Raja should not encroach on the public expenses of the State. Now, Sir, the arrangement made by Captain Grant was commu nicated to Sir James Carnac, the Governor of Bomba's , by Lieutenant Ovens on the 28th of September 1839 : " It appears that when affairs here were in Captain Grant's hands a sum of 3,12,000 rupees annually was allowed for the private expenses of the Raja and h is family, and at that time also 2,00,000 were given to build the new palace in the town; and afterwards, when the management of the country was made over to the ex-Raja, 4,00,000 rupees was the annual sum allowed for this purpose, and 1,00,000 more were annually set aside for extraordinary State expenses." Now the Raja, Pertaub Singh, being a good mana ger of his resources, accumulated during the 20 years he was on the throne of Sattara property to the aniount or extent of 25 or 26 Lacs of rupees. Now, when the Governor of Bombay deposed the Raja of S Mara, ii y September, 1839, he made two distinct promises to him—that in the event of his peaceful submission. to the British Government, a liberal al lowance shi)uld be made to support himself and fa mily, and that all bona file private property should be restored to him : You will be careful to provide in the most efftctual manner for the personal comfort and convenience of the Raja and bis family, and to require the Sattara Govern ment to furnish everything that may be necessary for their accommodation. He is in fact to be regarded and treated as an object of sympathy and not of punishment. You will inform him that he will be permitted to reside within the Honourable Company's territories, at such place as may be s elected by the Right Honourable the Governor-General of India, and that an allowance will be assigned from the Sattara revenues for the support and respectability of himself and those members of his family who may choose to accompany him. Further, that all property 'belonging to him. bona fide private and not appertaining to the State, will on his peaceable sub missiv not be interfered with." Now, here is a bargain between two parties—the R ija, on his peaceable submission to the British Go vernment, was to have his private property restored. The Raja did make that peaceable submission, but his private property was not restored. What, then, were the reasons suggested for this breach of a most solemn engagement ? They were two—first, of all, it was said there was no private property, that all the property was the property of the State. This, Sir, was the dictum of the Court of Directors, for in a letter to the Bombay Gdvernment, they say— " We think that his claim to the treasure and jewels in the palace, as private property distinct from the pro perty of the State, was untenable; such a distinction not being ordinarily recognised in native states." This decision of the Court of Directors, you per ceive, is in the very face of the declaration, avowal, and admission made by Sir James Carnac, that the Raja had private property, and that that property ought to be restored to him. It is, moreover, in the face of the admission of Appa Sahib Maharaj, the individual who had the strongest possible interest in .., . proving that there was no private property ; for if there was no private property, the whole property would devolve on him as the successor of his brother. In the 11th paragraph of the Resident's-letter, which I have just quoted from, the writer says— " The whole of this property is claimed by the ex- Raja, but Appa Sahib Maharaj (his successor) main tains that about 5 or 6 lacs of the money is State pro perty and private property belonging to him, as also about 2 lees worth of jewels, and that the remainder only belongs to the ex-Raja and the, ladies of his . _ . Here, Sir, we have the express admission of the validity of the ex-Raja's claims by the party who had the strongest possible interest in contesting them. He admits, beyond all doubt, that about 2 lacs of hard cash and 6 lacs worth of jewels was the private property of the Raja. Now I have shown that on the 13th of August, 1839, Sir James Carnac made a distinct avowal thai the Raja was possessed of private property. On the 11th of November, three months afterwards, he repeated the same opinion. However, it is very true that Sir James Carnac turned round on himself, and declared on the 21st of November that the Raja had no property. He said on that oc casion— " The lion. the Governor deems it only necessary to state it to be his opinion that the whole of the claims therein advanced by the ex-Raja of Satter& should be declared inadmissible; that the property which he claims shall be considered as appertaining to the State, and as such be made over to the present Raja." Now, was this extraordinary revolution in the opinions of Sir James Carnac produced by any fresh facts that had come to his knowledge in the interval between the 30th of August, 1839, when he an nounced that the Raja had private property, and that it should be surrendered to him, and the 21st of No vember, 1839, when he denied that the Raja bad any private property, and stated that all his property would be confiscated to the British Government ? He had no new facts or information of any kind, and he proceeded precisely on the same simple fact which he was in possession of in August, 1839, viz., that a privy purse was set aside for the Raja, out of which he managed to accumulate the property an question. It might be said that Sir James Carnac was absolutely unqualified to make the promise which he did on the 30th of August; but, supposing a pro mise of that kind was made on his own responsibility and authority, to have broken it would have been an act in the highest degree indecorous. I find that in November the aid of a superior authority was called in, and that the claim of the Raja for a private purse was submitted to the Governor-General in Council. But was it submitted with any data which could enable the Governor-General to form an opinion on the merits of the case? Did he acquaint the Governor-General with the fact that from the first constitution of the Raja's private purse a positive promise and pledge was given to him that his private property should be restored? Not a jot of anything of the kind. The Governor-General acquiesced in the opinion of Sir James Carnac in abso lute ignorance of all the evidence ; but when the Raja, seven months afterwards, made an appeal to that de cision, the Governor-General ordered the Governor of Bombay to institute an inquiry into the claims of the Raja : " I am directed to request that the three memo randums put in by the Raja may receive the attention of the Governor in Council with reference to the several demands, claims, and requests therein set forth." When was any inquiry made to carry out the positive orders of the Governor-General ? None whatever, and the only result was an assertion that the claims were unreasonable. Did the dictum of Sir James Carnac pass unquestioned at the time ? Sir H. Maddock says—and 1 beg to call your par- titular attention to this passage, as it has been quoted by a gentleman