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

British Government. It was said that he had sent for
two of the native officers of one of the regiments, that
he told them he was engaged in hostility with the
British Government, on which they took their leave
in the usual form of the country. Now was it not
absurd to say that he had sent for these people to
tell them this story, since he thereby made it certain
that what he had stated to them would be disclosed
in the space of twenty-four hours, and himself
with
his throne? The General was proceeding to deal
other matters on the same subject, when
A PROPRIETOR suggested that the Hon. Proprie-
tor should confine himself to the exact subject before
the meeting, otherwise those who were disposed to
support him would be compelled to leave.
The Gallant Officer willingly yielded to the sense
of the Court. He would not inflict upon them again
the story of the former Raja, but he could not help
adverTing to that part of the dispatch of Mr. Wil-
loughby which reflected on the dead.—(Cheers.)
Now, with regard to adoption, he maintained it was
a common practice and right of every Hindoo, and
consistent with the law of India. In " Stracey's
Elements of Hindoo Law" he found it written :—" In
a transaction so important as one transferring a young
person from the family in which be was born to a
new one, and, with a view to succession, interposing
by substitution a comparative stranger between the
adopter and his existing heirs, the law stipulates for
whatever is calculated to give publicity. Hence at-
tendance of relations, with notice to the local magis-
trate or ruling power is expected." Mark, Sir, this
is not requisite even, but no permission is ever de-
manded. " The purohita, or priest of the family,
who performs a correspondent office in marriage, is
the medium through whom the boy to be adopted is
solicited of those by whom he is to be given ; and in
a rite that has for its object the future peace of the
soul, it were strange if religious ceremonies were not
enjoined." Mr. Frere, who is one of the best authori-
ties in India upon this subject, stated distinctly that
both these children, the one adopted by the ex-Raja,
and the other adopted by the late Raja, stood in the
same relation to their adopters as their natural
heirs, and he bad not the least doubt in his own
mind at all upon that being the law of India.
He should like to hear from those whose opinions
were at variance with his own of any instance of
adoption not being recognised by any other power in
India but our own Government.—(Hear, hear.)
They could, indeed, prevent the succession of a
feudatory to a lapsed estate ; but he would show before
he sat down that there was a great difference be-
tween a feudatory and a prince. He hid some ex-
perience in the matter, and could, with the per-
mission of the Court, explain the difference. Now
the Raja of Sattara was quoad a lord paramoun
over his dominions, and whenever a feudatory died
the first process was for the lord paramount to send
an agent to resume the estate. The next process was
for the heir to come into the presence of the lord
paramount, do homage and pay a relief, and then the
estate was rendered back to him. In one instance
two feudatory chiefs refused to do homage to the Raja
of Sattara, who wrote to Mr. Elphinstone upon the
subject ; and what did Mr. Elphinstone reply ? Why,
he wrote to him thus :

" With regard, however, to the terms proposed to be
annexed to the adoption, it must be observed, that al-
though you and your heirs are to hold your jagheer on
certain stipulated terms, yet that on a total failure of
heirs it must revert to his Highness, and that if his
Highness allows it to be continued in such case by
adoption, or otherwise, his Highness is at liberty to
attach what conditions he thinks expedient to the per-
mission. As to the terms, this Government has no rea-
son to think that the Raja's demand will be unreason-
able, and will recommend your case to his consideration.
You, however, must recollect, that you voluntarily p. e-
ferred the Raja's sovereignty; the decision must, there-
fore, rest with his Highness, the British Government
not being able to interfere unless there be a breach of
engagement."
" That the whole of the transactions have occasioned
much regret to the Governor in Council that the Raja's
ancestors have from the first been servants of the Raja
o' Sattara, and that at the late settlement, when it was
left to the choice of Futtra Singh Rija to become depen-
dent on the British Government, or to remain under the
Raja of Sattara, he preferred the service in which his
ancestors had acquired distinction. That it is therefore
inconsistent with Mallejee's o ein good sense, and with
the loyalty of his family, to enter into dispute with the
Raja of Sattara; that he ought, on the contrary, to con-
ciliate his Highness' good will in all respects, and to con-
sider his prosperity as depending on the favour of his
sovereign. That in the hie affair he appears by no
weans to have remembered the respect due to the Roja
of Setters, and that he had every reason to be satisfied
with the forbearance shown towards him ; that the Go-
vernor in Council hopes that the Akulkotekur will hence-
forward pay more attention to'conciliating his Highness'
regard, and that while he serves him with ficlvlity, he is
sure of the Company's protection; but if he neglects the
duty he owes his own prince, it will be impossible fur
the British Government to interfere in his behalf."

