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

the gracious Sovereign of this country had no
andpo w •.i.ire,r bpeacralui
as era
esh
e te. wTa s guided
They
ey knew, by
strictly her
speaking,
the Crown of England seldom acted for itself; hut
still, without armies, or weapons of warfare of any
kind, the Sovereign had a hold of millions of hearts
that would defy the pretensions of any usurper with
possess. In the
the hearts of the
ahlelldthewhgiueuhs
tahned
saervmeireesighne
hma di g oh nt
. 1 e he believed the
English people, she found a title stronger than title
any actual one ; and such a
Raja of Sattara held over a considerable part of India,
and that title he gave up. In that sense he became
completely a part of our Government, and thencefor-
ward he had no connexion with his former adhe-
rents, excepting those whom we placed over him.
He made enormous sacrifices in consenting to that
treaty, and that he did so was abundantly shown
even from the words that were quoted against
him, when, as "he said in his haste,"
he was reduced to a mere Mumlutiar.—(Applause.)
So the treaty was not a nudum pactum, it was a
solemn treaty; and he gave up that and became one
of their empire, binding himself to act in subordinate
co-operation with them, but on condition that there
was to be between them and him a perpetual
friendship and alliance, and that that should be
continued to his " heirs and successors, in per-
petual sovereignty."—(Hear, hear.) Now he (Mr.
Mackenzie) thought the treaty was of some
importance ; but, by the other side of the bar, it was
treated as if Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphinstone had
given the treaty without any consideration at all.
It had been almost suggested by gentlemen on the
other side that Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphinstone
were playing a trick upon us when they talked of
heirs and successors. Now, in the Hindoo mind
adoption was a thing which was perpetually
I present. He had no doubt it must have been
present in the mind of Mr. Elphinstone when this
treaty was made, and would, if he had wished it,
have been guarded against. If there were any men
on earth who were incapable in the slightest degree
of want of candour, they were to be found among the
members of this Court; but he never in his
life met with a man who had so untiring a love
of truth, or such an utter abhorrence of falsehood
and injustice, as Mr. Elphinstone ; and they might
be perfectly sure that what he gave he gave
in the highest sense bona fide.—(Great applause.)
There was a very wide question of expediency on
which he must say a word ; but he was the more
willing not to enter on the discussion of the question
of expediency, because it had already been power-
fully urged that the question was a question of jus-
tice, which it was after all ; and he felt confident
that they would acknowledge that if the justice of it
was questionable, there should be raised no ques-
tion of expediency. But he did attach great
importance to the declaration of the Court that
they kept a watchful eye over the government of
India; and to their deprecation of the slightest devia-
tion from the straight path of honour and good faith
—(Hear, hear)—he did attach great importance, be-
cause on that line of conduct the use of that Court
mainly depended. Their office and business was to
see that what men in the hurry of business, or when
interest urged them to seek revenue from the slightest
breach of good faith,—to see that what
they did was correct—to see that what was pledged
should be performed, and that, instead of its being
frittered away against the weak, his very weakness
should be a ground of security.—(Applause.) It was
highly important that a watchful eye should be kept
on all governments, and even on the best. Let that
Court act on that principle, and he believed its office
would be highly important. He did trust that that dis-
cussibn might ultimately lead to a revision of the case ;
and he was still in the hope that Lord Dalhousie
might see reason to review his opinion ; and when
the Chairman of the Court of Directors had been
longer in that chair, he (Mr. Mackenzie) did believe
and confidently hope he would be able, when the
Chairman had had longer experience in great ques-
tions, both of public policy and of law, to place the
opinion of Sir Archibald Galloway against that of
a great Mahometan lawyer.—(Loud applause.)
He (Mr. Mackenzie) felt that he had already detained
them too long. What he had left undone,
he hoped they . would not attribute to the
weakness of his cause, but to his wish
not unnecessarily to weary them ; above all, that they
would not let the good cause of justice and good
government suffer from the errors of its advo-
cate.—(Applause.)
