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

What did the Governor-General say? Why simply
this

" The old and respectable families connectedlwith the
Durbar will lament the extinction of the dynasty of
Seroj,e, and feel the less of influence, arid of employ-
ment, and the sudden cessation of the expenditure oc-
casioned by the presence of a native Court will affect the
industrious classes in the city and its neighbourhood.
These are among the immediate evils attendant upon all
great changes, sand however much to be regretted, can-
not be avoided."
He was somewhat astonished at the confidence, nay,
he would venture to say the presumption be-
trayed in this language of a Governor-General, who
was scarcely warm in his seat, and whose attention
during the short time he had been in office had been
limited to one object, namely the Punjaub. Was
not this too bad to see a man pronouncing so confi-
dent an opinion upon the political system of India ?
What was it but a proclamation to the people of India
that the policy of the East India Company was to
annex territories, and to take advantage of every oppor-
tunity that might offer to extinguish every principality
and annihilate the aristocracy of India ? Really he
could not understand why such language should be
allowed to be published. Did they think the Princes
and aristocracy of India took no notice of
all this ? If they did they were much mis-
taken, for it could not possibly have any other
effect but to alienate their feelings from the
British Power.—(Hear, hear.) The Princes and
chiefs of India were but men—they felt like men,
and did they suppose if they tickled them they would
not laugh, or if they injured them they would not
revenge the injuries ? Nor could they hear their
death-knell sounded without feelings of the most
rigorous hostility towards their oppressors.—(Hear,
hear.) And what were their motives for entering
upon this course of spoliation ? The reasons as-
signed were the military advantages held out by
Messrs. Reid and Willoughby, the military agents
of Bombay, who declared that this policy
would result in a great acquisition of their
military strength ; but then, on the other
hand, they had the testimony of Sir J. Littler,
who told them that this was all flummery. The
political advantages held out by the policy advised
by Sir George Clerk were of one character, and those
of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Falkland of another ;
but no doubt Lord Dalhousie and Lord Falkland had
spent all their time in India studying the political
system of that country, and they felt that the exis-
tence of such native states as Sattara was
positively a source of weakness, while Sir
George Clerk, who no doubt had piked all
his time in St. James's-street, thought the existence
of Sattara was a positive source of strength.
—(Hear and laughter.) It was very proper that
the Court of Directors should act upon the opinion of
those most competent to give one, and therefore in
matters military let them listen to the representa-
tions of Sir John Malcolm, and in matters political
to the views of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Falkland.
—(Hear, hear.) But these reasons were all pre-
tences, as the real motive avowed for this policy was
the getting possession of the country of Sattara.
They had already attained that object by extinguish-
ing the political existence of the Raja, but they
had not yet succeeded in extinguishing the Mahratta
people, who still lived impatient to repress the inju-
ries they were suffering, and deeply attached to, and
ready to take the part of their native Princes. It
would, therefore, cost theta ten or twelve years' re-
venue to put down an insurrection in Sattara, and he
would rather have them listen to the inspirations of
Sir John Malcolm than the preaching of either
Lord Dalhousie or Lord Falkland. Let them remem-
ber that Sir John Malcolm had written this :
" I cannot conceive it possibly for any one to dispute
the policy of taking advant3,o of every just opportunity
which presents itself fur consolidating the territories
tha: already belong to us, by taking possession of states
which may lapse in the midst of them; for thus getting
rid of these petty intervening principalities, which may
be made a means of annoyance, but which can never, I
venture to think, be a source of strength." * * *
If they wanted money let them get it honestly ; but
if they were determined to have money, then let
them follow the practice of the Mogul Emperors.
But could the Satarra state afford to pay them,
seeing that the greatest amount of misery and distress
would arise from their annexation ? They could not
pretend to say that they meant to give Sattara a
better government, for its good government had
been the perpetual theme of their laudation from its
very commencement down to the time of its extinction.
The question was what the people thought, and the
people had answered that question in the most em,
phatic and unmistakeable manner. They said they
preferred to live under the most despotic of those
Governments, rather than under our rule. They went
from our territory, and very often in flocks; but come
into our territory they never did. If the Company
was to have no increase of military strength, who was
to benefit by that annexation ? The Bombay civil
service would gain a little additional patronage, and
the East India Company would get a few lace of
rupees ; but, per contra, at the irreparable loss of their
character, and in losing their character let there re-
member they lost their strength. They could not
disaffect the native population without sooner or
later prejudicing their disposition of that people. In
that aggression on Sattara, for once under that happy
system of government under which the responsibility
was always between two stools, they had the opportunity
of fixing the responsibility on the Court of Directors.
That was their own peculiar bantam, their own act.
They had been left to deal with the question in an
evil hour, and they had damaged their reputation. In
the face of a solemn treaty, without allowing those
who had claims on that treaty to have a hearing, they
had passed judgment, and absolutely rejected the very
evidence which would have enabled them to pass a
fair judgment, namely, on the evidence of the gentle-
man who made that treaty.—(Hear, hear) Did
they think those things could be done with impunity?
He would venture to tell them that was only the
beginning of the matter. There were al ways two parties
to transactions like those—the injured and those who
inflicted the injury—and in the breasts of those
who were injured revengeful feelings always rankled.
He could show, if time permitted, that they had fla-
grantly broken their treaties with many of the native
Princes. He was too much exhausted to go into the
documents he had with him, to show the feelings
they had against the Company when the Seikh inva-
sion took place. What was it that had led to the