He had once seen a feudatory—a natural heir, not
an adopted one—pay homage to the late Raja
of Sattara. The feudatory came into court
without a sword, unknighted. He was brought in
between two other feudal chiefs, and after a formal
introduction, he put his hands upon the feet of the
Raja of Sattara, and it was not till then, and then
only, that the Raja hung the feudal belt and sword
round his neck. He was then reinstated, and a new
grant was made out conferring on him his ter-
ritories. Such was the custom with regard to
feudal chiefs in Julia, but that process was very
different to what was exacted from the successors of
independent Princes who died without lineal heirs
or adopted successors. With all the eyes of the
world upon him, the reigning Raja adopted his sue
censor, who entered upon the rights enjoyed by his
predecessor without any one having the power
to extort feudal homage. They would therefore fall
into a groat error if they dealt with a prince in the
same way as they would deal with a feudatory.
Another point to which his Hon. Friend had alluded
was the adoption of the children by the two late Rajas,
but they were not feudatories, since that was an inhe-
rent right which every native Prince enjoyed —(Hear.)
Allusion had been made to the arbitrary practices of the
Moguls, but even the Moguls themselves had some
regard for the constitution and the laws, and
never interfered in such cases.—(Llear, hear.)
This, therefore, was one of the most important
measures they had ever passed, namely, that of
assuming the privileges of a lord paramount, and
doing away with the treaties relating to the right of
principalities. It was impossible, however, that he
could adl strength to what had been so ably said by
his Honourable Friend who preceded him. He had
taken the lib-rty to point out the difference be-
tween a feudatory and a native prince, and with
these few observations he would conclude his
remarks by cordially seconding the motion which had
been made by his Hon. Friead.—(Cheers )
The CiLtiamass said it now became his duty to
address the Court. He should eo so as shortly as
possible. He thought it would be better for him and
that Court to adhere as closely as possible to
the question actually before them.—(Hear, hear.)
He observed throughout the Hon. Gentleman's (Mr.
Sullivan's) speech that he laid the greatest possible
stress on the question of right. Now that undoubtedly
was a question before all questions, and more espe•
cially it was the question upon which the family of
Sattara had the only claim upon their notice, because
if that right should not prove to have been sustained,
then, upon the general question of policy, they
had nothing whatever to do—(Hear, hear)—than
any other of the individual families in Hindostan
whose names had been mentioned. But they had
heard a great deal about the antiquity of the family
of Sattara. His Friend on the opposite side of the
Court said it was among the most ancient dynasties of
India. Now, instead of that, Sevajee was not born
until nearly the middle of the seventeenth century.
He did not exist until the year 1627, and that indi-
vidual, of whom they had heard so much, was not
otherwise distinguished than as commanding a troop
of irregular horse in Beejapore, a Mahomedan state.
He retained that by force or by fraud, and
that was the origin of the family of
Sattara. Now, how did that family prosper ?
Why, it lasted but three generations. After
that it had been maintained for the last 100 years.
Mr. LEWIN rose to order. There was a general
impression in that part of the meeting where he sat
that those observations were not relevant to the ques-
tion.—(" Hear, hear," and "Chair, chair.")
The CHAIRMAN begged that he might not be
interrupted. He continued they knew the
Mahrattas as a people were not recognised in India
until the commencement of the 18th century, or in the
year 1701 ; and they were allowed to collect what
was called the " chout" in certain districts of the
Deccan. Now, it was perfectly true that the
Mahratta state did prosper. But how did it
prosper ? By the oppression of their neighbours
entirely, to such an extent that he might
safely say there was not a tribe in India
which was not more popular than the Em-
perors of the Mahrattas. Now, they were told
that this was a question of right, and that we granted
an independent sovereignty to Pertaub Singh and to
his heirs and successors in perpetuity. Now, he (the
Chairman) denied that. The word " independent "
was not to be found in the treaty, but the articles of
the treaty were so completely opposed to the idea of
independence, that he had never read a treaty with
any power in India which contained so much of re-
striction as that which was entered into in 1819 by
Mr. Elphinstone with Pertaub Singh. Now, the
idea of an independent sovereignty was this,
that an independentdo shtohsveeel ru et
absolute
pn
treatyo
wereeHe
tow h
an
to
wp oe
rwe e
ther .
tHererhimself.wesapso tnosßi
gbuel et:
a territory " sufficient for the maintenance of his
family in comfort and dignity, and he was to be in
subordinate co-operation with, and to be guided in
all matters by, the British Government."—(Elear,
hear.) Iyho ever heard of an independent sovereign
being guided by any other power ? It was of great I
importance to consider the terms on which the treaty