Sir HENRY WteLocs said he considered that this
was not a common case. It appeared to him that the
question before the Court was of a momentous
character, and he should be acting an unmanly part
if he attempted to shirk it. He had been
always of opinion, that the deposition of
the Raja of Sattara was forced on the
Government, and he had never had occasion
to swerve from that opinion. But the matter was
entirely disconnected with that deposition. The
British Government, in raising the Raja of
Sattara to the throne, virtually acknowledged
that even the misconduct of the Raja of
Sattara was not to effect its annihilation, and
he (Sir 11. Willock) considered that on the death
of that Prince the only point which the Court had to
decide upon was the choice of a successor. He con-
ceived that Mr. Elphinstone and the Raja were
hound to fulfil that acceptation of the treaty; and
that in annexing the territory of Sattara a sacred en-
gsgement bad been violated, which would affect the
public mind of India, and also the minds of independent
Princes acting under their superintendence. It words
had any meaning at all, the territory of Sattara was most
solemnly ceded in perpetuity, both in word and spirit.
He deeply lamented that the national honour had been
compromised by the decision of the Court, and he feared
it might be prejudicial to the native principalities of
India.
Sir ROBERT CAMPBELL, who spoke in a tone of voice
scarcely audible, was understood to say, that in order to
become master of the question before the Court, he had
for months waded through the voluminous papers relating
to it. He thought it very unjust to visit upon the pre-
sent claimants the consequences of any misconduct of
which the previous Raja might have been guilty. He
approved of his having boen deposed, because he
thought is his conscience that the Raja did
mean ill to the Government, but be did not
not consider that that would justify the company in
taking possession of his territory, which was given by
treaty to him and to his heirs and successors for ever.
Mr. Pisa ftiP said he was always of opinion, and he
never concealed that opinion, that the Baja of Sattara
was very harshly treated, and had been deposed from his
sovereignty on evidence which ought only to have been
made the ground of an inquisition ; but he saw no
remedy for the mischief that had been committed, and
therefore no use in continuing the agitation. It was on
that ground that he had hitherto remained silent and
had been content to support with his vote the authority
of the Court. But now the question had assumed a
different phase. It was no longer which of the
two brothers was guilty ; both the brothers had
gone to their long account, there to settle before a tri-
bunal which judged of men by what passed in their
hearts, and not by their words. Both of thorn, however,
had left adopted children, and the question was whether
the Court was bound to recognise the adopted child of
the one brother or of the other. That question, highly
important as it undoubtedly was, had bean decided by
the Governments of India, but not decided unanimously.
There was one name, that of Sir George Clerk, their
late Governor at Bombay, which always commanded the
highest respect in this country, and even higher in India;
he was a dissentient. Among the dissentients there
were names that would carry great authority
in India and in this country also.—(Cheers.) It
was for that reason that that Court was entitled to
expect from anybody who had filled a distinguished
station in India, that they should come forward and add
their testimony to the one side or to the other, in order to
give effect and add authority to the judgment that might
be come to in that Court. On that account he had been
induced to depart from the rule that he had previously
laid down, to keep silence. It was hardly necessary for
him there to recur to what passed when the Raja of Sat-
tara was elevated to the Gadi in 1819. Still there were
circumstances attending that elevation which he thought
bore materially on the case. He gained possession of
the territory of Sattara after the battle of Ashtee in Fe-
bruary, 1818, and immediately afterwards the Raja was
proclaimed the immediate successor of the former occu-
pant of the Gadi. But the Raja obtained no territory—
we had none to give him, and he held none of his own.
It was not until after Bajeerow had surrendered that we
had the means of giving him any territorial possession.
He (Mr. Prinsep) had not come prepared to make a
speech, fortified by quotations from the blue book. He
spoke only from his memory, but he was quite sure that
those dates were correct. We obtained possession of the
territory in February, 1818, and proclaimed the Raja.
