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

RAILWAY RETURNS

RAILWAY TRAFFIC.—The following are the Total Receipts of Rail-
ways for the past week—that is to say, up to the date to which the
respective returns are made, together with the receipts of the same
week in the previous year:—

Weak
eudiug

April 21
22
21
22
21
15
21

NAME OF RAILWAY.

Aberdeen .. •• •• ..

Amiens and Boulogne . • • • .
Belfast and Ballymena •• • • • • • • • • •• • •
Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Bolton, Blackburn, Clitheroe, and W. Y.

Chester and Ilolyhead. .• • .... •• ..
Cockerniouth and Workington.... • • • •
Dublin and Drogheda.. •. • • .••• • • • • •
Dublin and Kingstown • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Dundee, Perth, and Aberdeen • • • • • • • •
East Ang1ian........ .• • • • • •
Edinburgh and Glasgow •• • •••• • • • •
Edinburgh and Northern • • • • • • • • • • • •
Eastern Counties and North Eastern..
East Lancashire • • • • ........ • • • • • • • •
Eastern Uni0n......................

Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr • • • • • .
Glasgow and Greenock• • •• • • •• • • • • .

Great Northern and E. L.•..... • .
Great Southern and Western • •
Great Western, &c

Kendal and Windermere• • .... •• • • •
Lancashire and Yorkshire.... . ;
Lancaster and Carlisle. ..... ........
Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport....
Londonderry and Enniskillen........
London and North Western, &c. .....
London and Blackwell.... • ..• • ...
London and Brighton
London and South Western ..•......
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
Midland, Bristol, and Birmingham....
Midland Great 'Western (Irish) ......
Newcastle and Carlisle • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
North British .. ••••••• • • • • • • • •• • •

Paris and Rouen . • • • • • • • • •• •
Rouen and Havre.. • • • • • • •• •

Last
week.

500
!,370
481
791
401
5,024
1,360

Scottish Central .••• ••

Shrewsbury and Chester ..
South Eastern and Branches .• • • • • ••
South Devon ........ . •• • ... • .......
Taff Vale • • • • • • • • ..

Waterford and Limerick............
Whitehaven Junction ... • . •• . • •• •• •
York and Newcastle . • . •..........

York and North Midland ...........

136
40,303

605
9,331
8,995
3,616
20,897
1,369

4 f:'
01
AI
cc;
Poi, ,
Eiil'°?..
.8.
r...).,,E1

3,533

803
803
855
465
3,072
1,138
15,203
1,007
1,021
1,026
917

2,302
18,701

133
9,370
1,675

160
37,410

2,875
5,652
2,458
1,064
1,433
7.610
1,509
1,880
747
283

11,603
7,241

859
8,646
8,267
2,228
18,907
1,018

1,883
3,038
1,315

610
7,94
744
1,782
909

10,607
8,000

THE COURT.—In addition to the state ball to-night
at the Palace, the Lord Chamberlain, by her Majesty's
command, has caused invitations to be issued for a grand
concert on Wednesday week, the 9th proximo, and ano-
other full-dress ball on the 16th.

THE D UKE OF CAMBRIDGE.—We are gratified in
being enabled to state that that his Royal Highness has
recovered from his recent severe and protracted attack
of gout, and was able to take carriage drives twice during
the past week from his residence at Kew.

ATTORNIES' COSTS.—At a meeting of the Judges
held at Sergeant's-inn, it was unanimously resolved that
in all cases mileage shall be allowed to an attorney at-
tending an assize town, whatever the number of cases
may be in which he is engaged, and that the charge in
respect thereof shall be equally apportioned to each case.
POST-OFFICE NOTICE.—On and after the Ist of
May next the following Receiving Offices, under Ports-
mouth, will be opened for tho issue and payment of
money orders :—Landport, Portsea, Southsea.
THE NAVY CLUB.--The gallant members of this
professional club dined together on Thursday at the
Thatched House Tavern. Captain Lord George Paulett
was president, and Captain Rodney Mundy filled the
vice chair. Among the gallant members present were,
Vice-Admiral J. Sykes, Rear-Admiral Sir W. 0. Pell,
ICnt., Rear-Admiral Sir Josiah Coghill, Rear-Admiral
Sir 11. Dillon, Rear Admiral Sir Fleetwood Pellew, Rear-
Admiral Sir J. It. Rowley, Bart., Lord W. Paulett,
Captain Lord Edward Russell, Captain Lord F. Gordon
llallyburton, Captain Percy Grace, Captain Henderson,
Captain Porter, Captain Alexander Milne, Captain Du
Cane, 84c-
NEW RULES IN THE COMMON LAW COURTS.—
On Saturday, the following notice, signed by the whole
of the Judges was posted in the several courts of common
law, at Westminster, viz. Regula Genarales, Easter
Term, 12th Victoria, 1849 :—lt is ordered, that when a
rule for judgment as in case of a nonsuit shall have
been discharged on a peremptory undertaking, to try at
the next or ally future assizes or sittings, if the plaintiff
shall make default indprfoecbededaettngsbtaolltrbiael,aptuftsbuearntt to
undertakinZ, the
if
tahney
plaintifft
e b
eror e has
wrio
vt dn
gr tet
fwo ur
juupd the
eet rule,a
nt od draw e itu puoypt: at
to
move for judgment without serving a copy of the rule on
the plaintiff." •

