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

Ca o ba d t tiro' 10 the TURDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1851. A Quarterly General Court of Directors and Pro prietors of the East India Company was held on Wed nesday, at the Company's House, Leadeneall• street. James Shepherd, Esq., Chairman of the Court of Di rectors, presided. The minutes of the last quarterly Court having been read and confirmed, Tne 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 DicKENsoN then brought forward the motion of which he bad given notice, as follows : " No. 1. That collectorate abstracts of the undermen tioned items in Statement No. 7 of the Parliamentary 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 amounting 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 Rs. 16,31,561 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 Cematenerz 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 wail as on the third day previous to the meeting of the next quarterly Court of Proprietors for the consideration and disposal of all such motions." 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 CHAIRMAN 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 had 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, who 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 FORSETD HE RAJAS FAMILIES OF DECEA . in rising to brin g forward the mo eal to your justice, said—Mr. Chair man, I am about t o given notice, Swu which AhNe, had justice, on behalf of the family of and simply to your the deceased neje of Sattara, who, from w ant of that Justice, have been redu ced to a s tate 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 you have to put your hand into my pocket and carry away all the money it contains.—(Hear, hear.) As I may here say a prelimi nary o b s ervation, that with regard to native princes in India who are despotic sovereig ns , and have uncontrolled dominion, it is not the usual practice to make a distinction be tween public and private money ; b u t whatever may have been the general practice, it has no reference he to the case of the Raja of S a tt a ra, because, from t fi rs t constitution of th at S tate i n 1819, under an arrangement made by Captain Grant, the then Resi dent, whose advice, you will remember, the Raja was by treaty bound to follow, a distinction was made be tween private and public money, between the money of the state and the Raja's ev en purse. A n arrangement was enter e d i n to by which a sum of 3,12,000 rupees was allowed annually for the private expenses of the Raja a nd his family. This sum formed his private purse, and was kept in a separate treasury, under a separate treasurer, and under the control of the Raja himself. This arrange merit was made by Captain Grant, under the follow ing instruction of the Bth April, 1818 : n The personal expenses of the Raja and his family ought for the present to be about three lass of rupees per annum. The employment of this ought to be left to his Highness, with no other check than may be neces sary 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, Si r , the arrangement made by Captain Grant was commu nicated to Sir James Carnac, the Governor of Bombay, by Lieutenant Ovens on the 28th of September 1839 : " It appears that when affairs here were in Captain Grant's hands a stun of 3,12,000 rupees annually was allowed for the private expenses of the Raja and his 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 Setters property to the amount or extent of 25 or 26 lacs of rupees. Now, when the Governor of Bombay deposed the Raja of The Marchioness of Lansdowne was soatewh ,at better yes. t4r daY UlorniDg. Her Ladyship is at Dowoocl Park, Wilts. S Atara, in September, 1839, he made two distinct promises to him—that in the event of his peaceful submission to the British Government, a liberal ul -1 ewance should be made to support himself and fa mily, and that all bona fide private property should be restored to him : " You will be careful to provide in the most ( ffsctual manner for the personal comfort and convenience of the Raja and his 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 selected 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 naiy choose to ace ,rispany him. Further, that all property belonging to him, bona fide private and not appertaining to the State, will on his peaceable sub mission not be interfered with." Now, here is a bargain between two parties—the Reja, 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 government, 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 lacs worth of jewels, and that the remainder only belongs to the ex-Raja and the ladies of his family." 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 that 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 Reja 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 Sattara 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 had 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 in 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 reoeivo 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 11. Maddock says—and 1 beg to call your par ticular 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 lass of rupees, and much of the other pro perty made over to the present Raja, was of the nature of State property. The cash balance was clearly nothing more than the aggregate amount of what the Raja 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 ho 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 the time of the Raja's deposition for a dimi nution of his pension to the extent of 1,000 rupees per mensem on the demise of the elder Ranee, although the Raje strongly objected to the arrangement; but 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 IL Maddock had been apprised of all of them, would he not have given an unqualified opinion that the whole property was the bona 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 Apoa Sahib's private property stated that