The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-01 00:00:00

success will not attend it, and with me they think that those
who have taken this gross and extraordinery proceeding,
are acting most impolitically.—(flear, heae.) Sir, I
would remind the House of what is recorded in the
Statute Book upon this very subject. One Act of Par-
liament prohibits, in the strongest manner, the acts and
proceedings which lam now protesting against. In the
21st Geo. 111., cap. 70, sec. 18, for instance, which grants
a charter from the Crown to the East India Company,
it is provided that, "in order that regard should be had
to the civil and religious usages of the said natives, he it
enacted, that the rights and authorities of fathers
of families, and mothers of families, according as
the same might have been exercised by the
Gentu e. Hindoo), or Mahommedan law, shall
be preserved to them respectively within their said fa-
milies; nor shall any acts done in consequence of the
rule and law of caste, respecting the members of the said
families only, be held and ediudged a clime, although
the same may not be held justifiable by the laws of Eng-
land." Then, again, by the 33d Geo. 111., cap. 52-42,
it is provided, " And, forasmuch as to pursue
schemes of conquest and extension of dominien
in India are measures repugnant to the wish
the honour, and policy of this nation," lac.,
&c. A greater violation of an Act of Parliament, or a
greater act of injustice, I say, there could not
have been committed than that which is now
being perpetrated by my Lord Dalhousie. I
extremely regret that this policy has been adopted,
because it will make every native prince in 'lndia feel
himself in a situation that he will some day see his
property and territories violated, and that which the
universal usage of India has couterred ,upon him liable
to be seized and confiscated, like the confiscation which
has actually taken place in the case of this unfortunate
famdy.—(Cries of e‘ Hear, hear.") It is on those
grounds, Sir, that I protest against these proceedings;
but as I am unable at this time, in the present state of
the House, to enter into details to prove the case I have
opened, I shall content myself with simply moving the '
resolution which I have placed upon the raper; the
House will of course dispose of it as it may please, but I
must at the same time be allowed to state that at an
early period next session, if I am alive and well, I shall
bring this matter forward, it I cannot in the mean-
time shame the spoliators into a sense of pro-
priety.—(Loud laughter.) I see one of them
before me. He is a spoliator—he is a robber.—(A
laugh.) He and his brother directors have sacrificed
religious freedom, which they ought to have held sacred,
for what ? Why, fur the sake of a paltry annexation of
property, amounting to 120,0001. a year. Here is the
great East India Company, possessing a revenue amount-
ing to 20,000,0001. per annum. What has lapsed to
them sinoe the war I cannot tell; but previous to
it the income arising from their dominions
amounted to 20,000,0001. a year, and yet, Sir,
like the large rich man, they envy the poor indisi-
dual possessing a mere trifle of territory compared with
their own, and they sieze upon his lands while they are
revelling in the affluence of their own immense territo-
ries.—(hear, hear.) With these observations I feel
that I have done my duty for the present with
this unfortunate Sattara family, and in now tak-
ing leave of the subject for a brief while,
give me leave to say that the only ground upon
which I have made this appeal to empty benches is to
secure fur them an opportunity of having their case
fully considered at the earliest possible period next ses-
sion, and in now resuming my seat I have only to move
the resolutions I have already brought forward.—(Cheers.)
Sir J. C. HOBIIOUSE—Mr. Speaker, I think, Sir,
and have a right to say, that those who entertain an
opposite opinion to that entertained by my Honourable
Friend, and those who think with him, have some right
to complain of the way in which he has spoken of the
conduct which the Government have felt it its duty to
assume upon this matter—(Hear, hear)—for the act of
annexation, of which my Honourable Friend complains,
was ordered by the Court of Directors, confirmed by
the proprietors of East India Stock, and approved of by
the Board of Control. I have not the least doubt that it
was within the knowledge of my Honourable Friend,
and tt-ose who with him take an interest in this matter,
that such an order as the one to which he refers
had gone out ; and if anything effectual is
to be dome—(" Hear, hear," from Sir J. W. Hogg)—by
proceedings of this kind, if the annexation was to be
prevented by any intermediate act at home, surely it
was the duty of my Hon. Friend, on the day Parlia-
ment met, on the Ist of February, in accordance with
the notice he had given, that he should call the atten-
tion of the House to this deed on the part of the East
India Company ; surely it was his duty to have brought
on this motion in order that no time might have been
lost in counteracting this act on the part of the East
India Company. The Hon. Gentleman did not, how-
ever, do so, and on one occasion I was here in my place
ready to listen to the statements he might feel disposed
to make—(" Hear, hear," from Sir J. %V. Hogg)—to
give any explanation of this question ; and on
another occasion I thought the matter was coming
on, and though it did not, it was neither my fault nor the
fault of the House. Sir, as my Bon. Friend has not, on
this occasion, entered into a consideration of the whole
of the questions that have bi- en raised in this matter, I
shall not think it necessary to occupy so much of the
time of the House as I otherwise should have been corn-
pelled to dc, but I cannot avoid noticing one or two of
the observations of my Hon. Friend, which are so little
founded in fact, and have so little of justice in
them, that I am surprised a gentleman, so well
acquainted with Indian affairs, and who has paid such
great attention to this affair, could have fallen into the
errors he has. My Hon. Friend, to my great surprise,
stated that what has been done is an interference with
religious liberty.—(Hear, hear.) I thought at the time
that he was alluding to some debate in the former part
of the session—something about the 'Pest Act—but my
flonourable Friend went on to explain that
the violation of religious liberty of which
ho complained was, preventing a Ilindoo
from -adopting a son and creating him hair to his sove-
reignty.—(llear, hear.) This was the religious liberty
which he says we have infrieged. Now, since the dis-
cussion of this matter has taken place in Parliament, one
of the strangest notions has got abroad, and ono which 1
never heard advanced with respect to any other case—
namely, that there is no such thing as a permanent state,
that the British Crown has not succeeded to that ter-
ritory, which it is said has been crushed, and that even
if the British Crown had been a paramount power in
respect to these Indian territories, that the persens placed
at the head of them may create heirs to succeed them in
the sovereignty in the same way, and will the same
legality as persons are created heirs to property. Now,
I never heard that argument used until this matter was
discussed ; and I perfectly well recollect my Hon.
