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

MAY 1. 1849°
?'"
iml4 .

ADJOURNED MEETING AT THE
EAST INDIA HOUSE.
THE ItAJA OF SATTARA.
A Special General Meeting of the Proprietors of
the East India Company was holden again on Fri-
day to resume the debate, which stood adjourned from
Wednesday, on Mr. Sullivan's motion relative to the
case of the Raja of Sattara.
Precisely at twelve o'clock Sir Archibald Gil-
loway, accompanied by a large body of the Directors,
entered the court, and
Mr. Hors MACKENZIE rose to resume the debate.
He said—When the Court rose on Wednesday last
he intended to have said a few words, but abstained
for several reasons. He felt that the question had
been almost decided, and he felt too that everybody
in the meeting, as well as himself, were almost ex-
hausted by the length to which the debate had run.
Fur these reasons he abstained from troubling
the Court with the observations which .he had
intended to address to them on the matter
in hand. From the Court having consented to
the adjournment, he supposed it was their wish
that this question should be fully and finally discussed,
and that a solemn decision having been passed by this
Court upon the question, it; should be, as far as the
Court was concerned, set at rest. for ever —(Bear,
hear.) For that purpose it was very desirable that
every one should have a full opportunity of
stating his sentiments; therefore he offered himself
as en humble individual to state his opinion on the
case. Hs confessed he had been anxious to join in
this discussion, because he entertained a strong
opinion that injustice was done by the Court of Di-
rectors and others, gentlemen for whom he enter-
tained a strong sense of affection and respect. He
was not without hope that he himself might be
proved to be in the wrong, that either he was mis-
taken in the general question, or that there were
circumstances in this particular case that would
take it out of the general rule ; and there-
fore he was not without hope that they might
be able to persuade him against a strong -opinion
which he entertained, that their orders were founded
in justice, and that in executing them our Govern-
ment would not violate the great laws by which he
believed they all desired to be regulated, and by
which, perhaps, with rare exceptions, their Indian
Government had been conducted—(Hear)—for he
took it for granted that they were willing at once to
say that justice should be paramount. There might be
a question about the meaning of the word " para-
mount," but as to their allowing the justice of
the case to override all questions of mere
expediency, he imagined there would he no dissent.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Indeed, he should say as
to Governments, there never could be a question, but
in the long run, expediency depended on justice
—and if that was true in ordinary cases, it
was peculiarly so in India, where their strength
mainly depended on their moral character.
By the force of that moral character,
and of their equitable and righteous institutions
planted in India, were they able to rule and govern
many a willing people in that country, consisting of
many millions.—(Applause.) He had another hope,
which be would not entirely relinquish, that if in the
course of their discussion there should appear reason
to alter their decision, that that decision was not irre-
vocable.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted it was a godlike
thing for a Government never to err; but the highest
human praise was when a strong Government,
such as theirs was, acknowledged its error—(Ap-
plause)—when it retraced steps which it had taken
in a wrong direction, and, throwing aside all meaner
motives and considerations, said, " Come what would,
justice should be done—(Applause)—we were wrong
and we shall not persevere in wrong."—(Hear, hear.)
He was not indeed sanguine enough to expect that
an opinion deliberately adopted by that Court should
be set aside by anything that he could say ; but still
he believed if he and his friends cast their words upon
the waters, they would not do so in vain. He had the
highest respect for Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-
General of India ; and he (Mr. Mackenzie) found in
one paragraph of Lord Dalhousie's minute, a senti
ment which gave him the greatest hope on this oc-
casion. He believed that Lord Dalhousie had been
unluckily carried on to decide this question at tos
early a period of his career. At that moment the
very safety of the Indian empire was in some
degree in his keeping, with the welfare
of thousands and tens of thousands of people
demanding his instant attention, he (Mr. Mackenzie)
could not think that in a judicial case like this—
(ffear, hear)—for a judicial case it was to a great
extent—without the advantage of counsel, without
hearing the parties, without all the advantages vvhich
a public discussion gave to public men in this country

