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

say that the law has been violated by this
act, and he has, with equul good sense, dis-
posed of the qufTtion of pclicr. Thar, horiev, r:
qu,,stion of differcnce 01 cputiou. There are many it,
fientie.l men who think the policy of annexation not
good—not wise ; hut what must we do ? Inuit go
by the majority. We go by the majorities of this and
the other House of Parliament. and at every public
meeting that takes p!aco the majority decide.
What could we do ? When we had so many authorities
on one side, and so small a minority on the other, what
could we do ?

Mr. HUME—You could have done justice.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE—The Hon. Member says we
could have done justice. What would he have called
doing justice ? I suppose it would have been the con-
firmation of the adoption of the Benares boy. But
would that have satisfied Mr. Tucker and those gentle-
men who wrote the dissents? I can assure my Hun.
Friend that I have carefully read over those dissents,
and I do not find one word said in them urging the
claims of the Benares boy. The whole of that case is
completely put aside by them as one of which there is
no need to say a word. What does Mr. Clarke say,
speaking with reference to the policy and not the justice of
this act? He, too, completely sets aside this claim, and says
not a word about it. It c,rtainly would not have done
to take him. Supposing then we had taken the other
claimant, and recognised the adopted son of Appa Sahib.
Would that have satisfied the others? Would it hare
sotisfied the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose
and the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower
Hamlets. With reference to this claimant, what had
the Rajab Pertaub Singh said when he heard of his
adoption? Why, he said " How can that be an adop-
tion? How can it be valid when the paramount autho-
rity has never recognised it?—it can only be good as
regards the property of the Raja"—thus showing that
he considered the recognition of the British Government
essentially necessary to make good the adoption. But
then my lion. Friend turns round, and says, besides these
two boys there were other collateral claimants sprung from
the race of Sevajee, who were ready to put forward their
claims if we had only given them time. lam snrprised
to hear my Hon. Friend, a gentleman who knows so
much of Indian affairs, say so. Why the whole claim to
the territory springs from the first nomination, in 1819,
of the Raja by the British Government through Mr.
Elphinstone, and had no more to do with the house of
Sevajee than it had with the Hon. Gentleman's house.
The British Government alone was the source of all
claim to the territory, and not any descent from any
family. Even when Appa Sahib was selected, after the
deposition of his brother, there was entirely a new ap.
pointment, and it was then considered as an entirely new
gift to him, not because he was the heir of Pertaub Singh,
or of the race of Sevajee, but because he being on the
spot, and there being no objection to him in any w ay,
the British Government bed thought it expedient that
he should be put upon the throne. If then, though it
was inexpedient, we had appointed the adopted son of
Pertaub Singh, we should have satisfied no one, neither
the people at Benares nor the five dissentient Directors.
If we had appointed the other boy, we should have dis-
appointed my Hon. Friend ; and if we had taken one
of the other claimants, we should have displeased both
parties. What could we do then ? There was nothing
left for us but to confirm the decision of the Court of
Directors ; and I may be permitted to state that this is
just one of those points on which her Majesty's Govern-
ment consider that the Court of Directors is most com-
petent to decide. If there had been any great difference
of cpinion, her Majesty's Government would have said
the same, but how much more so when there was such a
slight difference? By the Court of Directors' decision,
then, the matter was ordered, as being the most com-
petent tribunal. I do not think it very necessary
to comment at any great length upon the
hard terms which have been used by my
Hon. Friend in the course of his speech. They do not
prove any thing, and, in fact, they only serve to show
how very much in earnest he is in the question, and how
very difficult he has found it in consequence properly and
fairly to weigh the merits of the question. But I must
say that throughout the whole affair the East India
Company have shown none of that feeling which my
lion. Friend wishes to impute to them.—(Hear, hear.)
Even according to Mr. Elphinstone's opinion, a gentle-
man whose high abilities and great experience in Indian
affairs gave him great weight in these matters, Sattara
was one of those principalities to the sovereignty of
which the British Government had a right to nominate.
The heirs of the Raja could haven° claim on the territory,
their claims could only apply to the personal property.
After the subversion of the ,Peishwe his dominions be-
came part of the British territory. The course which
had been pursued on this occasion was what common
sense itself dictated, to say nothing of its being in
accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Court
of Directors. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) says
that was unjust. That is only his opinion. And how
are the opinions of large bodies to be expressed, except
by the majority? The opinion of the majority must be
followed. How absurd it is, then, for the Honourable
Gentleman to get up and use such terms as he has used
here.: Why, according to him, Lord Dalhousie is a rob-
ber and a spoliator—[" Good," from Mr. Huare.]—Lord
Auckland is a robber and a spoliator—E.' Good")—the
majority of 19 of the Directors of the East India Mouse,
and 296 of the Proprietors, are robbers and spoliators.
Now, Sir, I said before I was prepared to argue this
question a great deal more than I think it my duty to do
now, and I shall say no more except that it requires an
Act of Parliament to change the order of succession to
the sovereignty of Sattara.
Mr. HUME—But you did it without an Act of Parlia•
ment.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. HOBHOUSE (taking no notice of the obser-
vation of the Hon. Member for Montrose) continued—l
have repeatedly said that the Government were willing
to pay a sum of money to the Ranee, the widow of the
Raja, and the adopted heir of Pertaub Singh. This
money would have been paid long ago had it not been
for the Rance refusing to give a receipt fur the principal
sum. She said she would not do it herself unless her son
was acknowledged and adopted as the heir of the sove-
reignty. The Governor-General would not agree to that
There is no doubt that the money will be given. The
last mail that came brought a letter from the Governor-
General, stating the offer of the Government to pay
the Ranee a sum of 50,000 rupees; that letter stated,
moreover, it was the conviction of the Governor-General
that the late Raja, instead of dying as his friends in
this country have said, has left a considerable sum of
money behind him. The Governor-General had not
the least doubt of that fact. In conclusion, I can only
say that I shall be very much concerned it these debates
relating to the Raja of Sattara shall be repeated again
in this House.