excited feelings of the peasantry of the Punjaub
against the Company ? It was that the Company
introduced into that country what he (Mr. Sullivan)
said advisedly was the accursed system of questioning
the rights of the people to their own lands, a mea-
sure by which they had swept three millions into
their treasury, and made three times three mil-
lioni of people their bitterest enemies. He
•

would ash them, in conclusion, why they,
who could not touch a hair of the head or decree
the property of the meanest of their own subjects
but by a strictly legal process, had stripped Princes
of their territories by their mera sic solo 1 He would
say heavy indeed was their responsibility on that ac-
count ; for by every one of those instances of what he
might call the reckless and wanton extinction of a
native state, they were undermining their own power,
and taking a wide stride towards the subversion of
that mighty empire which bad been entrusted to
their charge.—(Applause.) The Hon. Proprietor
concluded by moving the following resolution :
" That this Court IS of opinion that the treaty con-
cluded by the Briti...h Government, i❑ 1819, with Per-
taub Singh, Raja of Suttara, and subsequently renewed
with his brother and successor, the late Appa Sahib, con•
ferr, d upon and guaranteed to those Princes the heri-
ditary borer ei4n ty in the principality of Sattarc; and
this Court being farther of opinion that the heirs and

sueePiiors t r those Trine •q, wbt-..ther by adoption or in
right of blood, Are entitled to the inh,ritance under the

tenure and conditions of the said treaty, this Court
consider it to be rigii t and necessary to record its opinion
that-no case has be,n nta'le nut to justify the annexation
of the said principality of S3ttara. to the British terri-
tory."

General BRIGGS rose to second the motion. In
doing so he feared he should be unable to add much
to the lu m inous arguments adduced by his Hon. Friend
in favour of the motion. He had, he thought,
grappled with all the reasoning of his opponents in
England ; and he (the Gallant General) felt he should
not be wrong in following his example, and taking
up those of the parties in India. Among those Mr.
Willoughby, the member of Council in Bombay,
stood most conspicuous, and from his long standing,
his talents, and zeal, it could not be surprising that
his views were adopted event by the Governor-
General himself. He had little doubt that those indi-
viduals who had taken different vie a s from those which
he entertained on that subject had been influenced by
the same motives which actuated himself, and by the
intention of acting rightly ; but he did think that a
vast deal of ignorance prevailed respecting
the right of adoption and the right of appropriating
the territory of the independent Princes of India.
He should have been happy if the gentleman to whom
he had alluded (Mr. Willoughby) had confined his
observations to the subject then before the Court, hut
he was sorry to observe by the minute of the 14th May,
1848, that he had rather gone out of his way to attack
an unfortunate individual now no more. Not only
had be done this, hut he had thought proper to attack the motives and intentions of those who had supported , '
the cause of the late Raja of Sattara, and among
others he had mentioned him (General Briggs) indi-
vidua;ly, with respect to which he was anxious to
set himself right with the Court. It would have
been better, he thought, if Mr. Willoughby
1)341 on such a theme confiued himself to the strict
tr u h, and had observed the maxim De worts is nil nisi
bonarn —(Cheers.) Why he should have dragged
forward this unfortunate individual he was utterly
at a loss to understand. Surely
enough Gallant Offi had been
r
said with respect to him. The
then proceeded to clear himself from the as-
persions cast upon him by Mr. Willoughby,
an, to say that he never predicted that the
Raja would over engage in hostility ,with the