—he (Mr. Mackenzie) repeated he could not think
that Lord Dalhousie had given fair play to his
admirable judgment—(llear)—and he believed.
when longer experience should have operated
on the Governor-General's mind, and he should look
on this question, aided by the light of that longer
experience, he would revert to the minute to which he
(Mr. Mackenzie) had alluded. He would take the
liberty to read an extract'from that minute. It was
in these words :—" The Government is bound, in
duty as well as policy, to act on every such occasion
with the purest integrity, and in the most scrupulous
observance of good faith. Where even a shadow of
doubt can be shown, the claim should at once have
been abandoned."—(Hear, hear, and applause.)
Now he (Mr. Mackenzie) did confess, if his
mind was not strangely constituted, if he did not
altogether dream, after reading the dissents which
the paper he held in his hand contained, the admirable
dissents which did the highest credit to their Court—
he said if, especially, that speech of his Hon. Friend
Mr. Sullivan could be conveyed to his Lordship, if
their remarks during that debate should be placed
before him, he (Mr. Mackenzie) could have little doubt
that Lord. Dalhousie would not think there was not only
" a shadow of a doubt," but doubts ofthe gravest kind,
that there were the most solid grounds for believing
that he had decided wrongly. The right of the Raja
of Sattara was, in his (Mr. Meckeezie's) apprehen-
sion, one that might be established in any court of
justice; but, at all events, the opposite side of the
question was one that a candid man would say did
admit of grave doubts. He believed confidently that
at no distant period Lord Dalhousie would consider
that there ware such doubts, that the claim should be
at once abandoned —(lean) It was, therefore, on
that account that he (Mr. Mackenzie) was anxiou-
that this case should be fully discussed. There was
a preliminary objection to which he had better allude
shortly. His lion. Friend, the late Chairman, agi-
tated the Act of Parliament which restrained that
Court from altering or amending, or interfering with
any decision of the Court of Directors, supported by
her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Mackenzie) at
once admitted the law of his Hon. Friend, but he
must demur to the consequences. It was certainly
vary important that it should be known that their
Court acted on a higher responsibility than they owed
to their proprietors as their representatives ; but the
Court had a higher responsibility in their own con-
science to God and their country—(Hear, hear)—
and although he (Mr. Mackenzie) did belong to
"the extreme left"—(A laugh)—he had always
maintained the principle that their Honourable Court
should be always supported by them on his (Mr.
Mackenzie's) side of the bar, and therefore he did
readily admit the provisions of the Act in its fullest
spirit, that they were not to interfere with
the Executive Government—(Hear, hear)—but he
could not think they were not therefore sometimes,
nay, frequently, to discuss grave questions. As
the constituents of the Court of Directors the
Proprietors were fully entitled to instruct them ;
they were fully able to give them the benefit of their
various sentiments ; and he thought the Directors
would be disposed to yield to their opinions when
supported by convincing arguments, or at all
events would be disposed to give them the
weight which they merited. For his own
part, when there was no pressure, when a
case might admit of long delay, if he was in their
place he confessed he should have a preference for
the somewhat rude democracy of that place rather
than seek inspiration from the more demure philo-
sophy of the precincts of Cannon-row.—(A laugh.)
He had no doubt in this, as in other cases, the
Directors bad acted for the best; they had thought it
right to come to a decision, and he had no doubt
that they thought the decision they had come to was
the best one. He gave them the be-
nefit of believing they had done no-
thing that they did not think was right.
The case was one that depended upon the Directors
for its decision—it was not the province of the Pro-
prietors to do so; all they could do was to proffer
_
their advice. The Directors must decide it, without
reference to the Court. The Proprietors, however,
had the right of either approving or condemning any
decision to which the Directors might have come,
when they assembled, as they had that day. Though
the Proprietors had no direct authority or power, he
believed that Court,
if it would be true to itself—
(Hear, hear)—possessed very considerable authority.
He believed it might be fairly taken to represent that
great body of the Pritish people who took the deepest
interest in th-< anirs of India. Hy believed, furLher,
if their discussions there were carried on as he 11Ad
been accustomed to see discussions carried on in
India—with perfect freedom, not perhaps Without
passing, when important intereite were at ;take,

[PRICE SD.