Sir E. COLEBROOICE was perfectly aware it was
quite impossible to discuss this question as it deserved
to be discussed at this late period of the session. His
only object in rising was to notice two
observations which had fallen from the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman who had preceded him. If he (Sir E. Cole-
brooke) had had any doubt before that there were in-
volved in this question great commercial principles,
those doubts would have been entirely removed
by the speech made by the Right Honourable
Gentleman. He (Sir E. Colebrooke) understood the
Bight, Hon. Baronet to say that he considered it a new
doctrine that the princes of India had a right to adopt
their successors. Now, the question that was raised in
the East India House, in reference to this particular
case, and the main question on which the decision went,
was, whether this Sattara state could be regarded in that
completely independent state that it was proper that its
sovereigns should exercise that right. In the course
of that discussion there were observations and opinions
tendered which certainly seemed to him to strike at the
root of the rights of the whole native Princes of India.
He understood the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hob-
house) to say that the Hindoo Princes had no right to
adopt, except with the consent of the British Govern-
ment, as the paramount power of India.—(Hear, hear.)
That was a question which it was quite impossible for
him (Sir E. Colebrooke) to go into at that moment; but
lie had to express his complete and unqualified dissent
from the position which the Eight Hon. Baronet had
taken on that point. The British Government had no
right, with regard to the native princes of India, except
what they derived from those princes themselves—
(Hear, hear)—or with reference to territory which
had been derived by actual cession from them
(Hear, hear)—or to which the British Government
were entitled by the very words and letters of the tree•
ties between themselves and those princes.—(Hear,
hear.) He could not allow such a doctrine to be pro-
pounded by the Right Hon. Baronet without entering
his protest against it. We treated with those princes
on equal terms, and in whatever cession they made to us
our rights were limited to such as they themselves en-
joyed and exercised, and those rights of cession were
fully established at the present day.—(Hear, hear.) He
considered this question was of such importance to
British India that he would take the liberty of reading
Sir Charles Metcalfe's opinion on that point. If he
(Sir Edward Colebrooke) had had the slightest idea
that the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir J. C. Hob-
house) would have made such a statement he would
have produced proof to the House that this question was
no new one with regard to British India, and that seve-
ral decisions had been come to with regard to the rights
of the native princes of India, and that they agreed
to the full extent with what he was about to read from
the minute of Sir Charles Metcalfe.—(llear, hear.) Sir
Charles Metcalfe said, " Those who are sovereign
princes in their own right, and of the Hindoo religion,
have by Hindoo law a right to adopt to the exclusion of
collateral heirs, or of the supposed reversionary right of
the paramount powere—(Hear, hear)—the latter, in fact,
in such cases having no real existence, except in the ease
of absolute want of heirs; and even then the right is only
assumed in virtue of power, for it would probtahel
state so
y b
ein
consistent with right that the people oe-f
m Llselves ." He
situated should elect a sovereign foarte
p
hprinces be ut
would ask, could the rights ofthentiv
in stronger language? lie
wouldthan
the merits of this question tu. o stateßahriosneptrotleiset
Hon.
against the doctrine of tho Eight not go further into
considered this a
question of such wide and great im-
portance with regard to the native princes of India, that
whatever cou
rso might be taken by the Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Montrose, heKSir E. Colebrooke)
should submit, atthe earliest opportunit
y next session to
the consideration of the House what the rights of th'ose
native princes were, quite independent of the Sattara
state.—(Hear, hear.) It was a question of such
import-
ance that the opinion of Parliament should be fully
taken upon it. lie would not sit down without stating
his opinion on the real point at issue on the Sattara
question. That question turned entirely upon the words
of the treaty. By that treaty the British Government,
in consideration of the antiquity of the house of
Sattara, agreed to cede the territory, "in perpetual sove-
reignty, to the Raja of Sattara, his heirs, and succes-
sors." Those words were the fullest and largest that had
been employed, either in Europe or in India, to express
a full cession of territory from one power to another, Ho