of high authority on such questions : " The distinction between the public and private pro perty of princes of India is much too indefinite to have admitted of me fairly concluding that all this money, upwards of 7 hies of rupees, and much of the other pro perty made over to the present Baja, was of the nature of State property. The cash balance was clearly nothing more than the aggregate amount of what the itija had saved out of his yearly income, instead of devoting it, as he might have done, to objects either of public utility or private gratification. In case of his death he might have bequeathed this money to any other person as well as his heir and successor." Now, if a person uninformed of the facts of the case thought it dubious whether all this private pro perty was not the Raja's, what would have been his opinion if he had been made acquainted with the whole circumstances, that there had always been a distinction between public and private property at Sattara, and moreover, that a solemn pledge had been given by Sir James Carnac to make over the private property to the Raja ?—a promise which was reiterated three several times, and in distinct and se perate documents. Colonel Carpenter says— " It is very true that Lieutenant-Colonel Ovans sti pulated at th© time of the Raja's deposition fur a dimi nution of his pension to the extent of 1,000 rupees per mensem on the demise of the elder Ranee, although the Raja strongly objected to the arrangement; bat it is equally true that the same officer at the same time passed his solemn pledge in writing, now in the possession of his Highness, to hold sacred to the Raja's use the whole of his private property, which in violation of this assu rance was subsequently made over to his brother, whereas if the property had been surrendered to the Raja, the contemplated decrease of his pension would have been a matter of minor importance, instead of the very reverse under existing circumstances." —(Hear.) These are the facts ; and I ask again, if Sir H. Maddock had been apprised of all of them, would he not have given an unqualified opinion that the whole property was the bon& fide property of the Raja? I will now refer to the decision of the Court of Directors, that such a distinction between public and private property is not ordinarily recognised in native states. With regard to this decision, I will observe that the Court has completely annulled it, because we all recollect that during those long debates on the annexation of the Sattara territory it was admitted that the adoption of a son without the consent of the superior power was perfectly valid as far as regarded the private property of Appa Sahib. I find the Commissioner appointed by the British Government to take an inventory of Alma Sahib's private property stated that it arose from accumula tions out of his private purse, and amounted to 26 lace of rupees. Now, Sir, you will recollect that when Sir James Carnac made a positive promise to Pertaub Sing that his property should be restored to him, he was labouring under some apprehensions, for he writes on the 20th August, 1839 : "Although under my present information I do not apprehend that the Raja will openly resist, still, in order to place at your disposal a force sufficient to overcome all opposition, I have, according to your suggestion, di rected that the troops noted in the margin should imme diately march to Sattara, as a reinforcement to those al ready under your command. y o u will therefore defer carrying into effect my present instructions until the arrival of this reinforce ment. It is needless to observe how anxiously I desire to avoid collision and bloodshed, but should this unhap pily become unavoidable, you will be pleased to adopt every prccaution in your power to prevent injury to the peaceable and well-disposed, and to guard against all m th is c e pa w r a t s ofthe troops. made in August there was 'p e onr promise io n —then the property was the pro- Raja, and was to be restored to him, but November the Raja peaceably submitted does Mr. Willoughby sa Sahib regard to the it\l'h:Vhenriimihs;esyhuielelill(Paf:;Plaillrttanhei''dte then he had no private property. What holeaisnalybsr:Lught in by Appa ?In May, 1848, right to adopt, but this can only affect the succession of " It may be admitted the Raja ofSattara possessed , the private property.'' Again, on the 15th Dec., 1849, he observes : "It i s proposed to consider the whole of this pro perty as the private property of the Raja. On this I would remark that, strictly speaking, a very large por tion is undoubtedly the property of the State." Here is an unequivocal admission , o n the p art of Mr. Willoughby, that he has no doubt whatever that the LONDON, private property of Appa Sahib arose preci=ely from the same source as I have mentioned. I say, there fore, with all deferexwe . to the Court of Directors, that they hive cut away the ground under their feet by their own admissions. In the case of Pertaub Sing, they decided that their was no distinction be tween private property and the property of the State ; and in the case of Appa Sahib, that there was such a distinction. Now, another reason assigned for the non-fulfilment of the solemn engagements entered into with the Raja was, that the British Government had given an allowance to the Raja, in lieu of all demands on the Sattara State.—(" Hear, hear," by the Chairman.) lam glad, Sir, to hear the ground on which you proceed. It is true such an arrange ment was made, for on the 21st of November, 1839, we find Mr. Willoughby writing as follows: " Subject to the confirmation of the Governor-Ge neral of India, it has been resolved that one lac and 20 000 rupee.; per annum should he granted to the ex- Raja and his family in full satisfaction of all demands against the Sattara State " Now, let me call your attention to the terms of Sir J. Carnac's promise :-- ... " You will' inform him that art annual allowance will be assigned from the Sattera revenue tor the sup port and respectability cf hims,lf and those members of hi. Igroily- who in ty claim to accvinpany him. Further, that all property belonging to Min bond fide private, and not belonging to the State, will on his peaceable submission not be interfered with." Here we have two distinct engagements, as distinct and as clear as can be, that he is to have a separate provision calculated to maintain himself and family in respectability, and, above all, to have his private pro perty restored to him. Well, the British Govern ment gave him an allowance, confiscated all his private property, and then cried quits. But was that allowance sufficient to maintain him and his family in respectability—in such respect ability as he was likely to assume from the language used to him ? Let me, Sir, on that head, refer you to the opinion of an officer who was for six years in charge of all the Raja's affairs : " After a most minute and laborious investigation into the actual state of the Raja's affairs, that no reductions, however extensive they may be, would enable him to subsist with anything like comfort