yet with courtesy and gentlemanly feeling—
if such feelings actuated their discussions, he
believed they would not be unimportant.
They should be of such a character, for they took place
in a free country, where public sentiment bore down
the highest authority.—(Hear, hear.) The bar had
no authority to dictate the nature of the decision of
the judges, yet what judge of the present day—what
judge since the time of Jeffreys would dare to set
himself against the universal feeling of the bar. The
judges' of England were far above his praise, but
highly as he thought of them, he would not trust
them unless they were checked by a honest
bar and a searching public. (Loud chsers.)
So he thought of the Government of India, which
that Court was to a great extent, and, therefore, he
thought if they formed in that Court a strong opinion
in favour of the decisions to which the Directors had
come, that the reasons given for results were ap-
proved of, they must be materially strengthened, and
they might confidently hope fur good. Therefore it
was that he was so anxious that there should he no
angry, no personal discussion—(Cheers)—therefore
it was that he was anxious, if in the heat of debate
he should use one word inconsistent with
respect to the Directors, that it should be considered
as if he had not uttered it, as no such sentiment could
come from his heart, and he would at once candidly
and fairly concede to the Directors the right of think-
ing he was wrong, miserably, strangely wrong; and
he was.sure they► would at once recognise his right
to say to them, believing strongly what he uttered,
that he thought they had -gravely erred.—(Elear,
hear.) Therefore it was that he said, that though-
giving the late Chairman full credit for his
knowledge of the law by which cases of
this kind were guided, and bowing to his
authority is all matters, yet notwithstanding his
opinion, he considered that discussions in that Court
might be most important, and that it was certainly
one part of the constitution of this Company that
this right, which he believed a most important part of
the good government of India, should be maintained.

•
It NV'AS also a matter of importance, because they
possessed no direct power, which rendered it
impossible that they could there enter into
• that struggle for personal objects 'which so
much perplexed oligarchies at home. They could
not lay great stress upon personal motives
and feelings, because they knew that their decision
would have no immediate practical effect. No, it was
• only by the force of truth that they could expect to
be useful; and when they were wrong—especially
%viler' they were violent—their power was not legally
but morally irresistible. It was• for these grounds
that he looked forward to good and not to evil spring-
ier from such discussions; indeed, he believed suet
discassions would form a good safety-valve fcr
their feelings. It was a great consolation
under suffering to be able to complain --
it was a strong security against tyranny to be able to
petition. He knew from his experience in India that
no right was more valued by the natives of India
thin the right of petitioning. It had been his fortune
to decide many cases, but he must say for the natives
A* India, that when the cause was rightly heard, even
if they thought the decision was wrong, there was no
hostility in their breasts ; in the common expression
of their language they said, " to be heard is to be ap •
preciated."—(ClKers.) What he wished to impress
upon the minds of public men, and if upon them it
was doubly important that the natives of India should
he impressed with the same belief, that no man could
he injured without a hearing.—(Bear, hear.) They
would then think highly of the British decision—they
would submit to decisions, even if wrongful, without
entertaining any feeling of anger or disaffection.
Therefore it was that he wished this Court to be con•
sidered as a safety-valve to all who thought themselves
injured; and the more the natives knew that their
cases would he heard the greater would be the security
they would have for the government of India. But
he did not believe that they were to be misled by
mere talk; and, on the other hand, they were
to acute not to know the real merits of
the question. There were a few preliminary
questions on which he would first offer some words.
filis was not the real Sattara question.—(Hear,
hear.) The parties were different, the point at issue
was different, and the cause was altogether different.
The parties were the family of the late Itsja, and the
question at issue was one of public faith, the interpre-
ation of a treaty, and the consequences were of the
most momentous kind. The bearings of the question
were well defined by Mr. Willoughby, for he evi-
dently intended that the decision ssith respect to this
case should extend to the whole of the dependent
principalities ; and therefore ho believed, if the deci-
'ion in this case was maintained, especially in the
words used, he believed the decision would have
the most important effect. (Sir J. Hogg was about
:o leave.) lie begged to remind the lion. Baronet
that this was not the interminable Sattara case. He