was granted ; it was the terms, and not the mere ex-
pression of the preamble, that were to be considered.
He was to be " guided in all matters by the British
Government." Well, besides that, he bound himself
not to write, or to speak, or to have any intercourse
whatever with his neighbours without the cognizance
and sanction of the British Government, even on the
most delicate subject, that concerning the marriage
of any of his family ; and he was to hold no cor-
respondence with them except through the recognised
Resident of the British Government. Now, after
that it was impossible to imagine that it could ever
have been the intention of the British Government, or
of Mr. Elphinstone, to grant to the Raja of Sattara
an independent sovereignty, as it was called by the
gentleman on the opposite side of the bar. But it
was said that it was an independent sovereignty, and
that it was also in perpetuity. Now, he
had already stated that it was not, in the
terms of the treaty, an independent sovereignty,
and he denied there was any power in India that was
competent to grant an independent sovereignty, in
the sense in which the Hon. Gentleman explained it,
to any individual whatever. Ile (the Chairman)
maintained that if their representatives in India were
to grant an independent sovereignty to any individual,
that act would be totally illegal, because it went to this
extent, that they had the power of actually dismember-
ing the British empire, because what was the meaning
of an independent sovereignty ? It was to confer
absolute power on the sovereign, and so grant out to
him every atom of right in that sovereignty ; it was,
therefore, a dismembering the Government which
they were bound to maintain. But the rights
granted by the treaty were so excessively stringent
that it was impossible for one moment to listen to
them ; but it was important also to show what the
understanding of 'Mr. Elphinstone was when this
treaty was made. Now, it was considered a matter
of importance, a: a former Court, that reference should
be made to Mr.i Elphinstone, to ascertain what his
views were when he granted the treaty ' • but as 30
years had elapsed he (the Chairman) thought it would
be more satisfactory to the Court to know what his
views were at that time, as expressed by himself; and
he (the Chairman) would read to this Court
what Mr. Elphinstone intended to grant to Pertaub
Singh. " It was not only desirable," he said, " to gain
the Raja's good will, but it was recognised both by the
Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief, and
for their own security, to provide for the firm estab-
lishment of the supremacy of the British Government.
Unless these points were secured the machine which
we were setting up would be liable to be turned
against us—(Hear, hear)—and the release of the
Raja of Sattara would prolong the disturbances occa-
sioned by his rapacious treachery." Now those were
the instructions Mr. Elphinstone communicated at
that time to Captain Grant, Now, let them see how
the Raja himself understood the terms on which he
got the territory of Sattara. Captain Grant said,
" the Raja was desirous that a political agent should
at no time interfere in regulating the interior of his
family ;" so clearly did he understand that he was to
be guided in all matters and to be under the control
of the British Government, and that he was afraid
lest—what ? Why, lest that agent should interfere
in the management of his family. He was anxious
, that that should be a stipulation in his treaty, and so
certain was he of the wretched position in which he
stood that he was anxious to prevent the interference
of any British Resident. Now, how did that square
with the idea of an independent sovereign ? Captain
Grant assured the Raja there was no occasion for
stipulating that in the treaty ? Why ? Because
there was no intention to exercise any such
interference with his family. " Then," Captain
Grant goes on to say, " the Raja asked what was the
use of being a Raj I, unless he could act according
to his oam inchnations ?"—(Laughter.) That was a
very sensible question. The Raja then said to Cap-
tain Grant, "You are a great blockhead—(Laughter)
—don't you see I may do whatever I like, provided I
do what is right." Was that independence ?
After that, it did seem to him very extraordinary
that the idea of an independent sovereignty of the
Sattara territory should be maintained in that Court.
—(Hear, hear.) Now with respect to the question
of the right of succession. By the treaty, it was
agreed that the territory was to go to the "heirs and
successors " in English, and in Mahratta to "farzand
warisan are kaim mukanan," but the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Sullivan) refused to acknowledge that the Eng-
lish was the original treaty. Now it was quite clear,
in his opinion, that when the British Government
were the grantors, the treaty or arrangement must,
necessarily, be drawn out in the first instance in the
English language. It had been decided by the
Government in India, and by the authurities at
home, that in cases of disputes upon words,
used in treaties or other documents the original
language in which they were written—the English—
must be referred to. But, whether that be true or
not, he maintained that the words in the Mahratta
version were stronger, if anything, than those in the
English language in favour of the view which he was
putting. He would now go to the version of certain
words in the treaty, as represented to them by
Rungo Bapojee. The meaning of farzand warisan
are kaim mukanan, it is said, is " sons, heirs, and
successors" perpetually from generation to generation
(musuluni bad musulum). Now what was the mean-
ling of from generation to generation ? .Neither of the
Rojas hal any heirs, nor had they any generations.
Now, that was of very great importance, for the
Mahratta language said, that it n as not intended that
the succession should go to any who were not gene-
rated by those in lividuals. The word farzand
was translated into English by " heir," or " issue,"
and meant the issue of the body of the individual
who got the treaty. He did not think that the word
maris had a contrary meaning to farzand, but that it
was introduced to show that it was intended to include
heirs, not being lineal descendants. It was a word
taken from the Mahometan language, and meant not
merely heirs of the body, but all who were entitled
to share in the property of a Mahometan who
died intestate. It comprehended women and
children, and also children by fosterage.—
(Rear.) It could not, however, be interpreted in
contradiction to the word farzand, which was the
original word in the treaty. Then what was the
meaning attached by them to the word " heir ?"
It always in our language meant an heir of '
the body, and we never admitted any to suc-
ceed to property as a matter of course, except
such as were the heirs of the body. Mr.
Elphinstone, who was Governor of Bombay, had
clearly shown that the word "heirs" in the treaty
was meant to include heirs of the body. According
to his view and interpretation, it comprehended the
heirs of an individual, and not whet was called by his
Hon. Friend, Mr. Lewis, heirs generally. Was it
possible to conceive that the British Government, in
administering Government in India, on perfect
equality both to the Mahometan and to the Ilindoo,
could give a grant to the Hindoo, which com-
prehended not merely his heirs, but, in
fact,
,his assignees, and to the Mahome
tan, who comprehended only the heirs of
his own body ? To suppose anything of the kind
was perfectly preposterous. The meaning which
they were accustomed to of the word " heirs" included
those who were entitled to succeed by the act of
God ; thus, when a person holding property died, it
was by the act of God that his heir came in and suc-
ceeded him ; but when an adopted son was the
heir, he was not heir by the act of God, but the act
of an individual. Then with respect to the meaning
of the word " successors," Major-General Briggs had
stated that kaim muham signified a person standing
in the place of another. In the present instance it
meant exactly what was mentioned in the book of
Kings, where it was stated that David died
and was gathered to his fathers, and Solomon,
his son, reigned in his stead. But the
writers laid much stress upon the point that
the late Raja was satisfied that no adoption would be
valid unless it was confirmed by the British Govern-
ment, and that he should have done this in time to
receive the assent of that Government. But his de-
scendant was not named until he was at the point of
death. He felt the full force of the position in which
he was placed. He knew that his eldest brother bad
adopted a son, and that the son so adopted would
become a formidable competitor to his own son.
What he said to Mr. Frere certainly bore out this
view. Now, he put it to the Court of Directors
whether an adoption made under such circumstances
could in any way determine the sense of the
treaty; but there was another Power which
seemed lost sight of—that the late Raja
had only a life interest in the treaty. Let his
ambition be what it may, it could not affect the in-
terests of those who came after him. He put it to
the Court whether, when they made a treaty with a
Hindoo Prince by which they ceded him a territory,
and for his heirs in perpetual sovereignty, anything
could bar the rights of the collateral heirs but a posi-
tive stipulation ; but he found that the Court had
already decided the question. They had done so in
several cases, particularly in that of Ghoolab Singh
lainmditeodf. otllifetrhePyrwinacnestedwthooskenosuccession
t e rhparde t abtei oe nn
iptuatsuiptonwtahse treaty o
before
f him th e late Raja
when
he they
as must
studying
its
Provisions before he signed it, and that he did tell Mr.
Frere—
"The British Government," he says, "in considera-
stitoonweodf oanesofavmerielyigbnetyin,gina
Maharaj Chuttraputtee, his descendants. heirs,
maunAdlre-
wv ehriyc ancienth it
presentatives (furzund-wu•waris wu
seriouslyshollldal wills (Isudhearvdeut)noenjleogyittihmeaßteaj.m
al
eamisnsuoew; verytmrps)
theretore desirable that a reply sbould speedily be re-
turned to the Yad transmitted to the British Go-

•
vernment." ;
Here they saw him dwelling upon the obligations
which he contracted with the British Government
under that treaty, and upon the understanding that
the territory was to be prepetuated in his heirs for
ever. This was no new idea, for they found that he