it arose from accumula tions out of his private purse, and amounted to 26 lacs of rupees. Now, Sir, you will recollect that when Sir James Carnac made a positive promise to I'ertaub Sing that his property should he 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. a y ea will therefore defer carrying into effect my present i It intruc to tions unti l obse thery a e how anxiou rrival ot this re l in desire force ment. s n eedless to avoid collision and bloodshed, but should this unhap pily become unavoidable, you will be pleased to adopt ver y precaution in your power to prevent injury to the peaceable end welledis r p t o o s f e t d h , e a t n r d oo t p o s. " guard against all i rr egularities o n the part When that promise was made in August there was this apprehension —then the property was the pro perty of the Raja , and was to be restored to him, but on the 91st November the Raja peaceably submitted possessed May, himself and then he had no private property. What does Mr. Willoughby say with regard to the 8, " It may be admitted_ I c l l:i s tr a s ys :brought in by, theAppßaa 3Saaohfilsi e right to adopt, but this can only affect the succession of ettar l a n private property." Again, on the 15th Dec., 1849, lee observes : "It is proposed to consider the whole of this pro perty as the private property of the Baja. 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, on the part of Mr. Willoughby, that he has no doubt whatever that the private property of Appa Sahib arose precisely from the same source as I have mentioned. I say, there fore, with all deference to the Court of Directors, that they have 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 rupees per annum should be 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 an annual allowance will be assigned from the Sattara revenue for tho sup port and respectability of himself and those members of his family who may claim to accompany him. Further, that all property belonging to him bond tide private, and not belonging to t he State, will on his peaceable submission not bo 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 peemensem, and if an adequate pension be not settled upon him, and his private pro perty restored, or some equivalent, his position in Be nares can hardly fail to be one continued scone 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 front 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 fit 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 come 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 bands. Now, what do you ? The Baja 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 Hindoo 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 largo 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 bonii fide property of the Raja, which he had accumulated. He died, either rich or poor in two ways—he must have carried riches away with him, or lie must have accumu lated riches during his exile in Benares. That he took nothing away with him except some triflinglor naments is admitted by Colonel Ovans, for the mo ment he 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 conv e y e d 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 ha was in such a state of destitution that he had no money to purchase a change of clothes for his family. What was his condition five years after wards ? The same officer reported_ "That, although the Raja, has evinced a degree of prudence and economy rarely witnessed in any other native prince; all his efforts had failed to enable him to subsisa,upon his income; for notwithstanding he had dis posed of jewels, plate, and other valuables to the extent of about 30,000 rupees (3,0000, his debts to the Marwar rees of his camp, and to some of the principal men among his followers who have from time to time as sisted him with such small sums as their limited means command, amount in the aggregate, independent of the i ncreas e set forth in the preceding paragraph, to not less than 55,900 or 62,000 rupees This, Sir, is the history of thi(5,500/. or 6,0001. ) " this unfortunate man up to a period of within a year and a half of his death. Therefore it is proved beyond all question that the reason assigned by the Raja for not fulfilling the en gagement with his family, was o f i tse lf futile and insufficient. Now it was stipulated that the follow ing allowance should be m a d e to the Raja and his family :—The Raja, 7,000 rup ees a month ; the Ranee, 1,000 ; the second Ranee, 800 ; and the daughter, 50 0 . The Governor-General pro fessed that he wished to treat the f am il y w ith the utmost liberality and justice, but when the Ranee ap plied, on the death of her husband, for the whole sum paid to him, t h e proposal was rejected.—(Hear, hear.) All the Governor-General did was to give her that which he knew it was im possible to take away from her, viz. , the 800 rupees a mo nth, which, after much ado, he conse nted 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 year. But this small additional allowance was not given until the Governor-General had demanded from the Ranee a promise to surrender the right s of her infant son. Now it is made a matter of charge against this woman, and 1 find it repeated very often in the course of the papers, that this young man wrote in the character of R, e ; J a . In what other cha racter could he have written ? He was Raja by in heritance, and could not take any other title. The Governor-General, when callin g hi m by his name, is obliged to designate him as Shao Maharaj, and the Court, in fact, have authorised him to sign himself as the youth adopted by the ex• Raja. 