British Government. It was said that he had sent for
two of the native officer.: of one of the regiments, that
he told them he was engaged in hostility with the
British Government, on which they took their leave
in the usual form of the country. Now was it not
absurd to say that he had sent for these people to
tell them this story, since he thereby made it certain
that what he had stated to them would be disclosed
in the space of twenty-four hours, and himself lose
his throne ? The General was proceeding to deal with
other matters on'the same subject, when
A PROPRIETOR suggested that the Hon. Proprie-
tor should confine himself to the exact subject before
the meeting, otherwise those who were disposed to
support him would be compelled to leave.
The Gallant Officer willingly yielded to the sense
of the Court. He would not inflict upon them again
the story of the former Raja, but he could not help
adverting to that part of the dispatch of Mr. Wil-
loughby which reflected on the dead.—(Cheers.)
Now, with regard to adoption, he maintained it was
a common practice and right of every Hindoo, and
c.insistent with the law of India. In " Stracey's
Elements of Hindoo Law" he found it written :—" lii
a transaction so important as one transferring a young
person from the family in which he was born to a
new one, and, with a view to succession, interposing
by substitution a comparative stranger between the
adopter and his existing heirs, the law stipulates for
whatever is calculated to give publicity. Hence at-
tendance of relations, with notice to the local magis-
trate or ruling power is expected." Mark, Sir, this
is not requisite even, but no permission is ever de-
manded. " The purohita, or priest of the family,
who performs a correspondent office in marriage, is
the medium through whom the boy to be adopted is
solicited of those by whom he is to be given ; and in
a rite that has for its object the future peace of the
soul, it were strange if religious ceremonies were not
enjoined." Mr. Frere, who is one of the best authori-
ties in India upon this subject, stated distinctly that
both these children, the one adopted by the ex-Raja,
and the other adopted by the late Raja, stood in the
same relation to their adopters as their natural
heirs, and he had not the least doubt in his own
mind at all upon that being the law of India.
He should like to hear from those whose opinions
were at variance with his own of any instance of
adoption not being recognised by any other power in
India but our own Government.—(Bear, hear.)
They could, indeed, prevent the succession of a
feudatory to a lapsed estate; but he would show before
he sat down that there was a great difference be-
tween a feudatory and a prince. He had some ex-
perience in the matter, and could, with the per-
mission of the Court, explain the difference. Now
the Raja of Sattara was quoad a lord paramount
over his dominions, and whenever a feudatory died
the first process was for the lord paramount to send
an agent to resume the estate. The next process was
for the heir to come into the presence of the lord
paramount, do homage and pay a relief, and then the
estate was rendered back to him. In one instance
two feudatory chiefs refused to do homage to the Raja
of Sattara, who wrote to Mr. Elphinstone upon the
subject ; and what did Mr. Elphinstone reply ? Why,
he wrote to him thus :
" With regard, however, to the terms proposed to be
annexed to the adoption, it must be observed, that al-
though you and your heirs are to hold your jagheer on
certain stipulated terms, yet that on a total failure of
heirs it must revert to his Highness, and that if his
Highness allows it to be continued in such case by
adoption, or otherwise, his Highness is at liberty to
attach what conditions he thinks expedient to the per-
mission. As to the terms, this Government has no rea-
son to think that the Raja's demand will be unreason-
able, and will recommend your case to his consideration.
You, however, must recollect, that you voluntarily p.e-
ferred the Raja's sovereignty; the decision must, there-
fore, rest. with his Highness, the British Government
not being able to interfere unless there be a breach of
engagement."
" That the whole of the transactions have occasioned
much regret to the Governor in Council that the Raja's
ancestors have from the first been servants of the Raja
o Sattara, and that at the late settlement, when it was
left to the choice of Futtra Singh Raja to become depen-
dent on the British Government, or to remain under the
Raja of Sattara, he preferred the service in which his
ancestors had acquired distinction. That it is therefore
inconsistent with Mallajee's own good sense, and with
toe loyalty of his family, to enter into dispute with the
Raja of Sattara; that he ought, on the contrary, to con-
ciliate his Highness' good will in all respects, and to con-
sider his prosperity as depending on the favour of his
so ,Tereign. That in the late affair he appears by no
means to have remembered the respect due to the Raja
of Sattara, and that he had every reason to be satisfied
with the forbearance shown towards him ; that the Go-
vernor in Council hopes that the Akulkotekur will hence-
forward pay more attention to:conciliating his Highness'
regard, and that while he serves him with fidelity, he is
sure of the Company's protection; but if he neglects the
duty he owes his own prince, it will be impossible for
the British Government to interfere in his behalf."