had made the same observation some twenty years
before. It was true the adopted son was not the
lineal descendant, but the Raja having no children
he was the next heir. Then Sir James Carnac
merely renewed, in 1839, the treaty of 1819, without
any modification. It had the same meaning as the
other, and if they wanted to know the nature of the
treaty of 1819 they must have recourse to the foun-
tain head--they must have recourse to Mr. Elphin-
stone, who made the treaty, and to Mr. Grindoff,
who interpreted the treaty to the other party.
Motives of delicacy could not have prevented the
Court from seeking information from Mr. Elphin-
stone, because he found from a letter, written by
Mr. Shepherd, in 1838, that they wished to have re
Course to that gentleman ; they could easily do so.
but they dared not do so, because he would have
confounded them by stating his reasons at that time
If they had asked him what the meaning of the
terms were that he used, he would have told you
that the terms in the Sattara treaty were the same as
those that were entered into with other foreign Princes;
that when he ceded the territory to the Raja and hie
heirs in perpetual sovereignty for ever, it might, the
same as the other. No ,w he got on tender ground.
Let them take care that the sword they were going
to use did not cut both ways—that it did not cut in
twain the right by which we held possession of
India. Upon what tenure did they hold the pro-
vinces of Bengal, and a number of other territories ?
By agreement with the native Princes, to
whom they were ceded in perpetual sovereignty
The ex-Raja was a party to the interpretation
which Mr. Elphinstone put upon the word " heirs."
If he had understood the treaty differently it was
his duty to have mentioned the fact; but the Raja
acted upon the interpretation of Lord Elphinstone
which was a clear proof that he attached that mean-
ing to the word at the time. Lord Elphinstone gave
a tacit admission to that being the meaning, and that
we had no right to withhold confirmation or adoption.
By the power which they possessed in India they
claimed to be considered lords paramount ; but in the
case of the territory of Sattara they had a particular
right to be so considered, since the power flowed from
them—it flowed from the Government of India. This
power was a question which
had been set at rest, be-
cause there were several instances on record of
property being taken pos-ession of by the
Crown, and after wards restored to the rela
tives of the family to whom it had for-
merly belonged. An unfertunate Raja had com-
mitted suicide, and the disposition of his property
was referred to the Government. Her Majesty's,
Government, being the supreme power in India, de-
cided that the property shouid be restored to the
family. There was another case in their recollec-
t tion. A Major Stewart died in India and left several
natural children, and his property was ordered to be
restored ; and there was then a case of the same kind
before that Court. He conceived, therefore, it was in
. the power of the Court to alter any decision that had
I taken place upon any matter of this kind. With re-
spect to the right of adoption, he believed there was
I no doubt whatever that according to the Hindoo law
I the power of the Crown influenced the Government
either to prevent or sanction adoption. They
knew by the Hindoo law, that it was a
condition in all cases of adoption that the
choice should be confirmed by the King.
It was well known that it had been the practice for
Hindoo:ltsjas, in all ages to claim the right of exer
cising that power. This was a strong; case therefore
he thought there would be no doubt that the ruling
power had a right to interfere in matters of adoption.
Nothing, in his opinion, could be stronger than the
opinion of the late Raja himself. He said " he had
heard that his brother had adopted a son, but that
this was entirely out of his power to do, as it was con-
trary to usage—it could not be done without the
sanction of the British Government," and in his last
words he declared that the individual so adopted cou'd
not be his heir. A great lawyer had stated that
whatever was the law originally, no doubt the Hindoo
Rajas had claimed the right of adopting their succes-
sors ; and another Resident, Colonel Robinson, had
stated that the right of adoption gave the right to
succeed, unless it was confirmed by the Sovereign.
There was nothing more certain, in his opinion,
than that this was the case. Well then they must go
back to the terms of that treaty which states that the
individual who obtained this gift actually bound him-
self to be guided in all matters by the law of the
British Government. Now it did appear monstrous
to maintain that a man who should have thus bound
himself in matters of a minor nature, hould yet be
left to exercise unlimited the highest power of all,
namely, the disposal of his territory in spite of the
Government to whom he had thus bound himself. It
was absurd to say that he was to be guided by the
British Government in the most trifling matters, and
yet do what he liked in the highest matter of all.
Now, with respect to that, he did think that what he
had stated satisfactorily set the question at rest.
From the course the Raja had pursued they were
bound to adopt the measures they had dune. When
territories were ceded to a Prince upon the under-
standing that he was not to do certain things without
the authority of a certain individual, anything he
might do was not valid without that authority. Now
that was precisely thi case With respect,
therefore, to the right of the' late Raja to adopt a
child, he conceived no question could remain to be
answered about that, as the Raja had never obtained
the permission of the British Government to adopt
that step. The Raja was bound to withhold
himself from the adoption until he had obtained
such permission, and the adoption, therefore,
could only be considered in the light of
a religious ceremony or observance, but by
no means as a means to give the child any title to
the property or territories of the Raja. Now, that
being the case, he thought the whole question before
the Court had been argued by the Hon. Gentleman
upon a principle not yet decided, of the expediency of
accepting that adoption. He stated that if they did
not do this they would break the treaties, and give
rise to renewed hostilities in India. Now he enter-
tained a different opinion, because they had not
broken the treaty, and if they looked at the whole
circumstances of this case from beginning to end,
they would find that instead of their doing anything
likely to offend the people of India, they had
done that by which they would have them entirely
in their favour.—(Hear, hear.) What was the
condition of the Raja when Sattara was
ceded to him ? He was totally 'defenceless
when possession of the territory was given to
him by treaty, and his heirs, meaning the
heirs-of his own body, and he held the territories until
he became ungrateful and treacherous. After that it
was given to his brother, not as his successor, as the
Honourable Gentleman had represented, but as a
substitute for the former Raja. In what respect
could the brother be considered the successor ? He
admitted himself that by his brother's conduct the
territory had been forfeited to the British Govern-
ment, and by the correspondence of the day it would
be seen that he acknowledged that in consequence ;
of his brother's conduct that Sattara had been for-
feited. Having lapsed to the Government, it was
transferred to him, and throughout. he admitted that
it was given to the late Rap as a matter of conces-
sion ; and now it was only important upon what
terms Sir James Carnac admitted him as
a substitute.—(Hear.) It was necessary, indeed,
for him to read an extract from the terms, because
after all the terms would explain all Sir James
Carnac said with respect to the brother succeeding :
" It became necessary to determine in whose favour,
and under what condition, the lapsed sovereignty
should be conferred." After Sir James Carnac had
substituted the brother, a proclamation was issued to
the people, and the second and fifth articles stated that
the terms acknowledged the supremacy: of the
British Government. It was important that the
terms of this compact should lee fully understood, and
it was essential that the terms of both treaties should
be borne in mind, because the treaty of 1819 was
necessarily modified in 1819. It would be seen at
once by the proclamation that the Raja claimed no
state of independence, and his proclamations were of
a very submissive and obedient character, and if Hon.
proprietoes would turn to what was said upon this
subject by Mr. Elphinstone, they would see a further
reason for denying this right of adoption. Mr.
Elphinstone said, "In all human probability, in the
course of a few years, the Government will have an
opportunity of making some arrangement with re-
gard to the Raja's successor, as neither the Raja nor
his brother, who is to be substituted in his place, have
any children, and at their advanced period of life it is
not very likely that they will hereafter have any heirs
who can claim succession by hereditary right, and,
therefore, the dominions of both the Raja and his
brother will lapse to the British Government. Un-
less, therefore, it is deemed expedient to allow this
line of Princes, to continue the question of succession
should be left to future decision." Those were the
conditions upon which the late Reja accepted the ter-
ritories, and he was aware of them at the time he
entered upon his sovereignty.—(Cries of "No, no.")
Nothing remained for him now but to meet the reso-
lution which had been proposed by a direct negative.
Sir J. LAW LUSUINGTON said that on the many
occasions when he had attended those discussions he
had always been of opinion that the Raja of Sattara
bad been rightly and justly deposed, for it
wasimpossible for the British Government to
overlook such a gross violation of a treaty
which had been entered into with it.—(llear hear.)
It was impossible that they could transmit the Raja's
title to a lineal heir, much less to an heir by adoption.
—(Hear.) He would call the attention of the Court
to the treaty itself. The first article ceded the terri-
tory in perpetual sovereignty to the Raja, his heirs
and successors; and by the second article the Raja,
for himself and his heirs and successors, engages to
hold the territory in subordinate co-operation with
the British Government. By the third article, the
Government charged itself with the de •
fence of the territory, and engaged to pro-