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, hear.) I need scarcely say that the Emperor of Delhi was received and recognized as the Emperor of Delhi, so was the reishwa, and the whol e o f the Rajas in India, without one single e xcept i on, w h o had the title of sovereign Prince. Therefore the Governor- General has attempted to extract a pledge from a native boy to surrender his rights, but 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 i n f an t . E ven if the boy had given his consent, he did so under duress, and it could not stand in any court of equity. Well, then, how stand s t h e f ac t s of the case ? You made him a solemn promise that 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 peac eabl y. You did not return 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 rank and birth, in penury. How then stands the account between you and the Sattara territory ? The net revenue of Sattara is 14 lac, or 140,0001.; the interest on the private property of Pertaub Singh, ,0001., ma ki ng a total of at 5 per cent., only 10 150,0001. Deduct from this the allowance to Pertaub Singh's daughter, 1,2001., and to his widow and son 2,4001., w hich 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 i a great act of ejustice in n o t 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 supp ort of himself a nd family. a 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 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. Thai 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 Semen, Pertaub Sing, that was bond Jide his private property, when he WSW 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 Carnac, on behalf of the East India Company. "2d. And that the Court of Directors be 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 in respect to the private property of the Raja." Mr. LEWIN 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 papers he was perfectly satisfied that this was a case 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 case there had been no inquiry whatever, whereas in this case the fullest inquiry had taken place. There was another observation he wished to make, which was that this case referred to private property. Now, had the Raja, without any compromise of his power, filed a suit in the court under 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 he 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 Comae 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 Curiae. 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 =fortunate 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 800 mixes per month to 2,500. His Honourable Friend, hovever, 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, assounting 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 sont.—(Hear, hear.) He pledged his honour for the tnith of this, and with that fact before them he would age his Hon. Friend, whether it was decent or at all paper in him to continue agitating this question merely for the purpose, as it were, of keeping up an angy 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 agait brought this question before the Legislature, but iortunately that motion met with little encourage ment 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 quast.on alive under the pretence of being the friends of the ex-Rajah. (Hear, hear.) He was of opinicn that the worst of friends native princes could have were those parties in this coentry who were constantly striving to 30V the seeds of distrust and discord between them any 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-3,aja, 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.—(llear, hear.) C.neral BRIGGS said it was only yesterday that he head 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 ) bservations to the Court on the present occasion. —(Hear, hear.) The grant or allowance which had been made to the ex-Raja in its exteut or liberality he apprehended was not the question before the Court.—(Hear, hear.) What they had to con sider wee the abstract question whether there was any private property left by the ex-Raja when in Satan 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 Ovens had slated that in the time of Captain Grant that 3 lace 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 lace 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, hut the ex-Raja would not listen to this proposal. Ile said, " No, I will not; it has been granted to me by the Government for my private expenses for that purpose, and lam 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 whet 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 lees of rupees (200,0001.). had these 26 lace of rupees been invested in the . Com pany's funds, it would have been necessary tor the East India Company to have instit uted a case in a court of justice before the treasure could have been taken out.—(Hear, hear.) It had been stated by the llon. Chairman that the 120,000 rupees allowed to the Raja in his exile was mad_e reference ' to the private proper t y ; but he found tha on 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 neces sar y to consider what that revenue 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 rupees, per annum, should be made available out of the revenue of the Sattara state for the support of was not fulfilled to the very letter, but he was bound the ex-Raja's family, and his 'private property to couple that admission with the fact that the opinion restored to him.—(Hear, hear.) The Court would of Sir James Carnet, was overruled in Council, as see that the actually allotted sum of a lac and 20,000 well as by the Governor-General of India, and rupees to the Raja was 5,000 rupees less than Sir that this allowance of one lac and 20,000 rupees was James Carnac had previously proposed, exclusive of made with a due reference to the private property. his private property.—(Plear.) It appeared to him, Notwithstanding what had fallen from General therefore, perfectly clear that on every principle of Briggs there could be no question about it, that after common justice and good faith this private property, Sir James Carnac wrote the letter, which the Gallant whatever it might amount to, belonged exclusively General referred to, Sir J. Carnac must have altered to the ex-Raja, and as the Raja bad legally adopted a his opinion when he came to consider the matter in son, that son succeeded to the private property, and to Council. Still he conceded to his H on . F r i e nd who withhold it from him would be a violation of a sacred had made this motion, and who appeared to have made agreement.