!loped, therefore, he should escape the good-natured
banter which a gentleman some time ago received at
the hands of the Hon. Baronet. He wished it to be
understood that he threw the old case aside; and,
therefore, begged to recommend this new case to the
acute, legal, and kind consideration of the lion. Baronet,
.s it was a question quite irrespective of all that
had been urged with respect to the guilt or innocence
f Pertaub Shean. They had nothing to do with that.
lie trusted, therefore, they would have the benefit of
the lion. Baronet's sentiments upon this question,
because it was a legal and judicial one. He was only
afraid if he went away it would be thought that he
had thrown up the question in disgust as the "eternal
Sattara question."—(Laughter.) Still it was not a
ease he was ashamed to advocate, but in doing so he
shoul-I rot detain the Court long; yet, when a man
was on his legs, it was well known—
" That one upon one suggests another,
And still ez.e'l fellow breeds a brother."
Ile case had been admirably stated and ably sup-
ported by the unanswered and certainly unanswerable
speech of Mr. Sullivan. He did not mean to say
chat he concurred in all the sentiments, but his state.
merit that the decision of the Directors was unjust had
his entire concurrence, and if he could bring himself
to believe that his speech was full in the minds of the
Proprietors, he should be ashamed to add one word
ro the arguments he adduced, for he seemed to him to
have exhausted the case. He merely sought permis-
sion to state shortly how this question appeared to
him. Let them look at the ground of the decision of
the Court (page 8)—" The result of our deliberation
is, that concurring with you in opinion, we are fully
satisfied that by the general law and custom of India,
a dependent principality like that of Sattara
cannot pass to au adopted heir without the
consent of the paramount power." First of
all, he should confine himself to the question
whether by the " general Court custom of
India a dependent principality like that of
Sattara cannot pass to an adopted heir with•
out the consent of the paramount power ? "
lie had read all these papers minutely, and he had
listened to what had been said from the chair with

the utmost attention, but he certainly could not find
a tittle of evidence to support that assertion.—(Hear,
hear.) He had looked carefully through all the books
and papers, to see if there was anything to bear the
Court out in saying that Sattara was a dependent prin-
cipality, and the Rai a must the. efore have recourse tothe
sanction, and not merely the sanction, but the
consent of the paramount power before he could
adopt a heir—(Hear)—nor could he find anything
in the treaty to justify that position—a treaty, he
would take leave to observe, not merely with Pertaub
Singh, but he conceived also with the state of Sat-
tera. It was not a treaty with an individual who
lived to-day and died to-morrow ; but it was the treaty
with the Raja and people of Sattara, and they were
bound, therefore, not to take it in a limited sense, but
to construe it in the light of a treaty of perpetual
friendship and alliance with the people of Sattara.—
(Hear,
hear.) It was true that the treaty concededtrseoavteyei
-r nty of
to the Raja the principality
ths Sattara,onlyhi s heirs
meaning andt h
at successors,eoh i
d h abut t r he
cf)happrehends
these
awords e
awasrhe
Learned
thatG whiche,oe
nl a
Gentleman
,a,s, putho t
spokeu p
,coasno attached
lerue
ldebi
ir3ea,
sbtdlhy4eylg!aoonondd.
who in his humble judgmhen
Oint.—(Hear, hear.)
legal authority upon such
_sujiceerri:rhsecsorll
Nnaootrpbdeidlimheitetdhitnokheinirsreof.
gtHhaeerilbr:°tcodaoYnuEd. Englishmen that the words " heirs and succes-
sors"ld be limited to heirs of the body ; but in the
case
laws and customs they were perhaps more familiar,
such a limitation appeare.l to him to be nb3olutely
impossible and absurd.—(Cheers.) He had referred
to all the books bearing upon theeertsauibnjleyetcotnhtlatinhede
bsenuoeo uitipilllgdri nothing
sgguwent toill
presumed
all secuactpmhoe pleosobnrieltataots,thi: andhecNevol n 1 ciosgont oihlltrethseNseNedt:l
stca,hgeoeanultCelaeouNnuN
I:1
irhel tonosrNeirvvi
authorities
os
learning
mustuppuorn-
such points,
made him an ornament to his profession and an
honour to his country—he meant his learned friend
Dr. Wilson, who was well acquainted with the
laws of India—who all in one voice said that
en adopted heir or an adopted son was ' as
much a heir as the heirs of the body.—(Cheers.) But
turn to what Kr. Elphinstone said in ails dis,.mteh,
and the Court A ould find that there it was stated that
adopted heirs were uniformly placed before col-
-1 lateral heirs, and that universal adoption.was claimed
by the Hindcos as a right to which they attached the