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

THE RAJA OF SATTARA.
A Specittl General Court of the Proprietors of the
East India Company was held at their House, in
Leadenhall-street, on Wednesday, at the desire of nine
Proprietors of East India stock, as expressed in the
following letter

"Louden, April 9, 1&49
" To tha Chairman and Directors of the East India Company.

" Honourable Sirs,
" We, the undersigned Proprietors of East India Stock, duly quali-
fied by law, request that you will convene a Special General Court of
Proprietors, for the purpose of taking into consideration the Papers
now before the Court, relative to the disposal of the Sata' State.

" We have the honour to be,
" Honourable Sirs,
" Your obedient Servants,
(Signed) " J. Sullivan.
" Arthur J. Lewis.
" Joseph Hume.
" J. Williams.
44 Alex. Raphael.
• " Chas. Forbes.
" John Briggs.
44 Chas. Grant.
. .
44 J. w. Graham."
Precisely at twelve o'clock the directors entered the
room, and
Sir ARCHIBALD GALLOWAY took the chair. He
said he had then to announce to the meeting that this
Court had been specially summoned at the desire of
several Proprietors as expressed in their requisition,
which he would call upon the secretary to read.
The SECRETARY having
read- acquisition, and
the minutes ofthe preceding meeting having been
also read and confirmed,
Mr. SULLIVAN rose to move a resolution. He said,
the question which they were about to discuss was
really one of the most important that had ever been
propounded in this Court. It was a question which
not only vitally affected the dearest interests of every
native of this country, but it affected, as he should be
able to show, the very principles on which the com-
pany held their own territory, so far as their title
depended on the observance of the most solemn
moral considerations. What that question was
would be seen from two extracts which he would read
from the papers then in his hand ; the first was an
extract from a minute of the Governor-General, and
the next was written by Mr. Willoughby. Lord
Dalhousie said—
" I take this fitting occasion of recording my strong
and deliberate opinion that, in the exercise of a wise and
sound policy, the British Government is bound not to
put aside or neglect such rightful opportunities of ac-
quiring territory or revenue as may from time to time
present themselves, whether they arise from the lapse of
subordinate states, by the failure of all heirs of every
description whatsoever, or from the failure of heirs natu-
ral, where the succession can be sustained only by the
sanction of the Government being given to the ceremony
of adoption according to Hindoo law. Such is the gene-
ral principle that, in my humble opinion, ought to guide
the conduct of the British Government in its disposal of
independent states, where there has been total failure
of ali heirs whatsoever; or where permission is asked to
continue by adoption a succession which fails in the
natural line."