Ile had once seen a feudatory—a natural heir, not
an adopted one—pay homage to the late Raja
of Sattara. The feudatory came into court
without a sword, unlenightod. He was brought in
between two other feudal chiefs, and after a formal
introduction, he put his hands upon the feet of the
Raja of Sattara, and it was not till then, and then
only, that the Raja hung the feudal belt and sword
round his neck. He was then reinstated, and a new
grant was made out conferring on him his ter-
ritories. Such was the custom with regard to
feudal chiefs in India, but that process was very
different to what was exacted from the successors of
independent Princes who died without lineal heirs
or adopted successors. With all the eyes of the
world upon him, the reigning Raja adopted his suc-
cessor, who entered upon the rights enjoyed by his I
predecessor without any one having the power
to extort feudal homage. They would therefore fall
into a great error if they dealt with a prince in the
same way as they would deal with a feudatory.
Another point to which his Hon. Friend had alluded
was the adoption of the children by the two late Rajas,
but they were not feudatories, since that was an inhe- I

r4nt right which every native Prince enjoyed.—(Hear.)
Allusion had been made to the arbitrary practices of the
Moguls, but even the Moguls themselves had some
regard for the constitution and the laws, and

never interfered in such cases.—(Elear, hear.)
This, therefore, was one of the most important

measures they had ever passed, namely, that of
assuming the privileges of a lord paramount, and
doing away with the treaties relating to the right of
principalities. It was impossible, however, that he

could add strength to what had been so ably said by
hii Honourable Friend who preceded him. He had

taken the liberty to point -out the difference be-
tween a feudatory and a native prince, and with
these few observations he would conclude his
remarks by cordially seconding the motion which had
been made by his Hon. Friend.—(Cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN said it now became his duty to
address the Court. He should do so as shortly as
possible. He thought it would be better for him and
that Court to adhere as closely as possible to
the question actually before them.—(Hear, hear.)
He observed throughout the Hon. Gentleman's (Mr.
Sullivan's) speech that he laid the greatest possible
stress on the question of right. Now that undoubtedly
was a question before all questions, and more espe
cially it was the question upon which the family of
Sittara had the only claim upon their notice, because
if that right should not prove to have been sustained,
then, upon the general question of policy, they
had nothing whatever to do—(Hear, hear)—than
any other of the individual families in Hindostan
whose names had been mentioned. But they had
heard a great deal about the antiquity of the family
of Sattara. His Friend on the opposite side of the
Criurt said it was among the most ancient dynasties of
India. Now, instead of that, Sevajee was not born
until nearly the middle of the seventeenth century.
Ile did not exist until the year 1627, and that indi-
vidual, of whom they had heard so much, was not

otherwise distinguished than as commanding a troop
of irregular horse in Beejapore, a Mahomedan state.
He retained that by force or by fraud, and
that was the origin of the family of
S ittara. Now, how did that family prosper ?
Why, it lasted but three generations. After
that it had been maintained for the last 100 years.
Mr. LEWIN rose to order. There was a general
impression in that part of the meeting where he sat
that those observations were not relevant to the ques-
tion.—(" Hear, hear," and "Chair, chair.")
The CHAIRMAN begged that he might not be
interrupted. He continued they knew the
Mahrattas as a people were not recognised in India
until the commencement of the 18th century, or in the
ear 1701 ; and they were allowed to collect what
was called the " chout" in certain districts of the
Deccan. Now, it was perfectly true that the
Mahratta state did prosper. But how did it
prosper ? By the oppression of their neighbours
entirely, to such an extent that he might
safely say there was not a tribe in India
which was not more popular than the Em-
perors of the Mahrattas. Now, they• were told
that this was a question of right, and that we granted
an independent sovereignty to Pertaub S'ingh and to
his heirs and successors in perpetuity. Now, he (the
Chairman) denied that. The word " in dependent "
as not to be found in the treaty, but till articles of
the treaty were so completely opposed to the idea of
independence, that he had never read a treaty with
any power in India which contained so n Such of re-
=triction as that which was entered into i n 1819 by
Mr. Elphinstone with Pertaub Singh. Now, the
idea of an independent sovereignty 'was this,
that an independent sovereign was r• esponsible
to no power. He had absolute power hina self. But
what were the terms of the treaty ? He was to get
a territory " sufficient for the maintenance of his
family in comfort and dignity, and he was; to be in
subordinate co-operation with, and to be ;.uided in
all matters by, the British Government.".—(Hear,
hear.) Who ever heard of an independent a overeign
being guided by any other power ? It was of great
importance to consider the terms on which th a treaty