•
highest importance, and exercised as a religious rite,
and to interfere with which must inevitably inflict
great injury upon all easses in-.lndia.—(Hear, hear.)
Independently, too,"of this, the original Act of Par-
liament gave the people or India to understand in
express words that neither the courts- nor the local
governments would' interfere R ith the law of Succes-
sion, but without any such words:in an Act of Par-
liament their own good. sense and Wisdoth .ougha to
be their guide in this inatter ; and in acting upon
that wisdom hitherto .the Court. had, shown great
deference to the feelinge.of the people of India ; .and
for the Court now to tell them that heirs and suc-
cessors did not include adopted heirs was one of the
most extraordinary opinions he had •ever_heard ofa—
(Cheers.) But it seemed the , Court relied upon the
Arabic words in the Mahratta version. of the. treaty,
and no doubt the Hon. Chairman in guiding the
Court in that respect was a good authority, but: it
seemed to him, notwithstanding what had fallen from
the Ham. Gentleman, that ;the words extended
beyond heirs of the body, and he said, without
hesitation, that according to the Common language
of India, the'wordsfurzund and warisan implied in-
heritance generally. The third word, hayeem ma-
ham, properly interpreted, impliedeven more than
that, and it seemed to him more than possible that it
was put in expressly to meet a case like this. No
doubt it was put in to meet any case of doubt as-to
a succession, because it was more'than likely that at
the tine the treaty was made the contingency
was entertained that it *night be necessary
to remove the Raja, as indeed they had done, and the
treaty must therefore be receiVedAn the light as
having been in fact entered into for the benefit of the
state, and the Raja so interpreting the treaty ap-
pointed his successor, who at his death became his
representative.—(Hear, hear.) With regard- to the
expediency or necessity of the course S the
Court of Directors were pursuing he would only
say one word, nor would he attribute improper mo-
tives to the Directors; • but this he would say that, in
their anxiety to pursue a course consistent with the
duty of men of honour, and compatible with the
interest and advantage of the Company, they bad
acquired a bias unfavourable to the late Raja, mad in •
order to excuse that course they had availed themselves
of the Mahomedanlaw. The word warisan, as he
had said before, was universally used to express in-
heritance generally ; and it did really appear to him
to be absurd to put any other construction upon it
without going back to the niceties of the Mahome-
dan law.—(Hear.) He was an old translator, and he
could assure the Court that this was a common word
used in most if not all the Company's treaties. He
wished now to advert to the danger of considering
the Rsja an entirely dependent prince. He was
reedy to admit that the Raja was in one sense not
independent. In one sense he certainly was subordinate,
and could not exercise certain privileges without the
consent of the Government, but the real point at issue
related to the inheritance, whether the inheritance was
dependent upon the will, or ruling of the Government,
or whether, as tar as the inheritance was concerned,
the Raja was entirely independent upon that point--
he had no hesitation in saying that he really thought
the Raja was left independent. Any other independence
lie did not claim for the Raja, nor had he, or those
who agreed with him, any wish to claim more inde-
pendence for the Raja than what the law conferred
upon him.—(llear, hear) Looking over all the
treaties of Sir John Napier he found precisely the
same words, " heirs and successors," and the same
words appeared to ba employed in most if not all the
East India Company's treaties.—(Hear, hear )
Therefore to adopt the Directors' view of the matter
would be wrong and unjust, and to say that the
inheritance in this case depended upon the \rill of the
lord paramount or Supreme Government was just
as absurd as if a man were to deny the inheri-
tance to a copyholder because he did not hold
the freehold. (Cheers.) He freely admitted
that the Raja did not hold the full sovereignty, but
the title upon which he held his territory vested in
him the inheritance. A better title could not be
fbund all the world over than that which was based
upon the faith of the British Government.—(Lotel
cheers.) Well, then, upon such a title rested
the inheritance in this case, and he hoped
it would be respected, or the good faith
of the British Government would no longer
be relied on in India. He had looked, and
looked in vain, for a single letter or word in the
treaty to justify the notion that they were to have the
control of the inheritance • and, as he said before, he
really believed that, with the Hindoos, heirs, by the
universal custom of their country, included the chil-