tect him from all injury and aggression.
The fourth article required the Raja at no time to
increase or diminish the military force without the
previous knowledge and consent of the British Go-
vernment. The fifth article required him not only
•o forbear from 101 intercourse with foreign powers,
and with all sirdars, j agheerdars, chiefs, and ministers,
but to engage that he would have no connexion or
correspondence with such powers, and with persons
of that description, who were not subject to his
authority. If, even for the purpose of forming a
matrimonial alliance, he wished to communicate with
persons not subject to his authority by the agree-
ment, he would be obliged to do so through the
political agent. That article;was a fundamental condi.
Lion of the agreement, and any departure from it on
the Raja's part would subject him to the loss of all the
advantages he might gain by the agreement.
He (Sir J. L. Lushington) did not think it was pos•
sib!e to show more completely how absolute a de-
rndence there was on the one side, and how supreme
,rel paramount a power the re was on the other.—
( Hear, hear.) Ile was rather rejoiced to find from
.he 333 Geo. 111., c. 66, that they could not rescind,
revoke, or suspend any resolution which had been
passed at a Court respecting the civil and military
-affairs of India after it had received the approbat'on
of the Board of Control, to that the general body of
the Proprietors had now nothing further to do
(Hear, hear.) He could assure them that in every
instance where the services of those employed by the
late Raja or those belonging to him could be of
cenefit to the community, the Government would not
rail to bring them into requisition, but he thought
that the inhabitants generally were much better off
and far more contented, now that the territory had
been placed under the munificent rule of the British
Government.—(Hear, hear.)
Major MOORE said he was of opinion that the true
question to be considered was not whether they
should annex the Sattara territory to their own, but
whether they were justified in confiscating the rights
of the Sattara sovereignty.—(llear.) That was the
real question.—(Hear.) The first question could not
be entered into until the legality of the latter had been
established, for they had no right to assume a terri-
tory by force, though it might be beneficial to
do so both to the territory itself and to
the inhabitants. There could be no doubt
that such a result would be advantageous to
themselves, but 'unless they were prepared to
commit a deliberate and egregious act of injustice on
an enormous scale, it was absolutely necessary that
the legality of the proceeding should be established
by some public authority. The Governor-General
should not be the referee in such a case, but he
thought that the point should be submitted to the
Judges of India or to the Judges of this country,
for their opinion.—(Elear.) Let their opinion be
taken; and if it were in favour of an annexation,
they could then discuss the expediency of it.—
(Hear, hear.) The first article of the treaty did not
lead them to suppose that the annexation of the
Raja's territory to us was ever contemplated. On
the contrary, a perpetual sovereignty was ceded to
the Raja, his heirs and successors, and he
thought the very words used implied a consent
to the usual llindoo system of adoption, in default of
direct issue. There was no reservation whatever
made. While upon that point he would take the
liberty of reading an extract from a work which
might now be considered obsolete, but which was,
nevertheless, a good authority—he meant the "Laws
of Nations," by Monsieur De Vattel, translated by
Joseph Chitty :
"It is a settled point (said the writer) in natural law,
that he who has made a promise to any one has con-
ferred upon him a real right to require the thing pro-
mised, and, consequently, that the lireach of a promise
is a violation of another person's right, and is evidently
an act of injustice, as it would be to rob a man
f his property. The tranquillity, the happiness, and
the security of the human race wholly depend on justice,
on the obligation of paying a regard to the rights of
others."—(Cheers )

Then, with respect to the justice of putting an end
to the succession of the Raja's territory, he would
quote the following :
" When a treaty expressly declares that it is made for
the good of a kingdom, it thus furnishes an evident
proot that the contracting powers did not mean that its
duration should depend on that of their own Burs, but
on that of the kingdom itself. Such a treaty is therefore
a real one."—(llear.)

There was
_one other point with regard to the inter-
pretation put upon the treaty upon which he wished
t') make a few observations. The name of Mr. El-
phinstone, a distinguished statesman, had been men-
tioned several times in the course of the discussion.
lie had served under that eminent individual in a
subordinate character, in his early career, and he felt
a just pride in making any quotation which coincided
with the opinions and views that they entertained.
Talking of the interpretation to be put on treaties, the
writer from whom he had already quoted said—

" Let us now enter into the particular rules on which
the interpretation ought to he formed in order to be just
and fair. Since the sole object of the lawful interpre-
tation of a deed ought to be the discovery of the thocghts
of the vuthor or authors of that deed, whenever we meet
with `any obscurity in it we are to consider what pro-
bably here the ideas of those who drew up the deed, and
to interpret it accordingly."—(Hear, hear.)

He was aware of it at the time, and he knew that
that was the condition.—(No, no.) He (the Chair-
man had shown that the Raja considered that he was
dependent un the British Government. Now, alter
that, where was the idea of independent sovereignty?
Now, having thus disposed of the right of the family,
he (the Chairman) maintained that the whole ques-
tian with respect to them was contained in that—that
ww, that they had a right to it, or they had not a right
to it. With respect to the expediency of granting to this
family, for the third time, a territory comprehending
about one hundred and fifty millions, he thought that
was a question of expediency, which was open to
doubt. He thought it was impossible for them, hav-
ing the whole weight of the government of India
upon their shoulders, to give that territory to
one individual, an individual unknown, and an
individual of a family who never possessed the feel-
ings of the people of India—of a family to whom
we granted everything, and who, in turn, became
the most ungrateful of individuals that ever existed.
With respect to the feelings of the people of India,
he felt at that very moment perfectly com-
petent, that whatever may have been the
docision of the Court of Directors, that
there was not half a dozen of the states of India that
cared one single farthing about the Raja of Sattara.
—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was a matter for the
consideration of the Government of India, and they
had given their best consideration to it; but there
was another consideration, and it was this—whatever
they gave in that way to sine individual they must
necessarily levy the same amount from the industrious
people of India, who were rather over than under
assessed. But he admitted, if it were tLe case
of a family that was known to be popular in
India, it would require a better consideration ;
but he maintained that it was not such a family, and
they had no right whatever to it, and it would not be
justifiable to grant to an individual family like that
so large a portion of the revenues of the country. lie
had shown that this family had no right whatever,
and that they could not, by the law and custom of
India, claim possgssion of that territory by means of
adoption ; that there were no heirs by adoption, and
that with respect to collaterals,
~they had it on
the authority of Mr. Elphinstone and the late
Raja, that collaterals were not admitted, nor
were they considered. And that was the universal
practice ; there was hardly an instance in which
collaterals, as by right, had succeeded to any princi•
pality. They had refused the accession of collaterals
to all the great states. There was one great case of
collaterals which was disputed, but how was it dis-
puted ? A reference was made to the British Go-
vernment, and they withheld their sanction on the
ground that the individual claiming was ousted by
his competitor, showing that the natives of India
attached the greatest possible weight to the
confirmation of the British Government. There
was a long list of states who had applied
for admission to the British Government to
adopt—Sindiah and Hollow was among them, but it
was unnecessary to read them. Now, with respect
to collaterals, his Friend on the opposite side of the
bar claimed for those individuals, whom they had
brought forward as adopted sons, the right of succes-
Eion by the birth of collaterals.
General BRIGGS—Not at all.