Bsjeerow surrendered in July or August in the same
year, and the treaty of Setters bore date in
September, 1818. Now it must be evident that
Whatever territory the Raja derived was derived under
under that treaty, and was given by our Government.—
(Hear, hear.) That was a most essential feature in the
case. They were not dealing with a Raja who held he-
reditary succession; they were dealing with one who
derived his possession entirely from us. He (Mr.
Prinsep) spoke not of him as a protected Prince, bound
to us in a subordinate relation, but as a person who ob-
tained revenue extracted by us from the country merely
by our act. So complete was his subordinate relation
to us, that after we had made the treaty we did not give
him possession of his territory for some time. It was only
after a long observation of his character, it was only on the
report of the authorities whom we had placed there as
Residents, that the Raja was intrusted with the pos-
session of his territory; and yet that It Aja was treated as
one who had enjoyed hereditary territory, and was
likened to the independent sovereigns of Burmah, and
of other territories in India, with whose possession we
never could pretend to interfere. Now, having brought
those circumstances to their notice, they had to consider
what rights or territory the Raja had derived under
the treaty. Much stress had been laid on the
i words " heirs and successors in perpetual sovereignty."
Now, undoubtedly, when that treaty was made, both
the Raja and 'his brother were young men, in the
prime of manhood, and taking that into consideration,
who ever could entertain any doubt at that time of the
failure of the treaty for want of successors ? The Court
always " locked the stable door after the horse was
stolen;" they always made provisions in treaties afor

experiencing difficulties in amending them.---(Hear,
hear.) We assigned this territory, but it was not only
the territory that was assigned, but the state and dignity
of Sattara that was engaged to be retained to the family
in perpetual sovereignty. We assigned it "to him and
his heirs and successors." Stress had been laid oil the
word " successors," as if it would imply something other
than heirs, and, therefore, that it would include heirs
by adoption.
.Now, it was necessary to say a word or
two on that subject before he proceeded further. Our
treaty was to him and his heirs and successors. That,
of course, gave his heirs a right to claim. The mean-
ing of the words was to him and his heirs, and whom-
soever we should acknowledge as his successors. The
word " successors " gave no body a right to claim suc-
cession. When succession was declared in favour of an
adopted son, or of a stranger, then that party claimed
our fulfilment of the treaty, but not until then. The
only interpretation that could effect this question was
that it was a pledge to continue the succession, even if
there were no heirs. Then again came the question
about the succession. The real question was, whether,
under the word " heirs," the right of adoption was in-
cluded. He did not think the Raja himself had a right
of adoption as derived from succession.
Mr. HOPE MACKENZIE, being appealed to by Mr.
Prinsep. said the word " heirs" was enough, but " suc-
cessors" clenched it.
Mr. PRINSEP continued—Before a man could
claim under those words his adoption must be
admitted ; he must be a regularly adopted
son. The real question was whether the adoption
that had been reported to us in this instance was such
as to carry conviction to their minds that it was correct.
Of course the material considqration was what was the
understanding of the Raja with whom we made the
treaty. Whets the adoption took place, the deceased
Raja might be said to have been in articulo mortis.