—(Hear, hear.) It had nothing to do a deep impression upon the Court by his speech, that with what was ultimately granted, which was evi- it was still to be regretted that what was at first pro dently intended by Sir James Carnac to be granted mised was not fulfilled, but he did not feel himself on independent of the private property, and the Govern- that account bound to put himself in opposition to all ment had, therefore, no right to detain it.—(Hear.) parties long after the question was supposed to have Mr. LEWIN said the Chairman's speech had given been completely set at rest, because it was utterly this case a new complexion, and he claimed to speak impossible to attain the end he might have in view again upon the question. by pursuing such an improper mode of proceeding. Ths CHAIRMAN said this could not be permitted. Now, with regard to the statement of the Honourable Mr. LEWIN said the allowance to the R a n e e was Gentleman that the Ranee was in a state of destitution, quite a new subject, and he ought to be heard. how could that be possible when his Honourable Mr. WEEDON wished to say a word or two on this Friend had himself admitted that she had subject. He thought the proceedings of to-day showed eight hundred rupees a month pin money, the inconvenience of making motions without previous which, at the death of the ex-Raja, notice, because he apprehended that had it been known was increased ? His Hon. Friend therefore was not that this matter would be discussed, there would cer- justified in saying she had been left to starve, seeing tainly have been a larger attendance of proprietors.— that there were ample funds at her disposal if she (Hear, hear.) With regard to the question itself he had only thought proper to avail herself of them. had always believed in the guilt of the ex-Raja, and, The agitation of the Sattara question had acted most under those circumstances, he thought his aridly prejudicially upon the native Princes of India, be had been treated with the utmost liberality.—(Hear, cause it had led them to look upon the authority of hear.) With respect to the agreement of Sir James the Government with suspicion, and to question its Carnac, he begged to remind the Lion. Mover of this honour. He did not wish to re-open the question, proposition that the Governor-General's opinion w as but he felt bound to state that one portion of the let the one upon which they should act. Now it was ter of the Ranee represented that she had been ad the opinion of the Governor-General that the ex-Raja vised by parties in England, some of whom were was not entitled to the private property, and he should highly influential, to re-agitate the question, therefore concur with the Chairman in voting against but if she listened to that advice she might the motion. be assured that it would not succeed, and if it Mr.SuLmvAN reminded the Honourable Proprietor really were true that parties in this country did who last addressed the Court that he had no oppor• write letters to mislead these unhappy people, he tunity of giving a notice of motion, because it was hoped they would consider well the course they were only within the last few days that the fact had come adopting, and how far it might prejudice the interest to his knowledge that the family of the ex-Raja were of those whom they were anxious to befriend. actually at this moment without a single rupee. A PROPRIETOR suggested that the letter of the That was his reason for bringing forward this Ranee had better be read. question to-day. No allowance had been made The CHAIRMAN said the letter he had been quoting to the Ranee or her son since the death was from Colonel Stuart, at Benares, who stated, in of the ex-Raja. Up to this moment the Gover- conclusion, " I wish to add that the Ranee continues nor-General had done absolutely nothing for the ex- her anxiety in wishing to obey the ordinance of Raja's family. He had promised to give the ;Ranee the Government. She has placed in my possession an increase in her allowance, but it was so insignifi- all the correspondence she had received from her ad cant that it was hardly worth having. She was visers in England. Some of these letters are from already entitled to 800 rupees a month, and now it influential parties, who promise her accommodation was to be increased to 1,200, if the Ranee would re- and every success, if she will only continue to agitate." nounce her rights or those of her son ; but, as far as In one of her letters the Ranee says, " I have issued his information went, the Governor-General had not, the necessary orders to withdraw my agent in Lon up to this moment, paid the family a single shilling. don, and I have begged of my friends not to continue He, however, could readily make allowance for the any further agitation in my behalf. If they continue lion. Chairman, and he would separate him in his to agitate after this it will not be with my autho official capacity from what he was when he formerly rity.' After that expression of opinion on the part spoke upon this subject as simply Mr. Sheppard, the of the Ranee he need say no more, but simply leave director. Then the Hon. Gentleman was a warm it for the Court to negative the proposition. and uncompromising supporter of the claims of the Mr. SULLIVAN, before that was done, wished to ex-Raja, and, for the information of the Court, he ask the Chairman if, as a member of this would read the opinion which he expressed some Court, when the Governor-General made to the time ago with regard to this very case : Renee a proposal in the highest degree unjust, he " The Raja was to be treated as an object of sympathy, was bound to take no notice of it, or to be precluded not of punishment. He