upon so small an al lowance as 10,000 rupees per mensem, and if an adequate pension be not settled upon him, and his private pro perty restored, or some equivalent, his position in Be naves can hardly fail to be ono continued scene of poverty and degradation, involved as he is at this moment in debt, destitute of articles essential to the comfort of any native of rank, chiefly arising from the detention of his private property, and without the means of making ar rangements for his future abode, his present residence requiring heavy disbursements to render the premises at all 6t for the accommodation of himself and his family, even if they can be made so under any circumstances." Now, Sir, in proof of this assertion, Captain Carpenter submitted an estimate in detail, showing that the Raja's expenses amounted to 24,500 rupees a month, or to double his allowance, and this estimate the Governor- General pronounced to be "moderate and generally admissible." We, who are brought up in a school which teaches us that when two parties enter into a bargain it can only be rendered void by the consent of both parties, can only coma to one conclusion upon the matter. There is not the slightest pretence for saying that the Raja was ever made acquainted with the alteration in the arrangement respecting his pri vate property. It is very true that the British Go vernment told him that his allowance was in lieu of all demands against the Sattara State, i. e. that he could claim no higher allowance for the State ; but his claim for his private property was an entirely different thing. The value of the property claimed by the Raja was 26 lacs of rupees, and suppose it to have been reduced to 20 lacs of rupees, the interest upon that at 5 per cent. would have given to his family a permanent income of a lac, or ten thousand pounds a year ; and, of course, at 10 per cent. an income to double that amount would fall into their hands. Now, what do you ? The Raja died five years after the grant, you pocketed about 20 lacs by the bargain, and then told his family to go about their business ; and this is the way in which the East India Company fulfils its engage ments with Ilindoo Princes.—(Hear, hear.) Now these are the two reasons assigned for the non-fulfil ment of a solemn engagement with the Raja, viz., that he had no private property, and that the allow ance given by the British Government was in lieu of all demands. But there was another reason assigned for not doing justice to his family, viz., that the father died rich— " Meanwhile it had become known that the ex-Raja, had left property to a large amount, at once invalidating the plea of poverty on which the grant of 50,000 rupees for his private expenses had been made." Now, Sir, I mean to say, whether the man died rich or poor, that did not in the slightest de gree exonerate the British Government from fulfilling a solemn engagement to restore the bonei fide property of the Raja, which he had accumulated. lie died, either rich or poor in two ways—he must have carried riches away with him, or he must have accumu lated riches during his exile in Bewares. Tnat he took nothing away with him except seine trifling or naments is admitted by Colonel Ovans, for the mo ment be left he put his property under lock and key:— " As regards the property claimed as private by the Raja, the whole of this property was placed in deposit by me, and under orders conveyed over as State property to the reigning Raja." Now, I have just quoted an extract from Captain Carpenter's letter to show, that when he arrived at Benares he was in such a state of destitution that he had no money to purchase a chang e of clothes for his family. W hat was his condition five years after wards ? The same officer reported— " That, although th© Raja, has evi nce d a d e gree of prudence and economy rarely witnessed in any other native prince; all his efforts had failed to enable him to subsist upon his income; for notwithstanding he had dis posed of jewels, plate, and other valuables to the extent of about 30,000 rupees (3,0001.), his debts to the Marwar rees of his camp, and to some of th e principal men among his followers who have free s time to time as sisted him with such small sums as their limited means command, amount in the aggregate, independent of the increase set forth in the preceding p aragrap h, to not less than 55,000 or 60,000 rupees 0,500/. or 6,00010" This, Sir, is the history of this unfortunate man up to a period of within a year and a half of his death. Therefore it is proved beyond all q ue stion that the reason assigned by the Raja for not fulfill i ng t h e en gagement with his family, was of itself futile and insufficient. Now it was stipulated that the follow ing allowance should be made to the Raja and his family :—The Baja, 7 , 0 00 rupe es a mon th ; the Ranee, 1,000 ; the second Ranee, 800 ; and the daughter, 500. The G overnor• General professed that he wished to treat the family with the utmost liberality and justice, but wh en t h e R anee ap plied, on the death of her husband, for the whole sum paid to him, th e proposal was rejected.—(Hear, hear.) All th e Governor- G enera l did was to give her that which he knew it was im possible to take away from her, viz., the 800 rupees a month, which, after much ado, he consented to in crease from 800 to 1,200 rupees, about an addition of 401., making the whole allowance to the family 2,500 rupees a month, or 25,000 rupees a y ea r. But this sma ll additional allowance was not g i ven un til the Governor-General had demanded from the Ranee a promise to surrender the rights of her infant son. Now it is made a matter of charge against this woman, and 1 find it repeated very o ften in the course of the papers, that thi s youn g man wrote in the character of Raja. In w h a t o ther cha racter could he have written ? li e was B a ja by in heritance, and could not take any other title. The Governor-General, when calling him by his name, is obliged to designate him as Shao Maharej, and the Court, in fact, have authorised him to sign himself as the youth adopted by the ex-R a j a . Allow me now to say that this is a totally novel course of proceeding by the Government. We have taken territories sometimes by conquest, sometimes by treaty, but on no other occasion have we called on a man to renounce his family. (Hear, h ear .) I need scarcely say that the Emperor of Delhi was received and recognized as the Emperor of Delhi, so was the Peisbwa, and the whole of the Rajas in India, without one single exception, who had the title of sovereign Prince. Therefore the Governor- General has attempted to extract a pledge from a native boy to surrender his rights, b u t in my judgment he was wrong, and I think the Ranee was totally incompetent to surrender the rights of her son, because he was an infant. Even if the boy had given his consent, he did so under duress, and it could not stand in any court of equity. Well, then, bow stands the facts of the case ? You made him a solemn promise tbat if he conducted himself peaceably you would make a liberal provision for