Friend, attended by a great number of gentlemen, coming
as a deputation to the Board of Control last year upon
this matter, but not one of them advanced that point,
not a single man of them. My Hon. Friend did not do
so; neither did any of the gentlemen present. A gentle-
man was there who, it appears, had taken up that view.
That argument is now advanced in this House by my
Hon. Friend, indeed it was the main thing upon which
the whole of his argument hinged. Why, Sir, I have
here quotation after quotation, from some of the best
authorities whom we can consult ; but as my Hon.
Friend has abstained from reading those authorities,
and considering, also the late period of the session, and
the condition of the House—(Hear, hear)—it would be
unpardonable if I did not follow so worthy an example;
but when my Honourable Friend appealed to Mr.
Elphinstone, he had, I must say, the candour
to state what deprived him of that gentleman's au-
thority, namely, that he gave no opinion with
respect to the right of adoption, but that he
wishes his hon. correspondent to infer from the former
part of his letter what his opinion is. My Hon. Friend
evidently wishes the House to infer from the part of
the leiter which ho read that the adoption was as good
and valid with respect to a sovereigoty as to personal
property. Now, Mr. Elphinstone was not a man to
shrink from expressing such an opinion if he had en-
tertained it. Would he, not have said, "this is a
question I have well considered, and I consider that
the act of adoption is just as good with respect to a
sovereignty as with respect to personal property?" But
he did nut give any such opinion. He, in tact, declined
to do so, saying that the treaty was made with the Raja
for the benefit of his " heirs and successors," in the well-
known meaning of the term. If there were heirs the
property would have gone to them. My Hon Friend
says there were. I boldly say, without fear of contra-
diction, that there were not. IVhat, Sir, was the case
with respect to the treaty of 1819? We had crushed a
great power in India, and having completely defeated it,
the question then arose whether or not we should take
this: small territory, or put up a sovereign subject to
us. The letter course was the one adopted. That was
the real ease. The petition of the late Raja of Benares
makes a distinction between independent princes and
a person of his condition, and says honestly that it is the
creation of British power. My Hon. Friend has alluded
to the opinion of certain gentlemen composing the Court
of Directors, whom I should be the last man to dispa-
rage. Their opinion has its weight, but the Court came
to an adverse decision after a perusal of the whole of
the documents, and the Board of Control, to whom they
were submitted, confirmed that view after weighing all
the opinions that bad been given ; and I find that the
late Governor-General, Lord Auckland, was decided
with respect to the propriety of the annexation. Indeed
he was in favour of it at the time Pertaub Singh was:de-
posed. I also find that Lord Dalhousie and his Council were
in favour of annexation. The Government of Bombay
was in favour of annexation with one exception—
namely, Mr. Clarke. I find also that of the Court of Di-
rectors, composed of twenty-four persons, but five voted
against annexation. And when the question came to be
put before the constituent body, the Court of Proprietors,
what was the result? I find for the decision of the
Court of Directors, confirmed as it was by the
Government, confirmed also by a large majority of the
Proprietors-297 in favour of annexation, and but
96 against it. Now, Sir, we have all the authority for
. this act that we can require, yet my Hon. Friend comes
to Parliament and sa)s, " Though the Government of
India and of Bombay—although the Court of Directors
and a Court of Proprietors have resolved upon this act,
yet it shall not be confirmed by this House, and
we shall send out an order to suspend the
annexation." Now, we cannot suspend what is done;
the thing is done. The order was sent out on the 24th
of last January. But does my Hon. Friend seriously
think, that if by any accident his motion was carried, it
would have the least effect on the proceedings of the East
Lelia Company or upon the GovernorA long as the
Court General of
India? It certainly would not.
constituted au-
Court of Directors, who wereo the
thorities, had the governmentlf Indiaayoo
myuessttVavientotthheemi;
responsibility. T
this was exactly
°lllleelolfonti.io
seGentlemanact takes the strangest
views I have heard. Nointerference of Parliament can
produce what us
lion. Friend wishes. I have a paper
in my hand whia3:h is drawn up with great care and skill;
it is a masterly performance, and is a complete answer
to all that has been said against this annexation. It is
written by Mr. Mangles. It completely shows
oat there is stet a abador at pretence to