received also the pledge of the from giving that advice to the party about to be injured Governor that his private property should not be inter- if he thought tit to do so ? He was now doing nothing fered with; can any usage or precedent justify the breach more than following in the footsteps of the Hon. of this promise? Chairman himself. His opinions remained unchanged, " I would now request particular attention to the Re- they were what they always had been, namely, that sideut of Sattara's letter of the 28 th Sep tember, 1539, the directors had acted in defiance of all equity and which states that there were about seven lacs of rupees . ustice, and why should he surrender them now, at (70,0001.) in hard cash, and about seven or eight lacs J worth of jewels (70,0001. or 80,0001.), and other vain- the moment of all when the injured parties were ables in the palace. In the 11th par. of this letter he sunk in the deepest distress ? This case of says, " The whole of this property is claimed by the cruelty and injustice could be explained in a very few ex-Raja, bat Appa Sahib Maharaj (his successor) words. The Government had taken nearly fifteen maintains that about five or six lacs of the money lacs of rupees from these parties, and given them in (50,000/. or 60,000!.) is State property, and private lieu thereof 25,000 rupees. property belonging to him, and also about two lacs The motion was then put and negatived. (20,0000 worth of jewels, and that the remainder only Mr. LEWIN moved a resolution to the effect that belongs to the ex-Raja and the ladies of his family. the native sepoys should be entitled to the same pri " Here we have the express admission of the validity vileges as the European soldiers in India—namely, of the Ex-Raja's claims, from the party most interested that they should have a copy of the record and pro in opposing them. He who was to be the possessor of ceedings before courts-martial. all the property that could be designated State prope rt y , reluctantly admits that the remainder, amounting to The motion not having been seconded, fell to the about two lace of hard cash, and six lace worth of jewels ground. belong to the ex-Raja and the ladies of his family. The Court then adjourned. 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, he had governed his people with prudence and moderation, and restrained his own expenses within the limits of his income. Stripped of his Raj and hie 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 fur 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 usual 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 Sattara! His degradation, however, seems to be now consummated; and connected as lam with the Court, there is left to me but one consolatory reflexion, viz., that of being 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 lion. 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, but not a scrap of paper to show how Sir James Carnac thought fit, in November, to change the opinion which he had expressed in the previous August, when ho 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 Lad 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 be (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 caue!ernhoo doubt having excellent reasons for doing so-- while had clung to it. The injustice or the rightthinothhits case was not denied, but it was but g if inexpedient to admit the chairman thought? when ent re to these die turned to India there would be l an the leltanatdnt latter r e"s agent took up this ques cussions, he was mistaken, for tion as one of principle, and he should stick to it. The Court of Directors had un awfully confiscated the f a ce of — all law, equity, and private property in justice, though they had admitted' that they had made some sort of arrangement or other, but that would for him. He wanted to know what had be not do e of the 14 lace of rupees which was the private property of Appa Sa hib, and which the y had de p rived him of. They said they had made the Ranee an al lowance instead of it, but fur his part he still 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. Ile quite admitted that his opinion had been favourable to the claim of the Raja, but he had no right to continue to maintain opinions when they had been r,-peatedly overruled by the ma jority of the proprietors and directors. Had be fol lowed a different course, and continued on every dif ferent occasion that presented itself to force his opi nion upon the Court, he would have gone beyond his duty. Ile had a perfect right' to adhere t o his own fixed opinions, b u t h e had no right to persist in ad• vocating them, against the wish of the majority, to the end of his life ; but the Honourable Proprietor seems to entertain a different n otion, and if they were to act according to his rule, why there would be no end to this agitation. Be freely acknowledged , that he regretted much that Sir Ja mes Cara= 3:promise HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. To-night Music re-asserts her high place among the grates and splendours of a London season. Her sceptre is placed, for the first time, in the fair hand of Mdlle. Caroline Duprez, 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 the 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 are 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 which 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 moments 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 Lot lIIPOSSIBLE.—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 beau 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 Mightiuesses heralds the approach of that High Might iness 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 bas little patience with the warm attentions of the governor to the bride, by which this fact is betrayed. The governor has still less with the rough demonstrations of his vassal'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 la Rose); but the touching grace of Fleu 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 for 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 Sigh Perfumer a re 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 sh opposite quarters—north and south; that the leastall dwell in infrac tion of this law shall be a hanging matter. " And these tyrannical enactm e nts the guards forthwith remors elessly carry out by a repeal of all matrimonial unions, and the enforcement of a general act of separation. " TABLEAU EL..