Again, Mr. Willoughby says—
" A more important question than that of the conti-
nuance
bo
er
ceexmt
ei n
ac t ne
mof b
etrn
ofe Stahtitea r
Ga
es tvaetren has
tn. o t arisen
since I became a member of this Government. It does
question of what is the right policy to be pursued towards
anyother native
circum-
stances.utnhdeergeseiemtiielnarwhether:
onln other
failure of heirs natural, it is expedient to absorb them
swtaetreds ott
it . India
aes
in the general sovereignty of the Anglo-Indian empire,
or to continue them by the Hindoo custom of adoption"
Now, it was obvious that they were not about to
discuss merely the justice or expediency of annexing
the Sattara state to the British Government; but
they were to discuss a question of a far more impor-
tant
.
nature—namely, whether the East India
Company had a right to seize upon and to appropriate
the territory of any native Sovereign Prince of India
whom the East India Company might determine to
have died without heirs. Now, in order to a right
apprehension of that question it was absolutely ne-
cessary to keep in mind that the interests of three I
distinct classes of people were involved in it—first,
there was that class of Sovereign Princes whose
independence the Company had recognised, with
whom they had treated on a-footing of equality, and
to whom they were bound by special treaties ;
secondly, there was another class of Princes,
who were not Sovereign Princes, with whom
they had not treated on a footing of
equality, but to whom they were bound by
written agreements; and, thirdly, there were the
chiefs and feudatories in India, with whom they
were not bound by any specific engagements, with
whom, therefore, they were at liberty to deal ac-
cording to the established law of the country. Most
necessary it was to keep that distinction of classes
clearly in mind, because in the papers then before
the Proprietors they had been studiously confounded.
The question then, he said, was this—whether the
East India Company had a right to seize upon and
appropriate the territory of any native Sovereign
Prince of India whom the Company determined to
have died without heirs. Now, on what foundation
was that monstrous proposition made to rest? It was
this, that the East India Company are the lords para-
mount of India, that they stood in the place of the Mo
gul Emperors, and that the rights which were inherent
in those Mogul Emperors had devolved upon the East
India Company, and that they had a right to treat all
the Sovereign Princes of India as vassals. Now, no
one could doubt, that in extent of territory, in point
of military strength, and in every attribute which
constituted power, not only did they stand in the
place of the Mogul Emperors, but immensely above
them. Non constat that the Company had a right to
exercise all the rights which appertained to those
Emperors. Did those who propounded that proposi-
tion forget that the Mogul Emperors were despots in
the strongest sense of the term, that they disposed of
the lives of their subjects at pleasure, and that their
will was their law? Did those persons forget that
the East India Company were not only not a despotic
Government but a regulated Government, that they had
voluntarily denuded themselves of every particle of
arbitrary power, which might have belonged to them
as a sovereign state of India, and had defined and
limited their authority, as between themselves and
their subjects, by that code of regulations which
had been passed for their benefit, and which
was their charter against us ; and the Coin-
pang had limited and defined their authority by spe-
cific treaties by which they bound themselves as the
dominant power to do certain things,
native Princes
in the same way. It was then and to leave
certain things undone, and bound h
the Company was to beguided, and not by
any vestige of arbitrary power derived from the
Moghats. From those they could not swerve
either to the right hand or to the left
without incurring the imputation of bad faith that
would be scandalous even in a Hindoo Government, but
infinitely more scandalous in a Government like theirs,
which professed to be guided by Christian morals and
Christian principles. Now the Raja of Sattara was
one of those sovereigns to whom they were bound by
a specific treaty. What were the Company's obliga-
tions under that treaty ? How was the matter treated
in that pithy dispatch which emanated from the Court
of Directors on the 24th of January, and which
formed part of those printed papers which he held in
his hand ? Did they find them employed in an anxious
examination of the obligations which they had con-
tracted under the treaty, and, in order to assist
them in that examination, calling for the opinion of
eminent jurists in order to determine the meaning of
the English terms used in the treaty, or any eminent
oriental scholar, in order to determine the meaning
of the native terms used in the treaty ;
above all, that gentleman by whom the treaty
was made, or that other gentleman by whom that
treaty was interpreted to the other contracting party
to the treaty. In the dispatch, dated the 24th of
January, to which he had referred, these words oc-
curred :
in opinion,
directcannot
nn
" We have read these various papers with the greatest
attention, and have weighed all the considerations set
forth in them, with a deep sense of responsibility. The
result of our deliberation is that, concurring with you
wen t aoprrae
constructive,s fsutl
ol fully satisfiedan adopttadopted
tdhg ainyteei by
rsyu withoutct
hh e
consent,ge n
te
hr
ea l c
al
con-
ssent
that t the, ofnw.
en
and custom of India a dependent principality like that of
Sattara
paramount
interests
o committed Power;
tt
ed thato wn en arer
charge
huanrdieer
no
piege
gethne eral
best consulted by withholding it.
" The pretensions set up in favour of the adopted son
of the ex-Raja being wholly untenable, and all claims
of collaterals being excluded by the fact that none of
them are descended from the person in whose favour the
principality was created, the ex-Raja Pertaub Shean, it
follows that the territory of Sattara has lapsed, by failure
of heirs, to the power which bestowed it ; and we desire
that it be annexed to the British dominions."
Now, in that extract they heard of the general law and
custom of India ; they heard that Sattara being a
dependent principality, could not pass to an adopted
heir without the consent of the paramount Power ;
and they heard of the right of the Court of Directors to
take possession of his territory ; but of the obliga-
tions contracted by the Company under the
treaty, they heard no more than if the
India Company had as little concern with

it as the Emperor of Russia. How was that
question dealt with in that minute which was
written • by Mr. Mangle 2„ and to which so
many Directors had pinned their faith ? By an
elaborate attempt to prove that it was the intention of
Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphinstone by the treaty to
place the Raja of Sattara on a footing totally different
from that of all the other states in alliance with the
Company, and to make him a sovereign in some
special sense ; and this they say was proved
conclusively from the dispatches of Lord„ Hastings
and Mr. Elphinstone. Now was it not mar-
vellous that gentlemen who had been search-
ing in those dispatches in order to discover the
animus of the writers, saying as they did that
they had conclusive proof from those dispatches that it
was the intention of Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphin-
stone to make him a dependent Prince and a Sovereign
in their own particular sense, that they should have
overlooked those passages which he had then to
bring under their notice ? In the proclamation that
was made by Mr. Elphinstone to the Mahratta
nation on the 11th of February, 1818, were those
words :

