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

THE SUN, LONDON,

MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 30, 1849.

had made the same observetion some 'Wont!, 71'.
before. It W. 45 true tile aeop-se son eels eot
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 MS, that they wished to have re-
course to that gentleman ; they could easily do so,
but they dared not do so, becanse 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 his
heirs in perpetual sovereignty for ever, it might, the
same as the other. Now 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
pow er was a question which had been set at rest, be-
cause there were several instances on record of
property being taken possession of by the
Crown, and afterwards restored to the rela-
tives of the family to whom it had for-
merly belonged. An unfortunate 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-
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
taken place upon any matter of this kind. With re-
spect to the right of adoption, he believed there was
no doubt whatever that according to the Hindoo law
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:Rajas: 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 bad 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 could
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 hi 3 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 done. When
territories were ceded to a Prince upon the under-
stanaing 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 the case here. 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
upoa 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
ne t
aeßaja,
snu cwce h s
as
b successor,
rt as the
heirs of his own body, and he held the territories until
he became ungrateful and treacherous. After that it
fors
hGi
the
brother, o
formermh
rn,
il notadß aa represented,
his
sHwu a(b) sr),
togi Honourableto
could the brother be considered the successor ? He
esapsecat
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 Raja 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 be 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.
Proprietors 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 Ruja 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 LUSIIINGTON said that on the many
occasions when he had attended those discussions he
had always been of opinion that the Raja of Sattara
had been rightly and justly deposed, for it
was impossible for the British Government to
overlook such a gross violation of a treaty
which had been entered into with it.—(Flear 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-

font - from ieinee rerg-e-eiee.
• :c r. 2 to
increase or diminish the military force without the
previous knowledge end con-tent of the British Go-
vernment. The fifth article required him not only
to forbear from aq intercourse with foreign powers,
and with all sirdars, jagheeriars, 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 articl:was a fundamental condi-
tion 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-
sible to show more completely how absolute a de-
pendence there was on the one side, and how supreme
and paramount a power there was on the other.—
(Hear, hear.) He was rather rejoiced to find from
the 33d Geo. 111., c. GG, 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 approbation
of the Board of Control, so 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
benefit to the community, the Government would not
fail 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, bear.)
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.—(Hear.) 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.—(Hear.) 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 Hindoo 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 Vatted, 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 breach 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
nf 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
proof that the contracting powers did not mean that its
duration should depend on that of their own lives, but
on that of the kingdom itself. Such a treaty is therefore
a real one."—(Hear.)
There was one other point with regard to the inter-
pretation put upon the treaty upon which he wished
to 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.
He 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 he the clienvnry atho thought.
of the author or authors of that deed, whenever we meet
with any obscurity in it we are to consider what pro-
bably were 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 on the British Government. Now, after
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-
tion with respect to them was contained in that—that
was, 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
decision 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 one 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 the 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. He
had shown that this family had no right whatever,
and that they could not, by the law and custom of
India, claim possession 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 Holkar 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-
Lion by the birth of collaterals.
General BRIGGS—Not at all.
The CHAIRMAN 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 in-
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 first person who got the grant of Sattara, because

hill 17-1:•ro

colk

~~ t-,~.•,~: .. ,

1411,

h~abw.

no child ; therefore, in this que-tion there were
no ecilaterals, unless they were to go hack to the heed
of the family. Ile (the Chalrnian) 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
halt blood. The family of Tanjore was excluded for
the same reason. Well, 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 on their part, because with 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. He 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 impossible
for that Court to interfere so as to reverse that
decision. Therefore it was a matter for their
consideration, whether or not 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 biti 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 in 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
paint 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 seldom 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 the 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 been 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 discussion 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 ; bu.t 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 th 7 wore
right in their supposition that the word " heirs" im-
plied heirs of the body, yet he thought many of
those present would not agree 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 these 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 " succes,sor."—(Hear,
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 omis-
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 spPeifiod 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-

vcrnor- 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
had been entered into by the Raja, and the act of