himself and family, and that his private property would be restored to him. He did conduct himself peaceably. You did not re t urn him his private property, neither did you make a liberal provision for himself during his life, and that provision you have so reduced since his death as to leave his family, considering their ran k and birth, in penury. How then stands the account between you end the Sattara territory ? The net revenue of Sattara is 14 lac., or 140,0001.; the interest on the private property of Pertaub Singh, at 5 per cent., only l 0,000/ , making a total of 150,0001. Deduct from this the allowance to Pertaub Singh's daughter, 1 ,2001., and to his widow and son 2 , 4001 e which amount to 3,6001, there will remain a balance of 146,0001. On these facts I will make no further comment, believing that I have proved beyond all question and cavil that you have committed a great act of injustice in not fulfilling the solemn and binding engagement which you entered into with the Raja not only with respect to his private property, but also as to the allowance for the support of himself and family. I therefore leave the case in your hands, trusting that you will pronounce a verdict in accordance with evi dence now before the Court.—(Hear.) Not knowing whether the private property of Appa Sahib has been MARCH 22, 1851. restored to his family, I have framed two motions, one upon the hypothesis that it has been restored, the other upon the supposition that it has not " Ist. Thu; the Court of Directors be requested to take such steps as they may consider necessary to restore to the family of the deceased Raja of Sattara, Pertaub Sing, that was bond fide his private property, when he was deposed, in redemption of the pledge which was given to that Sovereign on the 28th September, 1839, by the then Governor of Bombay, Sir James Cana; on behalf of the East India Company. 2d. And that the Court of Directors bo further directed to take such steps as may be necessary to re store to the family of the deceased Raja of Sattara, Appa Sahib, the private property of which that Sovereign died possessed, according to the schedules furnished to the Bombay Government by their Commissioners, on the 7th November, 1849, the validity of the adoption of a son by Appa Sahib, having been formally recognised ' irs respect to the private property of the Raja." Mr. LEVIIN had great pleasure in seconding the motion of his Hon. Friend, agreeing as he did with all that had fallen from him. Having read all the papera he was perfectly satisfied that this was a care of great injustice, but there was a distinction between this case and the one which he had the honour to bring before the Court. In that ease there ha I been no inquiry whatever, whareas in this case the fullest inquiry had taken place. was another observation he wished to make, which was that this case referred to private property. Now, had the R.ija, without any compromise of his po.ver, filed a suit in the court nailer whose jurisdiction it now falls, it might have been met on its merits, or objected to on the ground of jurisdiction, which would have given the Raja an instant right of appeal to the Privy Council. Had that course been followed, all these lengthy pro ceedings attendant upon the inquiry might have been avoided, while, at this moment the ex- Raja or his family might now have been receiving justice at the hands of the Privy Council. He, however, allowed that the coun try had instituted the fullest inquiry into this case, but what he complained of was the injustice which characterized the results of that inquiry. A promise had been solemnly made to the Raja and wilfully broken ; and he believed six or seven of the best di rectors concurred with him in thinking that great in justice had been done to the ex-Rajah and his family. The CHAIRMAN said it was not his intention to follow his Hon. Friend through the statement he had made, because be entertained a great hope that before he sat down he should be able to convince the Court, and he trusted his Hon. Friend himself, that it was injudicious and quite unnecessary to re-agitate this question again.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had gone over the same ground which he introduced on former occasions with reference to that branch of the question which related to Sir James Carnac, and he should therefore dismiss this part of his Hon. Friend's speech in a few words.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt Sir James Carnac did promise in the manner his Honourable Friend had stated, but when the ques tion came to be considered in Council it was thought to be impolitic to adopt the plan of Sir James Carnac. It was considered better to fix the annual allowance of the ex-Raja of Sattara, and not to establish a precedent for drawing a distinction between public and private property of native princes. Under these circumstances an allowance of 10,000 rupees a month was made to the ex-Raja, which he (the Chair man) could not bring himself to think with his Hon. Friend was at all insufficient, more especially as at the time that allowance was arranged Government still considered the unfortunate Raja had placed him self in a position that ought to have deprived him of all claim upon their liberality. He was accordingly allowed 12,0001. a year. He admitted that there was an apparent inconsistency about the matter, but it was considered politic, and it was distinctly understood at the time that the Sattara district should be resumed by the East India Company. It then became nothing but a mere ques tion of pounds, shillings, and pence, and of course in disposing of it Government adhered to the strict letter of the law with respect to public and private property, as they had done on former occasions, and though, in the unfortunate circumstances in which the ex-Raja was placed, it would not have been wise to entrust him with a large sum of money, it was yet impossible for the Government to have adopted a more liberal course than they did, and therefore if there was any in consistency it was to be attributed to the liberality of the Government.—(Hear, hear.) And independently of all this the Court should remember that subsequently to that arrangement the Government increased the allowance to the Ranee of the ex-Raja from SOO rupees per month to 2,500. His Honourable Friend, however, said that was not a great deal, but he really could not agree with him there, but, moreover than that, the Government had agreed to pay her all the arrears accruing since the death of her husband, amounting to nearly a lac of rupees, or 10,0001. ( Hear, hear.) The Ranee herself had expressed extreme satisfaction at this arrangement, and had thrown herself completely on the consideration of the Governor-General. She had written to say that it was her intention to recall her agent from this country, and that if any re-agitation of this question were opened it would be entirely without her con sent.