was granted ; it was the terms, and not the mere ex-
pression of the preamble, that were to be considered.
He was to be " guided in all matters by the British
Government." Well, besides that, he bound himself
not to write, or to speak, or to have any intercourse
whatever with his neighbours without the cognizance
and sanction of the British Government, even on the
most delicate subject, that concerning the marriage
of any of his family ; and he was to hold no cor-
respondence with them except through the recognised
Resident of the British Government. Now, after
that it was impossible to imagine that it could ever
have been the intention of the British Government, or
of Mr. Elphinstone, to grant to the Raja of Sattara
an independent sovereignty, as it was called by the
gentleman on the opposite side of the bar. But it
was said that it was an independent sovereignty, and
that it was also in perpetuity. Now, he
had already stir e 3 that it was not, in the
terms of the treaty, an independent sovereignty,
and he denied there was any power in India that was
competent to grant an independent sovereignty, in
the sense in which the Hon. Gentleman explained it,
to any individual whatever. He (the Chairman)
maintained that if their representatives in India were
to grant an independent sovereignty to any individual,
that act would be totally illegal, because it went to this
extent, that they had the power of actually dismember-
ing the British empire, because what was the meaning
of an independent sovereignty ? It was to confer
I absolute power on the sovereign, and so grant out to
him every atom of right in that sovereignty ; it was,
'therefore, a dismembering the Government which
they were bound to maintain. But the rights
granted by the treaty were so excessively stringent
that it was impossible for one moment to listen to
them; but it was 'important also to show what the
understanding of Mr. Elphinstone was when this
treaty was made. Now, it was considered a matter
,f importance, at a former Court, that reference should
he made to Mr. Elphinstone, to ascertain what his
views were when he granted the treaty ; but as 30
3 cars had elapsed he (the Chairman) thought it would
b- more satisfactory to the Court to know what his
lie ws were at that time, as expressed by himself; and
le (the Chairman) would read to this Court
what Mr. Elphinstone intended to grant to Pertaub
Singh. "It was not only desirable," he said, " to gain
the Raja's good will, but it was recognised both by the
Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief, and
for their own security, to provide for the firm estab-
lishment of the supremacy of the British Government.
Unless these points were secured the machine which
we were setting up would be liable to be turned
against us—(Hear, hear)—and the release of the
Raja of Sattara would prolong the disturbances occa-
sioned by his rapacious treachery." Now those were
the instructions Mr. Elphinstone communicated at
that time to Captain Grant, Now, let them see how
the Raja himself understood the terms on which he
got the territory of Sattara. Captain Grant said,
" the Raja was desirous that a political agent should
at no time interfere in regulating the interior of his
family ;" so clearly did he understand that he was to
be guided in all matters and to be under the control
of the British Government, and that he was afraid
lest—what ? Why, lest that agent should interfere
in the management of his family. He was anxious
that that should be a stipulation in his treaty, and so
certain was he of the wretched position in which he
stood that he was anxious to prevent the interference
of any British Resident. Now, how did that square
with the idea of an independent sovereign ? Captain
Grant assured the Raja there was no occasion for
stipulating that in the treaty ? Why ? Because
there was no intention to exercise any such
interference with his family. " Then," Captain
Grant goes on to say, " the Raja asked what was the
use of being a Raja, unless he could act according
to his own inclinations ?"—(Laughter.) That was a
very sensible question. The Raja then said to Cap-
tain Grant, " ;on are a great blockhead—(Laughter)
—don't you see I may do whatever I like, provided I
di what is right." Was that independence ?
After that, it did seem to him very extraordinary
that the idea of an independent sovereignty of the
Sattara territory should be maintained in that Court.
—(Hear, hear.) Now with respect to the question
of the right of succession. By the treaty, it was
agreed that the territory was to go to the " heirs and
successors " in English, and in Mahratta to "farzand
warisan are kaim mukanan," but the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Sullivan) refused to acknowledge that the Eng-
lish was the original treaty. Now it was quite clear,
in his opinion, that when the British Government
were the grantors, the treaty or arrangement must,
necessarily, be drawn out in the first instance in the
English language. It had been decided by the
Government in India, and by the authurities at
home, that in cases of disputes upon words,
used in treaties or other documents the original
language in which they were written—the English—
must be referred to. But, whether that be true or
not, he maintained that the words in the Mahratta
version were stronger, if anything, than those in the
English language in favour of the view which he was
putting. He would now go to the version of certain
words in the treaty, as represented to them by
Rungo Bapojee. The meaning of farzand warison
are kaim mukanan, it is said, is " sons, heirs, and
successors" perpetually from generation to generation
(musulum bad musulum). Now what was the mean-
ing of from generation to generation ? Neither of the
Rajas had any heirs, nor had they any generations.
Now, that was of very great importance, for the
Mahratta language said, that it was not intended that
the succession should go to any who were not gene-
rated by those individuals. The word farzand
was translated into English by " heir," or " issue,"
and meant the issue of the body of the individual
who got the treaty. He did not think that the word
marls had a contrary meaning to farzand, but that it
was introduced to show that it was intended to include
heirs, not being lineal descendants. It was a word
taken from the Mahometan language, and meant not
merely heirs of the body, but all who were entitled
to share in the property of a Mabometan who
died intestate. It comprehended women and
children, and also children by fosterage.—
(Hear.) It could not, however, be interpreted in
contradiction to the word farzand, which was the
original word in the treaty. Then what was the
meaning attached by them to the word " heir ?"
!,It always in our language meant an heir of
the body, and we never admitted any to suc-
ceed to property as a matter of course, except
such as were the heirs of the body. Mr.
Elphinstone, who was Governor of Bombay, had
clearly shown that the word " heirs" in the treaty
was meant to include heirs of the body. According
to his view and interpretation, it comprehended the
heirs of an individual, and not what was called by his
Hon. Friend, Mr. Lewis, heirs generally. Was it
possibletoco Give
nc:.,voetrhnamt theent in India, on
British Government,in
administering perfect
bothceoquuladlitgyivea
togrtahnetMtaohotmheetaHniannddoo,towthhiechHindoo,
com-
prehended not merely his heirs, but, in
fact,
,his assignees, and to the Mahome-
tan, who comprehended only the heirs of
his own body ? "Co suppose anything of the kind
was perfectly preposterous. The meaning which
they were accustomed to of the word " heirs" included
those who were entitled to succeed by the act of
God ; thus, when a person holding property died, it
was by the act of God that his heir came in and suc-
ceeded him ; but when an adopted son was the
heir, he was not heir by the act of God, but the act
of an individual. Then with respect to the meaning
of the word " successors," Major-General Briggs had
stated that kaim mukam signified a person standing
in the place of another. In the present instance it
meant exactly what was mentioned in the book of