Indeed the question of adoption did not appear to have
been referred to in the first treaty. At that time the
question was not settled ; but they must reccollect that
the treaty was renewed by Sir James Carnac, when the
second Raja was placed upon the throne; and they had
a right to consider what passed then, as it bore essentially
upon the question. The matter was brought before the
Court by Sir James Carnac, and the treaty was signed
by the Raja on the distinct understanding that in the
default of heirs, and in the event of adoption, the selec-
tion or confirmation of the the fitness of the adoption
should remain with the Court. That doctrine was
printed, and had been before the public for years; and,
therefore, on what pretence could it be said that its pur-
port was not conveyed to the Raja, and, indeed, that it
was not well known to every officer of the Court? At
Benares, and, indeed, his whole conduct throughout
showed, that that was the interpretation which he put
upon the treaty. Up to the time of the adoption, the
matter did not appear to have troubled his mind, and it
was only when he found that he should not live long that he
went to the Resident and sought his sanction to the adop-
tion. The authority was just as necessary with respect to the
act as it was to the person related. He first
consulted Mr. Frere with respect to the adoption
of one of his family, but he told him he
had no authority to sanction any proceedings
of the kind; but whilst searching as to what he should
do, the disease grew upon him, and when, as he had
said, he was in articulo mortis, in the presence of those
about him, but without the observations of the forms ne-
cessary for such a proceeding, he named this young man
as his heir. Let them suppose that Pertaub Singh had
left a real son, or that he had a host of uncles and cousins,
would they support the doctrine that an adoption of this
nature was to cut off their claims altogether? Would
they not say, " We never sanctioned the adoption of this
person, and we therefore protest his being considered
the heir of the late Raja." The Directors had, he
thought, done well, in setting aside such a claim.
Let the legitimate heirs come forward and
make their claim ; if they had inherited any
right, let it be bestowed upon them, instead of this
youth, who but for his accidental presence at the time
would never have been adopted at all. If there were
any legitimate descendants let them come forward and
make their claim—let them prove their descent. Unless
they had some claim they would have no right to inter-
fere. The treaty spoke of heirs. Of course that meant
that the heirs must belong to the family; and surely
there could not be any lack of claimants since the great
Mogul himself had at least 3 000 descendants.— (Laugh-
ter.) They could not go beyond the family for heirs,
who must, he supposed, be understood as heirs collateral
—but his heirs had not claimed as heirs, because they
were not properly descended. He did not, however,,
mean to say that the heirs of the body of the Raja and
his brother would be entitled to claim.

A DIRECTOR—The draft of the treaty did not say so.
Mr. PRINSEP said he was stating his own opinions.
He was there to rapport his convictions, and not those of
any other man.—(Hear, hear.) He had held high
office in India and had gained much respect,
and he cared not whether his sentiments
were palatable or not. It was well known that
some of the tribes of India traced their descent to the
sun or the moon ; but to rational minds a claim must be
of a legitimate and bona fide nature, or it could not be
entertained. He was perfectly ready to recognise any
legitimate claim that might be set up by the family of
the Raja. They were bound to maintain public tran-
quillity in India, and to regulate the military and police,
and the natives of India looked to them for protection.
It was therefore necessary that their form of govern-
ment should meet the wishes and wants of the people.
Much had been said of the political effect which the
proceedings of the Court with respect to the Sattara
territory would have on the natives. This might be so ;
but no one there would accuse him of advocating any
cause which was unjust. In the face of all obstacles,
and through good and ill repute, he had defended the
rights of the natives, and he would not therefore injure
the reputation he had left behind him by standing up
to advocate a cause which he did not believe in
his conscience to be a good one. He spoke from
his knowledge of the people of India when he said that
he was sure they would not view the course which the
Court had pursued on the Sattara question in that light.
Indeed the Raja had not shown himself in a favourable
light to his people, or particularly tender of the rights of
those placed under him. On the contrary, they found
him considering that his rights overrode every one.
The moderate government of this Company stood high
in India. The case in point was an example of this.
The Raja obtained the grant of a territory which was to
relapse to us if he had no heirs. They, therefore, had a
right to deny the act of adoption, because it was made
without reference to them, and altogether without their
consent. He should exhaust the patience of the Court
if he were to trace the arguments by which some Hon.
Proprietors contended that the Raja was entitled to do
as he did. He had stated his opinion on the broadest
ground, because he believed the majority of the
Court, and, indeed, the majority of the people of England
would decide it as he had laid it down. Without looking
at the interpretation of the words of the treaty, and
without reference to Puffendorf, Vette!, or, indeed, to
the Hindoo interpretation, his impression was as he had
stated it. He believed it to be correct, and he should meet
the motion of Mr. Sullivan, therefore, with a decided
negative.—(Cheers.)