The CLIAIRMIN denied that. The Hindoo law was
this—when an adopted son was taken from a family
by adoption, and placed in another, that he lost en-
tirely the blood that he inherited from his natural
parents.—(Hear, hear.) He was a stranger to his
own natural father.—(Hear, hear) He was adopted
into the family, and consequentiy it was impossible
for him to revert to his father's blood, for the pur-
pose of attaining collateral succession, which he never
could do except through his father's blood.—(Hear,
hear.) For instance, assume the case of two indivi-
duals ; one was descended from one parent, and
another from another. Those two were collaterals,
connected by blood. He was taken and adopted into
this family, and the moment he was adopted into
this family he became a stranger to his first family—
he could not go back to the first family, he must
remain in the family in which he was adopted. The
British Government were the power that could annul
the adoption of the ex-Raja's family ; and the adop-
tion having taken place, he could not come in as
a collateral, because he could only come in
by the blood of his own natural father.
The British Government, therefore, left them entirely
out of the question ; they did not admit them to 1?-
herit as collaterals, because, having been adopted in
spite of their admission, that adoption could not be
done away with, and that excluded them from return-
ing to their father's family, without which they could
never succeed. There
,could be no collaterals from
the Erst person who got the grant c f Sattara, because

ho had no child. There could be no right by succes•
sion of collaterals from the late Raja, because he had
no child ; therefore, in this question there were
no collaterals, unless they were to go back to the head
of the family. He (the Chairmen) knew two or
three families which were excluded from succession
by reason of their half' blood ; for instance, in the
case of the family of Kolapoor, the children by
different mothers were excluded by reason of their
half blood. The family of Tanjore was excluded for
the same reason. IVell, were the British Govern-
ment to advertise all over India to see who were the
collateral heirs of the Raja ? But he (the Chair-
man) maintained that the collaterals of both Rajas
were entirely excluded, except at the discretion of
the ruling power. That they had stated plainly;
therefore those two boys could not possibly be ad-
mitted, according to the law and practice of India, to
succeed to the territory of Sattara, because, as he
said before, the British Government had the power
of refusing adoption ; they did not admit of this
adoption, but that did not nullify the act of adop-
tion co their parr, because ,sith the religious part of
the adoption it was impossible for the British Go•
vernment to interfere, and they had distinctly
declared they would not interfere with it.
But an adopted son, according to law, could not
succeed as a collateral ; he could only succeed by the
blood of his father. The expediency of the matter
was quite a different thing. lie admitted that Court
had the power of questioning the decision that had
been passed by the Court of Directors. They might
express their dissent from that decision ; but when
that decision, as in the present case, had been
confirmed by the ulterior authority, it was impassible
for that Court to interfere so as to reverse that
decision. Therefore it was a matter for their
consideration, whether or nut devolved on
them the power of acting in this case as
might seem to them right and proper to do.
He was quite satisfied that Mr. Elphinstone never
anticipated the resumption of the Raja's territory.
If so he would have entered into that deed. It might
be said that the territory was a free gift, and so in-
deed it was, for the Raja had a hereditary right, and
a great deal more. Perpetual sovereignty having
been guaranteed to him, we had no right to take his
territory nor any other which we had ceded under
similar circumstances. The precedent for setting
aside adoption could not, in his judgment, in this case
be maintained. Whether our policy was good or bad,
they must abide by it, unless they wished to perpe-
tuate a name for wrong and injustice. Then that
eligibility of the person adopted did not seem to be
disputed. Deeds were matters to be dealt with by
law, and were not to be disposed of in a mere hypo-
thesis; and because they possessed a paramount
power was no reason why they should act
unjustly at their will and pleasure. They
ought to act with strict justice, and in
the case of Sattara he was prepared to con-
tend that they had not. No one could deny that
the adoption was made ia the regular way ; but it
was said it required to be confirmed. Surely they
must advance a better argument than that it was
made but two hours before the death of the Raja,
and that it could not be confirmed. Confirmation
was merely named because improper persons might
not accede to the throne. The person adopted was
not distasteful to the natives. Why, then, did they
act thus ? They were told the matter was a mere
p Ant of reserve and expediency ; but what he said was,
let them first of all establish a clear legal right to
what they had done, and in the meantime do not let
them do evil, though good might come of it.
_ _