= LA PAYSANNE • LA COME,' OU JADLS ET AUJOURDHUL 7 " Here we find artless beauty and native grace in contrast with all that is most elaborate and studied in its finery. The Fayure palace and its courtesies, however, have little charm for o tte. Her melancholy demeanour gives evidenceof one continued offence against the law forbidding her to lovi; and when at last, tired of witnessing the stiff performances of the court, she dashes out into all her own wild brilliancy of dance, the conquered Governor confesses the power of beauty and the weakness of legislation—kneels to the fair enemy of his peace, but kneels in vain, and is with difficulty raised by his a ttendants from a position, whi c h , with a rashness ill-suited to his age and dignity, he had taken up without du l y consi dering how he was to get o u t o f it again. "TABLEAU 'LES •MOUBS VESGE ci This beautiful scene is Love's favourite haunt, that tem ple his chosen shrine. The sweet so unds which fill the air herald his approach-- and see where the Irresistable One glides like a meteor to the earth ! Fleurette, drawn hither by some potent spell, does not long resist his fascinations, nor, when her companions find her reclining.in the arms of her strange partner, are they slow to own the influeneeof a power, which, like her, they cannot defy. The deity is benevolent, and at his command a barque glides to shore, freighted with loves for all. Like a swarm of golden bees, the cupids glitter among the village maidens, and cluster round denee the group, u to r t Full of joy, and love, and mischief, they gather ; but jealous and angry eyes are on the scene, Blaise, the rejected, bold though not successful, invades the favoured court. Repulsed by Loves arrows, he returns with th e vil lagers in force , a nd the m ortals strive once more to win back the prize so strangely snatched away ; but love, fetter e d by mor tal clay, kat s li g ht chance against its free etheral essence, and the maidens are borne triumphantly off. " TABLEAU iv. PIEGE LT LA CHASSE AUX Al4Ouns. ' "Here love, with his fie-ces, has reached the very centre and stronghold of his realm. In this delicious garden, rich with bright fruits and gay with sunny flowers, everything owns his spell and aids his power. ‘, I n every direction bright colours tempt the eve, soft in fluences sway the heart, and gentle sports invite the grace ful idleness of beauty. The village maidens find it the true elysium. Yet even here jealousy does not fear to continue its attack on love. The mortal lovers penetrate the garden —the maidens escape - but they ma y 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 blessed with wit enough, to: construct from boughs and flowers a more effectual snare, an d soon the poor loves, intent on their village charmers, flutter in a sad captivity. The captors disappear, bent on bringing all the world to be i t l :r ct With respect to temporali• ies. That principle was ad- D , rn t ti,by Dr. Wiseman, and .by Mr. .Bowyer in his able e,.. enret, In cases where bishops having territorial dis `,a cleirned the right of appointing priests to benefices, of . that right being resisted by Roman Catholic laymen, or bishops merely exerc i s ing ecclesiastical functions, the f orce g f et. the canon law, if an appeal were made to the Court of ti l ancery, the appointment of the former wou ld stand, or if e aPPointment of the latter were in force, the Court would dl those priests from their benefices. Now this wr as an in.astration of the mode in which the canon law could come t v`i ° force. It might, therefore, be introduced to a consider i,"te extent with respect to temporal matters, and he believed t `rotild be most unjust to allow trustees to be appointed by o Or eign potentate, or through the nomination of a foreign toentate, to exercise those temporal rights over persons t o l n g in this country. This was the case of a foreign -ntate appointing and having control over bishops, which means they would exercise control over British sabth at He believed he spo ke the truth when he said ot th ere were no spiritual functions which co uld not ;:_ e Perfortned in all respects by persons exercisin g e p iscopal tions as by territorial bishops. He had not heard rtc Y i gentleman mention a matter of spiritual interest which oi uired the bishop of a territorial district to perform. v e ar, hear.) Did ordination, collation to benefices, clispen th'el!na, the administration of governments—did . any one of hiia matters require to be exclusively performed by the "QP of a territorial district? He invited Honourable ieutlernen, who spoke after him to mention, if they could, 9, spiritual matters which could ' be administered by the IX u °P of a territorial diocese, but could not be administered a , bishop not belonging to a territ orial district. Now, if t , ' be so—and if the appointment of territorial bishops does t i l " touch the spirival but the temporal art of the matter, ao it was idle to r t alk about this measure being an act of w tra ecution and tyrannising over the Roman Catholics. It tio : , not a measure to interfere with the rights, and func- ', and freedom of religion me , but ameasure to check and t u ? a direct species of machinery which transferred into hands of a foreign potentate certain property to a con t,erable extent belonging to the i nhabitants of this ; 11t rY , and allowed that fore i g n p otentate to deal with it. W''itsanctions, ever complained that the full perfo rmance of s p iritual sa nctions had not been carried out within the last fifty at , l in this country by vicars - aposto lic?