The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-07 00:00:00

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

(THIS DAY.)

A Special General Court of the Proprietors of tbi.
Company was held to-day, at twelve o'clock, at the East
Irdia House, at the desire of nine Proprietors of East
India Stock, as expressed in the following letter :

" London, January 17, IS4O.
" To the Chairman and Directors of the East In iia ComPany.
" Honourable Sirs,
" We, the undersigned Proprietors of East India Stoclr, duly qua-
lified by law, request that you will convene, at your earliest conve-
nience, a Special General Court of Proprietor% for the purpose of
taking into consideration the accompanying Resolutions, and that
You Will be pleased to publish the same with this, ear requisition.
" We have the honour to be,
" Honourable Sirs,
• " Your obedient Servants,
"JOSEPH HUME.
" ARTHUR J. LEWIS.
"J. SULLIVAN.
"CHARLES FORBES.
"JOHN POYNDER.
"GEORGE FORBES.
" JOHN BRIGGS.
"CHARLES GRANT.
"J. W. GRAHAM."

"That by the treaty concluded between the East nil a Company
and his late Highness Pertaub Singh, Raja of Sattara, on the 25th
September, 1819, the territories of Sattara were secured to him and
to • his heirs in perpetual sovereignty. That by the supplemental
treaty of September, 1839, the said territories were confirmed to his
brother Appa Sahib, as the next collateral heir and successor, and to
his heirs, on the saws terms as specified in the treaty of September,
18;9.

That this Court has heard with feelings of the deepest surprise
and alarm of the contemplated seizure, confiscation, and annexation,
by the East India Company, of the Sattara territories, in violation of
the rights of the lawful heir ; believing, as this Court does, that such
seizure, confiscation, and annexation would be a most flagrant breach
of the said treaties so solemnly entered into and confirmed, would
be a disgrace and stain upon the British character, and would se-
riously weaken the confidence hitherto reposed by the princes and
people of India in the justice and good faith of the East India Com-
pany and of the British Government.
" That under such circumstances this Court deems It to be their
imperative duty to declare their solemn conviction of the impolicy
and danger, no less than of the Injustice of such a proceeding, and to
express their earnest hope that the Court of Directors and the Board
of Control will withhold their sanction from such a measure."

"JAMES C. MELVILL, Secretary.
The attendance of proprietors was very large.
Sir S. Lushington took the chair at the appointed
hour.