Colonel SYKES, a Director, said he was not in office
last year, therefore his sentiments were not recorded in
the blue book. He had risen to make a few observations,
because ho believed he owed it to his constituents that
no mistake should exist with respect to his sentiments
upon the question before the Court. He would only
touch upon one or two of the leading features of
the discussion, as it appeared to him that a great
deal of the matter which bad been introduced into
the discussion might have been thrown aside
altogether. The primary question was unquestionably
the treaty—(Hear, hear)—and nothing but the treaty.
IR the first place, they had nothing to do with the ex-
Raja Pertaub Singh, whether he was innocent or guilty,
or whether he was unjustly deposed or not—they had
nothing to do with the right of the succession of his
brother to the office of Raja of Sattara; all they had to
do with these two individuals was, whether, in conse-
quence of their deaths, they had a right to seize the
territory.---(Hear, hear.) And to enable them properly
to decide upon the matter they had nothing to guide
them but the words of the treaty. Their explanation to
the world in general, to the people of India, and to the
family of the late Raja, of the course they had
adopted, must rest for its explanation upon the
treaty—upon that document to which they had
placed their hands and seals. Mr. Elphinstone
said that the territory was ceded to the Raja in conse-
quence of the antiquity of the Sattara family. Mark
that! Not in consequence of his own claims or merits,
but in consequence of the antiquity of his family, the
British Government had thought right to allot that ter-
ritory to his family in perpetual sovereignty for the sup-
port of his family, and after him to his heirs and suc-
cessors. To those conversant with the Arabic, the Sans-
crit, the Mahratta, and the Hindostanee languages, the
terms of the treaty were intelligible enough. Translated
into English, its terms were equally intelligible; they.
therefore, ought to be influenced as to the meaning of the
treaty by those most competent in the business of in-
terpretation. They had had the opinions of many
great writers on international law. Puffendorff, one
of those cited, said that if there was a disputed ques-
tion between two nations, that it should be interpreted
favourably to the weaker party. Now, had they done so?
In this case most unquestionably they had not. The words
of the treaty, " heirs and successors," meant that some one
should be nominated to succeed to the office. Mr. Sergeant
Payne stated in the intelligent speech which he made at
the last sitting of the Court, and he agreed with him in
the sentiment, that as the treaty contained some strin-
gent conditions, if the opposite was intended that a
clause to that effect would have been put into it--(Hear)
—namely, that unless the Raja had a son or other lineal
heir, that the-territory should lapse to the British Go-
vernment. Now that was not done; therefore, it
was obvious that such a result was not con-
templated at all. He would not go further
into the question of interpretation, except to say
say that if there was a doubt upon the matter that they
should in justice have recourse to those who, with elabo-
rate ingenuity, had framed the treaty. Why did they
not send for Mr. Elphinstone? Why did the Directors
not seek from him the interpretation which he put upon
ttrheee
tter edaitty
wa
et r
e theth
etime o
pietr wp
aarsti
ems ade.
toexeTiehse whoionite
import.
con
He had the pleasure:of Mr. Elphinstone's acquaintance,
and he was one of those whom he revered for his inte-
grity and talents. It was a primary condition in the
htreatybutthat t theeli Rajathe y did not
might
bringapse eo the provided
questionthcer wereeildrw
children,
who
t o
were the heirs to be, having determined primarily and
unquestionably thatwere thereto mbuest beedophteeidrs, whetherh
whether heirs generally, or whether heirs of the blood.
Now he had strong ideas on that subject arising out of
his past experience in India, where ha. had ,pent a good
deal of time, and in all cases where there were no stipue
lations against adoption, the right to do so was always
admitted. In many parts of India the natives were
bound to adopt as a religious performance, and that
adoption carried with it certain legal rights.—(Hear,
bear.) TO 113QW 1110 e4t434 t 9 Whi94 j NI/ 94/00 he