—(Hear, hear.) lc how matters stood in the Bill before the House. h i , a , Rouse was now asked to read th e Bill a second time, c i the intention on the part of the Government to omit r e „. the clauses except the first clause. He admitted there difference between the case of England and Ireland in o use matters. In Ireland, for three hundred yea rs, the Ro 'eat of Catholic Church had been governed by m eans of bisho p s territorial dioceses, while in this country that system ‘tver ex i ste d.—(H ear , hear.) It was quite obvious that it ga s a different matter to put an end to a s y stem that had h iltedi t for three centuries, and to prev ent its introduction to a country where bishops of territorial districts were oleo. recognized. That was a strong reason why the H latter • es of the Bill should not be applied to Ireland. e re loi eed that the Government had thought fit to reject those cla uses, and to confine the Bill to the first clause. With re bPect to the opinion given Mr. Bthell of the Chancery 4 , , respecting the operation y of the e Bill, , he did not agree i t tt that opinion, but he should state how far he considered correct. It was undoubted law that a contract or liability so ught to be established in a court of law by a person calling l loself Archbishop of Westminster could be enforced. No ) , ti ger would they dispute that proposition. The Court of the would only look whether the person styling himself t 1 a Archbishop of Westminster was clearly entitled to the t o rtl ,rn which he had made. To this extent, and this ex '4l4 only, would the second claim be included in the first. t,, law of Ireland for the last 21 years was the same as now ;Posed, and in no court of justice was any case raised, and at w as sure his Learned Friends of the English bar would t tt Unce admit that at no bar could there be found mo-e as e,a, hermoe learned, or able gentlemen than those connected s ectio n Irish bar.— (Hear, hear.) They would take an ob th l ion to the system if they c ould, and the House wou d find at during that length of time that no interference what (bar Was attempted with the concerns of t he Roman Catholic dial irel l in that country. He admitt ed there was a considerale h,,erence between the case of Ireland and that of En g land, When objections were made against t he Bill on that ac to‘ tide th e H ous e would allow him to call their a ttention to °Peration of the clause. The Bill proposed to do nothing than this; it said that if new bishops were made in Irel and they should be exactly in the same position as the the and that if new ones were appointed in this country, 0, should be placed in the same position as the Irish Of the hear.) Now that was really the effect 'e Bill, and where was the monstrous persecution t h Which they had heard so much, and against which r a t People had been stirred up to the depths of their in thrt feelings ?—(Cheers.) Surelythere must the surface. be some will.l; More in it than what there appeared on a similar measure was introduced in to the Relief Act g,, °29 , wag i; not then considered a g reat boon, and did any ti; - tlenaan say then, look at the tyranny which existed, and Th en outrage offered to men's consciences?—(Hear, hear.) where was the abandonment of the pr inci p le of civil 1,41 d religious freedom? So far from it, that when, in 1829, j r : 3l tem existing for three hundred years was changed in th `lacid, no complaint was raised against it where was k t a hardship, or why exclaim against it, when introduced °,. this country to meet a case for the first time, and when to Lotally different system formerly existed? It was, e,refore, strange that it should be said this was a ullolation of civil and religious liberty; and, as regarded ,: e English Members who opposed- the measure, he be e'ed it was done from a belief that the Queen ought not to tbe supreme head of any church. Tha t was the cause e e great schism which occurred in t he Scottish Church, A nd l that opinion was also entertained by a g reat mass of the ie made of this country. With respect to the observations m easure by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, that the present was a persecution of Roman Catholics, he (the A ttorney -General) did not think his Ho nourable and Learned v iend himself believed it. He, for one, and those con n e cted p ith him, had the strongest possible affection fo r his Roman ,', e atholie fellow-subjects, and desired that they sh ould have ° fullest and freest exercise of their religion ; and sorry could he feel, were he a party to any act which would re strain them in that exercise in the slightest degree. His sight Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, in his eloquent and brilliant speech, which was listened to by the House with 41 .nauch admiration as pleasure—(Cheers) referred to a per aonage in a speech of his made on the occasion when the Di tiotnatic Relations Bill was before the House. His Right h h.° l l. Friend would, however see, if the House would allo w I ra, to refer to that passage, that his opin ions then were in strict accordance with those which he now entertained. In tint of fact, what he then said might b e fairl y construed t o c ;, a prophecy of what occurred in S e p tember last. A t, was proposed by the Hon. Me mber for Lambeth (Om 4 . C. Pearson), and in resisting it , he ( the Attorney-- ?eneral) said that as the law now stood, the Pope may ? t e rcel out the country as he pleased , and if the motion were a greed to his power would still be th e same, but that the " a t and only mode of preventing it w as to open. diplomatic re lations with the See of Rome.