Kings, where it was stated that David died

and— Was gathered to his fathers, and Solomon,
his son, reigned in his stead. But the
writers laid much stress upon the point that
the late Raja was satisfied that no adoption would be
valid unless it was confirmed by the British Govern-
ment, and that he should have done this in time to

receive the assent of that Government. But his de-
scendant was not named until he was at the point of
death. He felt the full force of the position in which

he was placed. He knew that his eldest brother had
adopted a son, and that the son so adopted would
become a formidable competitor to his own son.
What he said to Mr. Frere certainly bore out this

view. Now, he put it to the Court of Directors
whether an adoption made under such circumstances
could in any way determine the sense of the
treaty; but there was another Power which
seemed lost sight of—that the late Raja
had only a life interest in the treaty. Let his
ambition be what it may, it could not affect the in-
terests of those who came after him. He put it to
the Court whether, when they made a treaty with a
flindoo Prince by which they ceded him a territory,
aed for his heirs in perpetual sovereignty, anything
could bar the rights of the collateral heirs but a posi-
rive stipulation ; but he found that the Court had
ilready decided the question. They had done so in
everal cases, particularly in that of Ghoolab Singh
'lnd of other Princes whose succession had been
.united. If they wanted to know the interpretation
dut upon the treaty of the late Raja they must look at
it as it was before him when he was studying its
provisions before he signed it, and that he did tell Mr.

"The British Government," he says, "in considera-
tion of one family being a very ancient one, having be-
t:towed a sovereignty, in which it is stated that the
..sfaharsj Chuttraputtee, his descendants. heirs, and re-
presentatives (furzund-wu•waris zou kaim mukam)
Lhr,uld always (suderdut) enjoy the Raj. lam now very
seriously ill. I have no legitimate male issue; it is
thcreforo desirable that a reply should speedily be re-
turned to the Yad transmitted to the British Go-

vernment." ;
Here they saw him dwelling upon the obligations
which he contracted with the British Government
under that treaty, and upon the understanding that
the territory was to be prepetuated in his heirs for
ever. This was no new idea, for they found that he