—(Hear, hear.) He pledged his honour for the truth of this, and with that fact before them he would ask his Hon. Friend, whether it was decent or at all proper in him to continue agitating this question merely for the purpose, as it were, of keeping up an angry feeling between the family of the ex-Raja and the Court of Directors. He was, under the circum stances he had stated, surprised to see that no later than last night a Member of the House of Commons again brought this question before the Legislature, but fortunately that motion met with little encourage tnent, and it fell to the ground. He thought it was a fortunate thing for this lady that she at last made up her mind to follow the advice of prudent counsel, instead of those who wished probably to keep the question alive under the pretence of being the friends of the ex-Rajah. (Hear, hear.) lie was of opinion that the worst of friends native princes could have were those parties in this country who were constantly striving to sow the seeds of distrust and discord between them and the Government of India.—(Hear.) The Court of Directors could have but one object in view in this case, and that was that justice should be done to all parties, including of course the family of the ex-Raja, and he hoped after what he had stated to day, and after the expressed wish of the Ranee her self, that her cause should be left in the hands of the Governor-General, he did hope an end would be put to this agitation, and, therefore, he trusted the Court would not support the motion of his Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.) General BRIGGS said it was only yesterday that he heard this motion was to be brought forward to-day, and having been resident agent at Sattara, with some knowledge of the real state of the case, and the facts bearing upon it, he felt it his duty to offer a few observations to the Court on the present occasion. •—(Hear, hear.) The grant or allowance which had been made to the ex-Raja in its extent or liberality he apprehended was not the question before the Court.—(Hear, hear.) What they had to con sider was the abstract question whether there was any private property left by the ex-Raja when is Sattara when he was removed, and whether it was promised that that property should be restored ? (Hear, hear.) Now, he would describe what was the nature of that private property. Colonel Ovans had stated that in the time of Captain Grant that 3 lacs 12,000 rupees were annually set aside for the private purse of the Raja, and when he (the Gallant General) succeeded Captain Grant as the resident agent at Sattara it was arranged that the amount should be increased to four lees for the Raja's private purse, and one lac for contingencies ; and up to the year 1839, the date of the ex-Raja's removal, the private treasury was so kept.—(Hear.) In the year 1823 there was a dearth, and the revenues of the Raja fell short to the extant of about a lac and a half. The Raja was desirous of meeting the deficit by a reduction of expenses, and a general reduction of the salaries received by all the public officers. He (the Gallant Ge neral), however, urged upon him the expediency of drawing upon his private treasure for a loan instead, and repaying it out of future revenues, but the ex-Raja would not listen to this proposal. He said, ." No, I will not; it has been granted to me by the Government for my private expenses for that purpose, and I am bound to keep it. A certain sum is set aside every year for contingencies, and as it is impossible to tell what may be our future ' fate (I trust it will not happen in my time) but something may happen to my posterity, and there fore I keep this as a private fund to secure my family against the contingencies of the future." That was what the Raja then thought and said, and in deducting 10 per cent. from the salary of every public servant, he also caused the same to be deducted from the privy purse. It was clear, therefore, that this private purse was a distinct thing from the revenue of the State; the ex-Raja, it was also clear, considered it to be his private property, and it was stated that at the time he was removed the private pro perty amounted to 26 lass of rupees (260,0000. Now, had these 26 lace of rupees been invested in the Com pany's funds, it would have been necessary for the East India Company to have instituted a case in a court of justice before the treasure could have been taken out.—(Hear, hear.) It had been stated by the lion. Chairman that the 120,000 rupees allowed to the Raja in his exile was made with reference to the private property; but he found that on the 30th of August, 1839, Sir James Carnac pro mised that it should be restored, and he also pro mised that a certain sum should be awarded to the ex-Raja out of the revenues of the Sattara state. Now, it was necessary to consider what that revenne was when Sir James Carnac made that promise and recommendation. Well, then, Sir James Carnac, writ ing to the Governor-General, on the 12th of Sept., ' recommended that a sum equal to one lac, or 125,000 nipees, per amain; should be, wade , available out of the revenue of the Sattara state for the support of the ex-Raja's family, and his private property restored to him.—(hear, hear.) The Court would see that the actually allotted sum of a lac and 20,000 rupees to the Raja was 5,000 rupees less than Sir James Carnac had previously proposed, exclusive of his private property.—(Plear.) It appeared to him, therefore, perfectly clear that on every principle of common justice and good faith this private property, whatever it might amount to, belonged exclusively to the ex-Raja, and as the Raja had legally adopted a son, that son succeeded to the private property, and to withhold it from him would be a violation of a sacred agreement.—(Bear, hear.) It had nothing to do with what was ultimately granted, which was evi dently intended by Sir James Carnac to be granted independent of the private property, and the Govern ment had, therefore, no right to detain it.—(Hear.) Mr. LEwite said the Chairman's speech had given this case a new complexion, and he claimed to speak again upon the question. Th s CHAIRMAN said this could not be permitted. Mr. LEWIN said the allowance to the Ranee was quite a new subject, and lie ought to be heard. Mr. WEEDON wished to say a word or two on this subject. lie thought the proceedings of to•day showed the inconvenience of making motions without previous notice, because he apprehended that had it been known that this matter would be discussed, there would cer tainly have been a larger attendance of proprietors.— (Hear, hear.) With regard to the question itself he had always believed in the guilt of the ex-Raja, and, under those circumstances, he thought his family had been treated with the utmost liberality.