—(Hear, hear.) Now that c eltut nothing more than this--namely, that he was de tifrt°us there should be a Bill to prevent such a measure as was e. ,,,,.,arvrards introduced, and that opinion was strictly in ac t'uance with the opinions he then held. There certainly ea nothing in the law as it stood to prevent the assump eu of ecclesiastical titles, and parcelling out a territory dioceses in England was not illegal ; and as to the sug- Z,tions thrown out that a prosecution ought to have been th'"toted. he acknowledged that he and his Learned Friend 4t e _. Solicitor-General were most reluctant to do so,an t d e t ungly dissuaded the Government from having recourse (thy a ()fii uch proceeding.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Y offence committed was that of pu blishing the bull ; a nd Ought to be recollected that every newspaper in the WfltrY committed the same offence ez Cardinal tri "'omen in that respect. Then with respect to diplo th4tia relations with Rome, it ought to be recollected that Lo measure was rendered inoperative and inefficient, be -4.8e a Noble Lord had in another place intro duced clauses L,,ich completely crippled the measure. and yet that Noble cc",r,t l was now opposed to the present Bill.. - (Cries of hear.") Ile thought then, as he thought now, that tfi "k a measure would have prevented what has since oc curred, and every subsequent circumstance confirmed him, A „ . _t it was a misfortune of no ordinary kind that that mea ,7fra did not pass into a law.—(Hear, hear.) The law officers the tho Crown could not bring an action, nor did they feel statutes;rnsehres justified in prosecuting under old and obsole e and the only remedy, therefore, which remained, hg a legislative enactment and a legislative decTiaration that „`la act complained of was illegal, and imps sing certain t ,lalties in case of its being violated. The Roman Catholics o . 1 0 ( this country were a body of men peculiarly remarkable their loyalty to the Throne, and their zeal for the interests °J. the country. In saying that he did not make any excep tion in their favour to the prejudice of other portions of the '°llimunity who are equally loyal, but it would now be seen W hether in their obedience to the law they would show their "Ox iety to continue in the course they had so long followed. Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had Selled the present Bill a measure of persecution, but Surely he could not compare i t as such with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, or in any way approach ing what might be fairly termed a persecution for religious opinions. He had also, in a peculiarly touching manner, re ferred to one by whom he was bound by every tie, and to Whose principles he owed the position he enjoyed in that House. Those were the principles in which he was educated; but he believed it was perfectly consistent with those prin ciples to adopt the course which he now felt himself bound to follow. But perhaps his Right Hon. Friend would allow him to refer to a speech of his made on the 30th of March, 1835, on the appropriation clause. In that speech his Right Hon. Friend said, " It may be said that I am deviating from those general Whig principles on which I acted since 1 entered into public life—and if I might venture to define them, I should say they consisted in liberty of thought or action in all mat.ere political and religious consistent with w, order, and constituted authority. lam for no death's bead.,,, and cross-bones—for no prayers of me rc y limited to Heaven, but not to earth, because a Rol nan Catholic voter would not go a certain way. I feel the utmost jealousy of Popery as an instrument of political domination —(Hear, hear, and loud cheering)—an ardent and uncompromising attachment to the Protestant religion ae by law established."—(Cheers.) He (the Attorney-Ge neral) fully concurred in those sentiments, and with the most anxious wish that the present measure would not inter fare with that harmony now happily existing between both oountries, with a s•ncere desire that the prosperity now dawni ng on that country should not be blighted by any thin g that h a d occurred, he felt bound conscientiously to vote for the second reading of the Bill.--(Cheers.) Mr. W. FAGAN moved the adjournment of the debate. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was not going to oppose the motion for the adjournment of the debate; but consi oaring the extent and ability of the arguments used on both sides, he hoped the House would look forward to a division I on Monday night. The motion for the adjournment was then agreed to, and the debate was accordingly adjourned till Monday next. The Consolidated Fond (8,000,0001.) Bill passed through Committee. Mr. MITCHELL moved for a Select Committee to in quire into the constitution and management of the Board of Customs. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. said he should not oppose the motion, but he hoped his Hon- Friend would tot consider his consent to the motion as at all implying a conviction on his part as to the necessity for it. The motion was then agreed to. Mr. LABOUCHERE moved for leave to introduce a Bill rot the better amendment of the navigation-laws relating to steam-vessels, with a view to prevent overcrowding, and to afford proper accommodation to passengers. Re should also Propose to extend the Act to sailing vessels. , Ald erma n SIDNEY wished to know whether the steam boats plying on the Thames would come within the opera tion of the Act. Mr. LABOUCHERE replied they would be included in the Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice that on tb e motion for going into Supply he should move for the production of the Paper granting an additional 500/. a year to the chairman of the Commissioners o' Inland Revenue • and also call at tention to the increasing nuisance of . the lenge itinerant barrel organs in the streets of London. The House then adjourned at Half-past Twekve o'clock. THE EAST INDIA HOUSE. SUN, LONDON, S sed, nest . y in ould ould bad s ub- rgu was 1, be duct that man Ltory the iting and the said, Idget Sion • 11 to the 1 at! any — the wort rtain w hat ourts )1e of the' ;rme- H• er in bac' 1 the ice of