Mr. BAINES said he seldorU addressed the Court,
and he hoped on this occasion that the Proprietors
would bear with him for a short while. He thought
if the Court would re-consider the step it had taken,
that it would do well, and to urge that was the reason
he had risen to address it. He did not quite see
what the observation of the Chairman, with respect
to the want of antiquity in the house of Raja had
to do with the question. He should, however, have
thought that the Chairman would have been the last
man to have spoken upon the point, since, in the
dispatch of September 19, the antiquity of the
house was urged upon the Government as
one reason why it should be granted to -them.
Therefore, he thought it would have be,n quite as
well if the Chairman had not introduced any men-
tion of this into his speech. Then the Chairman said
that the question now under diacuision before the
Court was one in which the people of Sattara took
very little interest.—(Cries of " No, no.") He was
glad to hear it ; but it appeared in the
testimony of Mr. Frere that it was a
matter of great interest to the state. Then no man
could doubt that the supplemental. treaty of 1829
confirmed, to all intents and purposes, except in the
matters therein specially notified, the former treaty.—
[A Director—" Hear, hear."] It first struck him
that the one superseded the other; but no man con-
versant with legal matters could believe that the
treaty of 1819 was made by the late Raja.
The treaty said that the territory should
descend to his heirs or successors. Now,
admitting, for the sake of brevity, that they were
right in their supposition that the word " heirs" im-
plied heirs of the body, yet he thought many of
those present would riot cgree with Mr. Frere when
he said that we had nothing to do with successors
unless they were heirs. They must take the con-
tract in the obvious meaning of the words, and
he maintained that they could not strike out
the words "and successors" altogether—they
could not strike out the additional terms
in a contract, and say they were absolute.
He would take these words, as he thought they ought,
in fairness and common justice, and in their honest
interpretation, as they would be understood in our
own vulgar tongue. It was remarkable that these
words "heirs and successors" were terms well known
in the statute law of this land, and they were found
frequently in our statute-book with reference to our
Sovereign, or rather late Sovereigns. The King's
Majesty, his heirs and successors, were frequently
used in the statute book, and he prayed the attention
of the Court to what Mr. Justice Blackstone said
with respect to the interpretation of these words. He
said, "The words heirs necessarily :implies inheri-
tance or hereditary right, but the word ' successors'
must imply that there may be succes-
sion without being natural heirs;" and so in this
case, the word succession imported something diffe-
rent altogether from the natural heirs of the Raja.
He maintained, therefore, most confidently that the
minds of the framers of hese treaties, if they took
the words as they found them, probably contemplated
that before the reigning sovereign of Sattara died he
would exercise the right which the law of the country
gave him power to do, namely, in default of heirs, to
adopt a child under the word " successor "—(dear,
hear.) A great deal had been said, both by speakers
and in the minutes of Mr. Mangles, that Sattara was
an entirely dependent state; but it really did surprise
him, indeed, when it was argued that a sovereign
could not give up a part of his independence
without abandoning the whole, because it was not
only opposed to common sense, but contrary to all
law. Puffendorff had written upon this subject, and
he distincly laid it down, that a sovereign might sur-
render part of his independence and retain the other,
and therefore he said it was perfectly clear, by the
oldest authority, that a sovereign may be perfectly
independent, though he may have given up some part
of his rights.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the
•language of this treaty, that it did not specify for the
independence of the sovereign, his answer to that was,
that where a treaty was so stringent as this, the ornis,
sion was a proof that the right of sovereignty was not
in the least modified or restricted.—(Hear, hear.)
He never knew an instance where things were so
stringent as they were here, and he insisted that that
which was not specified was retained by the Raja.
He was fortified in this view by the case of Holkar,
for in the treaty of Holkar it was strictly specified
that the succession was to go to the Raja's legitimate
offspring, while in the case of Ghoolab Singh, it was
clearly specified that the power of adoption should
extend to successors, but not to his legitimate off-
spring ; but there was no such restriction in this
treaty, and he did say, as a matter of common fair-
ness to the Raja of Sattrra, the power rested with
him to exercise the right of adoption according to
the law of his country.--(Cheers.) The late Raja
had, therefore, very properly acted upon his right of
adoption ; and let it be observed, that besides re-
maining silent upon the question of the right, there
was no limitation whatever in the treaty to lineal
heirs or to the exclusion of adopted heirs.—(Hear,
hear.) It was a leading principle in the law of con-
tracts, as, of course, it ought to be here, that the do-
cument should be interpreted according to the law of
the country where it was made.—(Hear, hear.) That
it seemed to him ought to be their guide in this in-
stance. Reference had been made over and over
again to the letters that had been written both to the
late Raja and the ex-Raja, and these letters
distinctly proved what interpretation they placed
upon the treaty, if they had not their
acts to help them to a conclusion on that point. Now
what were the acts of the late Raja ? Why, as soon
as he felt that his health was rapidly declining, he sent
for Mr. Frere, and communicated to him his appre-
hensions that he should not be able to meet the Go-
vernor. General, as he had previously intended, and
to convey to the Governor- General his wish to con-
tinue the succession in the usual manner by adop-
tion. Did it not therefore appear from this, then,
that the impression on the Raja's mind was that he was
acting bona fide according to the meaning of the
treaty, and according to the law of his own country?
The affecting ceremony of adoption was witnessed
by Mr. Frere, and everything appeared to have been
done in a fair and honourable manner, and the adop-
tion was completed by the Raja announcing that im-
portant event to his people, and by the arms and ar •
tillery of Sattara firing a salute in commemoration of
the event, thereby announcing to the people of Sat-
tara that a compact by the India Company's agent
hld been entered into by the Raja, and the act of

adoption was afterwards recognised and confirmed by
the people of the capitol. They had no right, there-
fore, to set that aside without the most stringent
reasons, and nothing but the deepest necessity and
the strictest justice should induce them to
set that deliberate and solemn act aside.—(llear,
hear.) That brought him now to observe, further,
that with resp,ct to the other case that had been al-
►uded to, it seemed to him that it did not bear upon
the question at all. They_vvere bound in fairness to
show that the interpretation put upon this treaty was
leg►l, lair, and just, or the character for good. faith
of the East India Company would he irretrievably
destroyed in the estimation of the native Princes and
people of India.—(llear, hear.) The Sattara
treasury was found to have a very large balance in
it, and it certainly was unfortunate that the East
India Company should have selected this time to set
upon that state—at a time when it was notorious that
their funds in India were certainly not in the
most prosperous condition. It might, therefore, be
useful and agreeable for the Company to have an op-
portunity of la) ing their hands on 150,000/., or
whatever it might be, in the treasury of Sattara, but
their doing so would by no means elevate them in the
estimation of the people of India.—(llear, hear.)
lie could have wished that the promises made by Mr.
Frere, upon which the Raja founded the proclamation
in which he said that all his people were sure to re-
ceive justice and kindness from the British Govern-
ment, had been fulfilled long ere the arrival of this
day.—(Cheers.) But it was not tan late even now
for them to fulfil the pledge which Mr. Frere
gave to c 1( al out to the people of Sat-
tare that justice and kindness; and let not
the people of India say to the East India Com-
pany what Octavius said to the Romans, that they
had grown insolent with success, and they treated
their allies after the same manner they did those they
had conquered.—(Cheers.) Let the Directors re-
member that in the west they were not in the best
possible condition, but still they had the power in
their own hands, and if they' acted towards the other
states with justice and fairness, they would ulti-
mately regain security in every part of India, and the
attachment and loyalty of the people.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WEEDON said the only question th•zt the Court
had now to consider was the expediency of adopting
the child whom the late Raja had elected for his suc-
cessor, and it was unnecessary to discuss any other
matter.

At the conclusion of this gentleman's speech,
The CHAIRMAN proposed that at that late hour
(nearly five o'clock) it would be advisable to adjourn
the debate until Friday next, as the Directors had
to send off important dispatches by the mail that night,
respecting the vote of thanks passed by the Court to
the army in India.
The Court then adjourned.