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the agreement of Sir James Carnac, he begged to remind the Hon. Mover of this proposition that the Governor-General's opinion was the one upon which they should act. Now it was the opinion of the Governor-General that the ex-Raja was not entitled to the private property, and he should therefore concur with the Chairman in . voting against the motion. Mr.SuLLIvAN reminded the Honourable Proprietor who last addressed the Court that he had no oppor tunity of giving a notice of motion, because it was only within the last few days that the fact had come to his knowledge that the family of the ex-Raja were actually at this moment without a single rupee. That was his reason for bringing forward this question to-day. No allowance had been made to the Ranee or her son since the death of the ex-Raja. Up to this moment the Gover nor-General had done absolutely nothing for the ex- Raja's family. He had promised to give the :Ranee an increase in her allowance, but it was so insignifi cant that it was hardly worth having. She was already entitled to 800 rupees a month, and now it was to be increased to 1,200, if the Ranee would re nounce her rights or those of her son ; but, as far as his information went, the Governor-General had not, up to this moment, paid the family a single shilling. He, however, could readily make allowance for the Hon. Chairman, and he would separate him in his official capacity from what he was when he formerly spoke upon this subject as simply Mr. Sheppard, the director. Then the Hon. Gentleman was a warm and uncompromising supporter of the claims of the ex-Raja, and, for the information of the Court, he would read the opinion which he expressed some time ago with regard to this very case : ‘. The Raja was to be treated as an object of sympathy, not of punishment. He received also the pledge of the Governor that his private property should not be inter fered with; can any usage or precedent justify the breach of this promise? " I would now request particular attention to the Re sident of Sattara's letter of the 28th September, 1839, which states that there were about seven lacs of rupees (70,0001) in hard cash, and about seven or eight lacs worth of jewels (70,0001. or 80,0001.), and other valu ables in the palace. In the 11th par. of this letter he says, " The whole of this property is claimed by the ex-Raja, but Appa Sahib Maharaj (his successor) maintains that about five or six lace of the money (50,0001. or 60,0001.) is State property, and private property belonging to him, and also about two lace (20,0000 worth of jewels, and that the remainder only belongs to the ex-Raja and the ladies of his family.' " Here we have the express admission of the validity of the Ex-Raja's claims, from the party most interested in opposing them. He who was to be the possessor of all the property that could be designated State property, reluctantly admits that the remainder, amounting to about two lace of hard cash, and six lace worth of jewels belong to the ex-Raja and the ladies of his family. There can be no question, indeed, but that the treasure and jewels found in the palace were the fruits of the economical management of the Raja's resources. Unlike the generality of the native princes, ho had governed his people with prudence and moderation, and restrained his own expenses within the limits of his income. Stripped of his Raj and his property, he is now the degraded pensioner of that brother, who assisted in his overthrow. Such is likely to be the climax of the unhappy Raja's fate: a prince who had been for many years, and up to a very late period, the deserving object of the Court's and the Government's highest favour and ad miration. His refusal to acknowledge himself guilty of treachery, and to sign the conditions prescribed by the Government, could not possibly justify the confis cation of his property. To me it appears that the con fiscation and transfer of his property to the present Raja is an additional penalty inflicted on this unfortu nate prince, not warranted by any considerations whatever. If I lamented the extreme measure of his deposal, more deeply do I lament this aggravated severity. Since I have had the honour of a seat in the direction, it has been the nsual practice of the Court to exhibit their power principally by acts of clemency and kindness to the natives of India. Would that this feeling had pre dominated in the case of the helpless and unfortunate Raja of Setters! His degradation, however, seems to be now consummated; and connected as I am with the Court, there is left to me but one consolatory reflexion, viz., that of beinir able to disavow any share in its pre sent proceeding." Now those were the opinions of the Hon. Chairman when he was a simply a director. In the speech which that Hon. Gentleman had just made not a single fact which had been brought forward in support of the motion was disputed, or a single argument contro verted. It merely announced that the Government of India had come to a particular conclusion in the matter, bat not a scrap of paper to show how Sir James Carnac thought fit, in November, t• change the opinion which he had expressed in the previous August, when he made the promise to the ex-Raja. It was only stated that so-and-so was done upon the dictum of Sir James Carnac, and there the matter was to rest, without the statement being supported by a single tittle of docu mentary, or, indeed, any other evidence. The chairman had announced to the Court that in his opinion the final allowance made to the ex-Raja was amply sufficient to provide for his own wants and those of his Ranee and family, but it was not denied that the Government had confiscated property be longing to the ex-Raja, valued at 26 lacks, and yet they had only given the family, what? Why no more than one lac and 20,000 rupees ! And this was what was called a liberal allowance ! This was what they called justice! They allowed the right of the ex- Raja to adoption, but they refused to let his adopted son inherit his private property ! What a monstrous act of injustice! Nor had the chairman attempted to prove that the facts he had brought before the Court were at all unfounded, though he certainly did say something about the Ranee ; but, nevertheless, he repeated that the woman was in a state of starvation and distress, and he pledged him self for the truth of the statement, that the Governor. General refused in the first instance to make the slightest addition to her allowance until she had sur rendered the rights of her son. Up to this moment the Governor-General had paid her nothing, and what she might have done while suffering from the pangs of her distress, he could not possibly say. Her destitution and her desire to preserve her own life might have induced her to make almost any sacrifice. The Hon. Chairman had lec tured them as to their past and present conduct. He said it would be much better to leave the matter alone, to let it remain untouched ; but the chairman should have remembered, when he gave that advice, that he had been the first to begin this agitation. It began long before he (Mr. Sullivan) returned from India. Ten years ago he felt with the chairman that injustice had been done in this case, and the only difference between him and the chairman was this, that the chairman had abandoned the good cause—no doubt having excellent reasons for doing so—while he had clung to it. The injustice or the right in this case was not denied, but it was thought inexpedient inexpedient to admit the latter; but i the chairman thought when the Ranee's agent re turned to India there would be an end to these dis cussions, he was mistaken, for he took up this ques tion as one of principle, and he should st ick to it. The Court of Directors had unlawfully confiscated private property in the face of :all law, equity, and justice, though they bad admitted tha t they ha d m a de some sort of arrangement or other , but tha t h would not do for him. He wanted to kn ow what had be come of the 14 lacs of rupees which was the private property of Appa Sahib, an d which they had deprived him of. They said they had made . the Ranee an al lowance instead of it, but for his part he thought they were bound in justice to make a restitution of the property.