dren of adoption. Therefore he held that the Raja
was entitled to inherit without leave, and was also
entitled to adopted without leave, unless some special
grounds and exceptions were introduced into the
treaty which were not found here.—(Cheers.) lie
had looked carefully over all the minutes before
the Court of the Supreme Government of Bombay, and
with all dae respect to the Court, ho had looked
also into the able paper signed by one of their oven
body—a gentleman whom he highly esteemed and
whom he should always hold in the highest respect,
and for whore opinion, by the way, he took some
responsibility if not credit to himself, because that
gentleman—Mr. Mangles ho alluded to—acted at
one time in subordinate co-operation with
himself, and he very much feared the Honourable
Director might have learnt some lessons while he
acted under him as a meritorious secretary which he
was afraid would rather bias his mind in this case.—
(hear, hear.) Like the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, the business of the office of the Ho-
nourable Gentleman was to collect and get
money—honestly, he admitted, but still his main
purpose was to get money, and the strict
discharge of his duty to the Company as their
territorial secretary, was most likely to prejudice
him against the case.—(Hear.) The wisdom of their
Government made their revenue officer look pretty
closely after the public funds without infringing any
private rights, if- possible, but still his duty was to
maintain the public purse ; and it appeared to him
that, actuated by such motives, the Honourable Gen-
tleman might declare himself hostile to this case.
He believed when the must got into wine
it seriously injured it; the hest materials were liable
to be attacked in that manner, and he was afraid the

clear intellect of his lion. Friend, when he came to

decide upon a cause involving the interest of the
public exchequer; will be found to have been attacked
by the must. But he did think that his lion. Friend,
with all his strong feeling for their public
welfare, w3uld succeed in maintaining his
ground, for this was not merely a question of treaty,
but of public faith.—(Cheers.) The same feeling
or error ran through Sir Henry Willoughby's dis-
patches, but to a less extent, inasmuch as he
confounded all tenures together. He admitted at
once that there were some tenures that were
subject to the control of the supreme power, and they
must draw a distinction between that form of tenure
and the present.—(Hear, hear.) Sir Henry Wil-
loughby, in speaking of tenures in his letters, alluded
only to the jagha&ers, but that was quite a different
form of tenure to the Rajas of Sattara.—(Hear, hear.)
The jaghadeers were servants of the Government
holding land for military duty, and though their in-
heritance was provided for, it was subject to great
conditions. Whether they left behind them an
adopted son, or a son of the body, a distinct
investiture was required at every succession,
which marked them as subjects, and showed
that they had not the slightest pretence to
any of those rights which belonged to hereditary
princes in India. They had no distinct hereditary
right, and they did not at all resemble any of those
Rajas between whom and the East India Company—
the highest power in India—a solemn compact
had been made.—(Hear, hear.) He did think
that it was very much to be lamented that Sir
Henry Willougnby had so much to do with the
decision in the case of the Raja of Sattara.—(Hear,
hear.) There was a very pregnant remark, and he
was sure, in referring to it, that they would not un-
derstand him as meaning anything derogatory to that
officer, than whom there was no more honourable,
with
petty
states against
into-
zealous, and upright man—(ll ear,hear) but
he re
idwni atv
ud asu t
nl pregnant,
g Nth-)ei rn( warning as
tr?koef made
by a distinguished
Governor-General
relations
subordinAte presidents inlndia. He very justly ob-
served that the subordinate presidents of the Govern-
sinner t
hwaetr et
hne
yo t pv‘o.esrseessuendaoccif
uthaeinnteedceswsaitriyi kt
hnoos we
ge dr ge
ae
t,
principles which ought to regulate our poli-
oPfertia' ulhleasrh,
eahneawr.2
mand
detthicealorirgeilnaatilontrse.---aty(Clrvieitsh
by Mr. Elphinstone, not as Governor of Bombay,
by
eurt in
nor another.
6 enerai. capacityl under the
looked
in vain
norders
throughof the
th e
aGo-n
nals of their proceedings for any precedent to:support
the confiscation of the Raja's territory, while in re-
ferring to what had been done in parallel cases he
found many precedents in favour of the
view which he took with respect to the right
of succession. There was the case of Tang( re,
in which a decision was passed upon misinformation
against the adoption ; but after a long series of years
the Supreme Government came to a resolution to
undo the act of injustice which it had committed.—
(Hear, hear.) The decision in that case was one of
great importance, and it showed that they, like
all other men, were to err, but that
truth and justice would in the end pre-
vail, and that past errors should not stand
in the way of und&ng an act of positive injustice, and
thereby adding to the honour of the British character.
—(Cheers.) If the adoption was according to the
Hindoo law they were as much bound to support it
as they were to support any Raja with whom they
hail amicable relations. Ile trecly altnitted that in all
ea-e:s of a.loptie (.1 ti;t: z.-anc;ion of
the paramount power was generally necessary, because
it had taken upon itself, and was entitled to take
upon itself, the duty of maintaining peace in India,
and of seeing that the feelings of subjects were no