ANNEXATION OF THE SATTARA

TERRITORY.

TO TEIE PROPRIETORS OF EAST INDIA

S'l OCK.

BROTHER PROPRIETORS,—On the 25th instant the
following motion was submitted to a Special General
Court of Proprietors:—

" That this Court is of opinion that the treaty con-
cluded by the British Government in 1819, with Per.
taub Singh, the Raja of Sattara, and subsequently
renewed with his brother and successor, the late Apps
Sahib, conferred upor, and gusranteed to, those
Princes, the hereditary sovereignty of the principality of
Sattara, and this Court being further of opinion,
that the heirs and successors to those Princes,
whether by adoption or blood, are entitled to the
inheritance under the terms and condition of the
treaty, this Court considers it to be right and necessary
to record its opinion, that no ease has been made out to
justify the annexation of the said Sattara Principality to
the British Territory." The motion was discussed for
two days, in an unusually well attended Court. Of six-
teen members who took part in the debate, twelve strongly
supported the motion. Of these supporters, five were
your Directors. Instead of allowing the question to be
decided by the voters present, who were instructed in
its merits, upon the motion of one of your Directors,
supported by some of his colleagues, it was resolved
that it should be determined by ballot. The
question hinges upon the meaning of certain terms used
in a treaty. The authorities under whose auspices the
treaty was made, the commissioners by whom the treaty
was actually made, and who explained its terms and
conditions to the other contracting party, before the
treaty was signed, are now living within the limits of the
United Kingdom. Instead of referring to these
gentlemen, as they have been strongly and re►
pe,telly urged to do, to ascertain in what setre
they used the disputed terms in the treaty--
the majority of the Court of Directors have resolved to
refer this question to you, one-half of whom have,
probably, nevi r heard of such a treaty, and nine-
tenths of whom have, probably, never read it. Neither
can you have been interested on the subject: by the
reports of the debate which are giien in the news-
papers, for while the speeches of those few who pp-
posed the motion aro given in extenso, the speeches of
the many, who supported it, are either suppressed alto-
gether, or given so scantily as to be of no use to units-
termed readers.

It is n, cessary, therefore, to explain to you that the
question upon which you are called upon to Tote is really
this, viz.:—

" Whether a majority of the C curt of Directors can,
in good faith, seize upon this principality of Sattara
upon their own construction of the treaty by which it was
ceded by the Els,: India Company to the ...Baja of
Sattara, his heirs and successors, in perpetual sove-
reignty, whilst they refine to hear the appeals of the
representatives of the other contracting parties, who
claim to be heirs under that treaty, and alto
reject the only evidence that would enable them !"
arrive all the tru constructio sof ih 3 disputed terms s"
And as this seizure of the principality: of
Sattara is avowedly to be made a precedent
tur the disposal of other independent sovereignties in
India, in th It question is involved another, still more
important, viz.—" Whether the East India Company is at
liberty to seize upon and to appropriate the territory of
any native Prince in India, whom they, the East India
Company, may, 1.37 a construction put by themselves and
for their own benefit, upon their treaties with such Prince,
determine to have died without heirs."

You will not, I am sure, be offended with me for thus
pointing out to you the vastly important interests
which are involved in the vote you are now called upon to
give, although, from the breathless haste of the requi•
sition, it is doubtful whether this warning will reach
you !More your vote is deposited in the ballot•box.
Whether this whole procceding is calculated,to raise the
character of the East India Company in the eyes of the
British pubic, or to command the respect and attach'
went of ihe Princes and people of India, aro question s
which I have to your calm judgment to dttermine.
" I am, Brother Proprietors, yours,
"J. SULLIVAN.

"Bansted, 28th April, 1849."

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE

METROPOLITAN REFORM ASSOCIATION.
Sir,—On Wednesday the 25th the Bribery at
Elections Bill went into Committee, and was speedily
reduced to the oddest state imaginable, by the ejec"
tion of essential words in the first clause by a mak)"
rity of 146 against 54. So, that the Bill as it now
stands, bears some resemblance to what is left of a
crow hung up in terrorem, when the flesh and bowels
have been returned to the elements.
. The truth is, that so long as there is a determina-
tion to refuse the efficient measures for preventing
Bribery which consist in increasing the number of
voters and giving to bribers the uncertainty of the
Ballot, declarations like those proposed in the Bill are
simply traps, for the chance of catching an honest
man and letting rogues go through. They are like
spring-guns set in a man's park with the perfect
privity of poachers to the means of evasion, and
which consequently can have no other result than
shooting his grandmother, or covering some of his
little boys with pellets of swan shot.
Imagine now the case (which has been before and
may be again) of a Member on either side of the
House, on whom a good deal of party animosity 04
concentrated ;—whom it would be a great godsend to
one-half of the combatants to find some morning
buried in a quicksand or in any other way removed
from the field of action. And imagine that after $
hotly disputed election, all the power of all the
lawyers within the borders of the hostile party and
lay assistants besides, is to be concentrated upon the
chance of finding out,—not what this man, for be,
may be wise and cautious beyond the chance of
human peccability,—but what, some whom the last
makes his agents, which means anybody who has
taken the same side, may have done in infringement
of laws which in point of fact were enacted in the
perfect knowledge that they were not expected to be
kept. And if a remote limb of his party is found to
have passed this line, the consequence is to be,—not
that the peccant individual is to be visited, nor that
the principal who is so unfortunate as to have a pec-
cant supporter shall be visited to any moderate
amount, as for instance even to the vacating of his
seat,—but that he is to be stamped with life-long
disgrace in the shape of perpetual incapacity for
Parliament. It would be as reasonable to decree.,
that the candidate should be hanged if any of his
supporters was proved to have blown his nose with
his fingers. Such an enactment would clearly be,
meant only to catch. It would be an ambuscade, set
to demolish such as should be unlucky enough to be
fixed on for its operation.
Some innocents cannot see this, and therefore go
on glorying in the proof they give of their own
purity in encouraging such legislation. What 15 t°
become of the Bill after the excision which has been
made in it, events must show.
On the same evening the Bill for attaching car"
riages to the Post-office trains on Sundays in Scot,
land, was unexpectedly lost by a majority of 13'._
against 122. The Government, or such of there 0.!
were present, took against the measure; which 15_
enough to account for the majority. But at the same_
time they declared that they did so in the confidence
that the resistance was dimini,hing, and the question
would filially be settled by the Scotch thernsel.ve •
Poorer women might have cried at railway stations
long enough; but Duchesses are dangerous.
ght for'
On Thursday the olicitor-Grenerel brou