—(Hear.) The CHAIRMAN said he felt called upon to add a few words after what had fallen from the Honourable Proprietor in reply. Lie quite admitted that his opinion had been favourable to the claim of the R a j a, but he had no right to continue to maintain opinions when they had been repeatedly overruled by the ma jority of the proprietors and directors. Had he fol lowed a different course, and continued on every dif ferent occasion that presented itself to f orce his opi- Dion upon the Court, he would, have gone beyond his duty. He had a perfect right to adher e t o his own fixed opinions, but he had no right to s i pe rs-t in ad vocating them, against the w i s h of the ma jority, the end of his life ; but the honourable P roprietor seems to ente rtain a diff erent notion, and if they were to act accord in g to his rule , why th ere would be no end to this agitation. He freely ac k no wledged that he regretted much th a t Sir James Carnac'e.promise was not fulfilled to the very letter, but he was bound to couple that admission with the tact that the opinion of Sir James Carnets was overruled in Council, as well as by the Governor-General of India, and that this allowance of one lac and 20,000 rupees was made with a due reference to the private property. Notwithstanding what had fallen from General Briggs there could be no question about it, that after Sir James Carnac wrote the letter, which the Gallant General referred to, Sir J. Carnac must have altered his opinion when he came to consider the matter in Council. Still he conceded.to his Hon. Friend who had made this motion, and who appeared to have made a deep impression upon the Court by his speech, that it was still to be regretted that what was at first pro mised was not fulfilled, but he did not feel himself on that account bound to put himself in opposition to -all parties long after the questio❑ was supposed to have been completely set at rest, because it was utterly impossible to attain the end he might hav e i n v i ew by pursuing such an improper mode of proceeding. . Now, with regard to the statement of the Honourable Gentleman that the Ranee was in a state of destitution, how could that be possible when his Honourable Friend had himself admitted that elle Lad eight hundred rupees a month pin money, v, filch, at the death of the ex-Rsja, was increased ? His Hon. Friend therefore was nut justified in saying she had been left to starve, seeing that there were ample funds at her disposal if she had only thought proper to avail herself of them. The agitation of the Sattara question had acted most prejudicially upon the native Princes of India, be cause it had led them to look upon the authority of the Government with suspicion, and to question its honour. He did not wish to re-open the question, but he felt bound to state that one portion of the let ter of the Ranee represented that she had been ad vised by parties in England, some of whom were highly influential, to re-agitate the question, but if she listened to that advice she might be assured that it would not succeed, and if it really were true that parties in this country did write letters to mislead these unhappy people, he hoped they would consider well the course they were adopting, and how far it might prejudice the interest of those whom they were anxious to befriend. A PROPRIETOR suggested that the letter of the Ranee had better be read. The CHAIRMAN said the letter he had been quoting was from Colonel Stuart, at Benares, who stated, in conclusion, " I wish to add that the Ranee continues her anxiety in wishing to obey the ordinance of the Government. She has placed in my possession all the correspondence she bad received from her ad visers in England. Some of these letters are from influential parties, who promise her accommodation and every success, if she will only continue to agitate." In one of her letters the Ranee says, " I have issued the necessary orders to withdraw my agent in Lon don, and I have begged of my friends not to continue any further agitation in my behalf. If they continue to agitate after this it will not be with my autho rity." After that expression of opinion on the part of the Ranee he need say no more, but simply leave it for the Court to negative the proposition. Mr. SULLIVAN, before that was done, wished to ask the Chairman if, as a member of this Court, when the Governor-General made to the Ranee a proposal in the highest degree unjust, he was bound to take no notice of it, or to be precluded from giving that advice to the party about to be injured if he thought fit to do so ? He was now doing nothing more than following in the footsteps of the Hon. Chairman himself. His opinions remained unchanged, they were what they always had been, namely, that the directors had acted in defiance of all equity and justice, and why should he surrender them now, at the moment of all when the injured parties were sunk in the deepest distress ? This case of cruelty and injustice could be explained in a very few words. The Government had taken nearly fifteen lacs of rupees from these parties, and given them in lieu thereof 25,000 rupees. The motion was then put and negatived. Mr. LEWIN moved a resolution to the effect that the native sepoys should be entitled to the same pri vileges as the European soldiers in India—namely, that they should have a copy of the record and pro ceedings before courts-martial. The motion not having been seconded, fell to the ground. The Court then adjourned. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. To-night Music re-asserts her high place among the graces and splendours of a London season. Her sceptre is placed, for the first time, in the fair hand o f Mdll e. C arol i ne Dupree, the promise of whose young fame, if but half fulfilled, en sures a career worthy of the name which she inherits, and to the noble art to which she has devoted her surprising talents. We would not indulge in anticipatory criticism; but, from what we have witnessed of Mdlle. Duprez's powers, we dare assure tt e expectant world, that in this ease rumour has not said a word too much. Of the new ballet, in which Amelia Ferraris is to bring back her marvels of grace and power, we find the following elegant and fascinating description issued, we presume, by authority. We know not if we are trespassing on copy right, but we a^e sure our readers will thank us for the risk we run in producing the argument in extenso:— " The Isle of the Loves' is to be found in a charming region, of which no one is quite ignorant, and v. hich few natures are so severe as not to delight in—whether they own it or not. It is that land of delicious impossibility which the de icate and airy spirit of Watteau loved to inhabit in dreams, and which his fertile pencil filled in waking ;momenta with rich colour and graceful forms. " It is the land where the primitive sweetness of pastoral coquetry is married to the refined brilliancy of the gayest of courts; and where, from under the trellised blushes of the rose, or through the cool leaves which shadow the purple promise of the vine, the archest and most mischievous of cupids peer out on every side and laugh at the fantastic beauty of the combination. " In such a scene is it that our true history undertakes to record the issue of one chapter more in the eternal strife be tween Authority, which rashly undertakes to put down Love, and Love, which yields to no authority. " A governor of this isle, more absolute than wise; and more ardent than successful, stung by his own disappointment, resolved that no vassal should be happier than his lord. So he condemned the land to be for ever deprived of love, and enacted a separate life for its youths and maidens. But love re belling against the despot, soon won back his subjects, sub dued the isle, and triumphed over the absurd attempt to crush his power. " TABLEAU I. LA Los IMPOSSIBLE.—FIeurette, the Star of the Isle, though but the daughter of a simple fisherman, has "'The gift which nature keeps for maids Who boast no other dowers, To be as beautiful as aught Within this world of ours.' Loved by many, she has loved but one, Colin, who lingers beneath her casement. Poor Blaise, the ancient bean of the village—the most ambitious of her unsuccessful adorers—. also awaits her appearance, full of pretension, finery, and failure. At last the toilette, with the assistance of cousin Angoletta, is completed. The bride comes forth. Friends and neighbours pour in, headed by old Gregoire, the bride's father. The plighted pair receive the paternal blessing; all is going well ; but over the sky which Love had made so bright, a sudden cloud is brought by authority. There is a noisy and imposing entrance on the scene, a train of official high Mightinesses heralds the approach of that High Mightl ness the Governor. " Unhappily this great potentate is in his exalted place as subject to the real ruling power of the land as Fleurette and her chosen one in their humble sphere. Colin has little patience with the warm attentions of the gevernor to the bride, by which this fact is betrayed. The governor has still less with the rough demonstrations of his vassel's jea lousy. He abates his wrath in consideration of Colin and Fleurette's admirable dancing, as proved in the charming Pas (Le Jeu de Is Rose); but the touching grace of Flan rette only increases the princely passion. The courtiers are commanded to carry off the bride to the castle. The vil lagers resist this outrage, put the High Mightinesses to flight, and, triumphant fir the moment, return with the spoils of the conquered ; among which the hat of the Grand Master of the Ceremonies, and the cane of the Lord ILigh Perfumer are conspicuous. The triumph is short, Authority soon re turns with added strength and new terrors. This terrible edict is announced, by proclamation, that there shall be no more love in the island ; that men and women shall dwell in opposite quarters—north and south; that the least infrac tion of this law shall be a hanging matter. " And these tyrannical enactm en t s the guards forthwith remorselessly carry out by a repeal of all matrimonial unions, and the enforcement of a general act of separation. " TABLEAU LA PAYSANNE A LA COWS,' OU JAMS ET AUJOUEDUUL ' " Here we find artless beauty and native grace in centraat with all that is most elaborate and studied in its finery. The gay palace and its courtesies, however, have little charm for Fleurette. Her melancholy demeanour gives evidence:of one continued offence against the law forbidding her to love ; e n d when at last, tired of witnessing the stiff performances of th e court, she dashes out into all her own wild brilliancy Of dance the conquered Governor confesses the power of beauty eed the weakness of legislation—kneels to the fair enemy of hi, p e ace, but kneels in vain, and is with difficulty raised --- by his attendants from a position, which, with a rasbze, s in eluted to his age and dignity , he had taken up without duly eonsi deriog how he was to get out of it again. "TABLEAU ILL 7-`,LES AMOURS VESGItu " " This beautiful scene is Love's favourite haunt, that tem ple his chosen shrine. The sweet sounds whi ch fill the air herald his approach—and see where the Irresisti ble glidee like a meteor to the earth Fleurette , potent spell, does not long resist his drawn hither by some ble One her companions find her reclining s fascinations. nor, when partner, are they slow to own the influence power, whi c h. like her, they cannot defy. T in the arms of her strange his command a barque he deity is benevolent, and at freight with loves for all. Like a swarna glides to shore, among the village of golden bees, the cupids glitter maidens and and cluster round the group. Full of joy, and love, t h e y dance wildly to.. gether ; but jeal ous and angry eyes are on the scene , Blaine, and m the rejected, b o ld though not successful, invades the favoured court. Repulsed by Love's arrows, he returns with the vil lagers in force, and the mortals strive once mom to win back the prize so strangely snatc hed away; but love, fettered by mortal clay, kas slight chance against its free ethers.' essence, and the maidens are borne triumphantly off. " TABLEAU Iv. - LB FIEGE ET LA CHASSE AUX AMOUIL' " Here love, with his forces, has reached the very centre and stronghold of his realm. In this delicious garden, ri c h with bright fruits and gay with sunny flowers, everything owns his spell and aids his power. " In every direction bright colours tempt the eye, soft in fluences sway the heart , and g entle s p orts invite the (frac.. ful idleness of bea u ty . The village maidens fi z a i t t b e ; true elysiuru. Yet even here jealousy does not fear to °Dialling its attack on love. The mortal lovers penetrate the garden —the maidens escape— but they may be won back. The great object with the jealous adorers is to catch and secure their airy rivals. The astuter rustics laugh at the awkward efforts of Blaise, who think that loves, like little birds, may be caught by chaff. Some among them have been bleated with wit enough, to; construct from boughs and flowers a more effectual snare, and soon the poor loves, intent ors their village charmers, flutter is a sad captivity. Th e captors disappear, bent on bringing 411 the world to be in It an c, _ leaf.) be :lent. , e r be ruling ter iobli [shear a feW I, and I coo' de bY to bY louse no, iightt ac'