Mr. HUME, M.P., rose and said—Mr., Chairman, as
ono of those who have been instrumental in calling
together this Court, and as the proprietors will
no, doubt expect some explanations as to the grounds on
which they have been called together, and the object
which the requisitionists have in view, I will proceed
at'once briefly to state them. It will be remembered,
that in December a Court was summoned. I was
one of those who signed the requisition; but,
being absent from town, I was unable to attend.
The object of that meeting. was to ascertain
whether the Court of Directors contemplated the
suspension of the treaty made with the late Raja of
Sattara, and thus to deprive his heirs of the property
which appeared legitimately to belong to them by right.
I confess I was among those who believed that no such
Proceedings could take place without 'some further infer-
!alio!), which the Directors were not then, however
much they may be now, possessed of. Had I been
presente at that meeting I should have moved
adjournment of the Court, on the an-
nouncement of the Chairman that the whole
matter was under the consideration of the Court, toge-
ther with the papers which had just then arrived from
India.—(Rear, hear.) Such was my impression, and I
I,lubsequently took an opportunity of stating that was my
1131Pression to some of the Directors whom I now see
within the bar. I regretted much that any discussion
should have taken place at that meeting, as I am
convinced that any discussion, without the documents
t~eessary to form a sound opinion, must inevitably lead
Varriving at a conclusion opposite to that which we
rnould arrive at if we had bad an opportunity of pe-
seuohing the requisite documents. The possession of
e means of judging are necessary before we can
°lllte to a sound conclusion upon all the questions which
;s gage the attention of the Court, but more especially
is a course necessary when we have to decide upon
Public questions of great importance; and this question
itt.i one in which are involved the most momentous condi-
tions If, Sir, I am correctly informed, after Mr.
et ' s, in the sence of Mr. Sullivan, had made his
thatement and submitted his motion, upon which
the Deputy Chairman rote up and proposed
onthernadojtoinoranment of the Court, you said that
the
for the adjournment was submitted
ground that the question was receiving the
.con-
siderationthe directors, of
the directors, that is was sub judice before
theetors, who would bring to it the best considera-
tioneY were enabled to do. You went on to state,
that as the papers which had ly ar.rived from India
weree.. under the consideration oft he directors, it would
e.alLar better to adjourn the Court, in order to afford
SL e for their production and perusal by the proprietors.
That.nn statement would have induced me to advise my
Zerourable and Learned Friend to postpone any fur-
s_ s remarks until the directors and the proprietors had
agZru I
an opportunity of considering the papers. Now,
~e, apprehend that what was stated then led the pro-
t_etors to imagine that the papers contained something
bQw--something which had not up to that time been
rleught before us in this Court. It is quite possible that
tI
ese Papers may be of a very important nature, and
~Y tend in a great measure to alter the opinion which
"" have formed. I do not know that this is likely,but
Ithat I have stated with respect to nclycsteilofnmoy
ail
true • .
svitn regard to others.
beTohree the proprietors can
Papers Papers is ebsolutely. necessary
4.l(ionatnhehonaett orspihnrionnu,g dacryome to an equitable deciaion
ht before them; and it would be
must unfair, I think, to the whole of the proprietors for
the directors to come to a decision with respect to a
question which has been so long before the public, until
the fullest information has been afforded them. Now,
Sir, the Court ajourned to give the directors an opportu-
nity of producing-these papers. lam sorry to see the
Chairman shake his heade—(Laughter.) I would
merely observe that a conventional feeling guides the
conduct of ' gentlemen is every - station, and in every
court, by which a fair opportunity is afforded to every
o°o of candidly expressing his opinion before a deter
Inination is arrived at:---(Hear, hear.) lam sure every
man in the Court as well as myself, had I been present,
would have concurred in the adjournment, and concurred
it in the belief that the Court of Directors wished for
'6l,short time to consider as to the course which they
tL'll'3°ld adopt.—(Hear, hear.) I understood, in fact,
the
the 3d day of January had been fixed as
sop
day on which they were to meet the
Itosprietors, and to explain what they intended to do,
s:2°,,yould take their opinion as to its policy and justice.
~,,k_ile r, heir.) I say every man present, and every one
ho full
has read the remarks made on that occasion, must
Ives' impressed with the belief that the documents
pee,et° be produced, and that the adjournment was pro-
eniat_,l order that they might be printed and cir-
like wise '.g among the Proprietors, and that they
ofmight be enabled to have an opportunity
e eomine s
-ant out e .0 a decision before any orders were
•---.(oh to India with respect to the territory of Sattara.
high seter.B.) Now it is quite possible that men in
stay
ado ions may resort to expedients to deceive, they
; a
1a a y nd such
Opt a course inconsistent with fair dealing, but
41 the
conduct will not answer with the public.
state -again, therefore, that the fair interpretation of the
I h ent of the Ch •
ave at i airman at the last meeting was what
Paper stated_—that the Proprietors were to have the
th 5 before them; and having had these papers berore
em, at th
Which is eY ere then to take the whole question_
rot, lone
_ of the greatest importance—into consider.
t:,haimulau,nl sorry to find, from the intimation of the
..pnaii ttt the
tilluation was th t he denies that any such in-
given. Your intention, then, seems to
tl4ve been gain time. It was stated by an Hon. Gen-
ur adieus last meeting who objected to the question
Pa-e-- rinlent, that they might again meet without the
te.,ii. Papers having been "40, '. you produced, and that they might be
iesira:ituethhaeyt_atuh_
eahraevteoo late—the question has been decided
- denied, . ,
no longer any right to interfere."
Ilai distils°
that
tors wasY 7°llld te,k„ would so act was repudiated—
ertlecytersltch an advantage of the proprie-
sh Es of the Now, Sir, I complain on be-
at th It ass' that
that
the e promi
we; held,
to adjourn,andthe
the a Court.
we have been deceived—
h -13enments fin
npledogrdeer given,
Le_en breke,s._ st...om India should be published, have
ve: not
p"rolblear.)
ed . I complain that the Directors
ve a . deci" - these papers, and they have come
orrdnrgent, ton'
- in conjunction with the Go-
„e era have . seize the Satter°, territory, and
Z.the whole sent ?ter sent out for ' the appropriation
4thout re"ferl e territory of Sattara to the Company
th the de rice to any provision for the heirs
sett ease, teased Raja. Now, Sir, if that is
eetnen moret Idiftve out-
e to say that a trans-
nt.zi tuj;iscreditable, more dishonourable, and
rzl4lic tniod,i_ likelyhas to have a deep effect upon the
Pe!ieee_ The
never in my long life been my lot to
tors Is '4 rhe charge I thus make against the Direc-
Plai . a serious
o, Q_ one, and must be investigated. I com•
neon Csir, that you have stolen a march
es; i 7_ Proprietors, to use a common phrase.
Von us
m‘'_ore_.plain that you have stolen a march
I:,r, if it 436rnnfairly, most improperly, and I ask you,
°Y v s ight that you should have acted thus, and
his Jou refused toafford
Rapers?
Y of discussine the the Proprietors an opportu-
.
„IsOn what
ground have
after the production of the
for"' We possess f,f ave you denied to us the right
i e especially• discussing all matters such as this,
k one in which COlleethe honour of the
/11,4 rned, the faith of treaties, company
‘.lnr of the English nation is invol andd the cha-
ilear, hear.") For, Sir, if there is ve
?—cOries of
tt:rOitable than' another, it is that theything more
faith of - d
ICS entered into between state and state things more
eau.Lenly violated, And, Sir, I feel this the should be
aad'e during the long period I have been a, more b•a-
thi, ott all occasions in which I h oprietor,
have attended
sae Court AI- cell ,s, have repeatedly stated that the
t a of
° the the East India Company- was not owing more
had n
- °wee of its arms than to the good faith which it
°taint -
held, e, amed with native chiefs; and I have always
goed,,,Qtr, that the combinations of native chiefs for no
ee ea
tl eseetl3°Bo were broken asunder and rendered powerless,
wan --es siren th in •
e,Y*l4,,e_ g ened his relations with this corn-
be Y.eetlie"ae they had no confidence in each other, as
CoPlitit fu.not be trusted, and that they put the most
fsillattr wltttib- in this company on account of the strict
prat' or
all Which it had kept, before the wort I, the
4 etl th
hi% * Sir, 6 ,engagements into which it had chit-red;
''t beer' You are about Lu b, teak ugreewelits which
. entered into
with you in good faith—if you are