"The Raja of Sattara, who is now a prisoner in
Bajee Row's hands, will be released, and placed at the
head of an independent sovereignty of such an extent as
may maintain the Raja and his family in comfort and
dignity."
And in this letter from Mr. Elphinstone to the Raja,
dated the 13th Sept, 1818, this passage occurred
"The Governor-General will settle the affairs of your
Highness's territories to your satisfaction."
On Sept. 26, 1818, the Governor-General wrote thus
to Mr. Elphinstone :
" The Governor-General has already signified to you
his entire assent to the force of those considerations
which induced you to extend the original objects of the
establishment of the; Raja of Sattara in an independent
sovereignty, and the consequent sxtension of the terri-
tory to be conferred on that Prince."
And on June the 18th of that year Mr. Elphinstone
wrote to Lord Hastings in these terms :
" The Government (of Sattara) ought, however, to be
placed'on the same footing of independence as our other
allies."
And, twenty years afterward, in September, 1839,
Sir James Carnac thus expressed himself :
" We should be accused," he says, (when speaking of
the proposal to subject the Raja to a trial, by a com-
mission of company's servants) " of degrading a sove-
reign from his acknowledged rank, and offering violence
to his feelings and dignity, and of assuming a right of
superiority to which we have no claim. In tact, I know
of no mode by which one state can arraign for trial the
sovereign of another state."
Now, in the first of the extracts they bad a solemn
pledge given by Mr. Elphinstone to the Mahratta
nation that the Raja of Sattara should be placed at
the head of an independent sovereignty. They had,
then, the acknowledgment of Mr. Elphinstone that
the territories out of which that sovereignty was
to be carved were the territories of the Baja
of Sattara. They had, thirdly, the avowal
of Mr. Elphinstone and the Governor--General that
the Raja of Sattara should be placed on the same
independent footing as that of every other indepen-
dent sovereign ; and twenty years afterwards they
had the acknowledgment on the part of Sir James
Carnac that the Raja of Sattara was not only a
Sovereign Prince quoad his subjects, as asserted
in the minute, but that he was a Sove-
reign Prince quoad the British Government,
so far in point of character upon an equality,
that the British Government had no right to assume
any superiority over him. Now, he asked, had
language any meaning ? Could it be permitted, in
the face of that language used by Lord Hastings and
Mr. Elphinstone, in which they avowed their intention
of placing the Raja of Sattara in the position
of an independent Prince, and to male
him a real Sovereign ? Could it be permitted by
any species of special pleading to be made out that
Lord Hastings had no such intention, that he
had a directly contrary intention, and that was
to make the Raja of Sattara a Sovereign sui generis,
a sort of puppet-machine, which he could move at
his pleasure? Don't let it be said, that he (Mr.
Sullivan) was arguing that the Raja of Sattara was
an independent Prince, in the strict sense of the
term. His object was merely to prove that he was
an independent Prince only in the sense that all the
other native Princes in alliance with us were
independent. But, says the minute, " the limitations
placed upon his authority prove that he was placed
upon a different footing." Now, he might
remark, they might place what restrictions they
pleased on a Sovereign Prince without degrad-
ing a Sovereign Prince into the character of a
feudatory. But what were these limitations and re-
strictions which were said to be so unusual, and
which placed the Raja of Sattara upon a different
footing from those other allied Princes ? The first
was, that he was to hold his territories in subordinate
co-operation with the British Government—that
was the case with the Princes of Oude and N agpore;
the second was, that he was to conduct his Govern-
ment in conformity with the wishes of the British
Resident. It was not contended that that was a
singular provision, for it obtained in the case of the
Princes of Oude, Nagpore and Mysore. The third
was, that he was not at liberty at any time either to
increase or diminish his military forces without the
leave of the British Government. That was a
restriction common to all the allied Princes, for
example Oude, Sindiah, Holkar, and Nagpore. The
fourth was to forbear from all intercourse with fo-
reign powers, but he was restricted from all
correspondence on domestic matters. This was
a peculiarly severe restriction, and the breach of
it was followed by an extremely heavy penalty. But the
key to that restriction was to be found in a note
appended to that very minute, which runs thus :
" It will be proper to impress on them (the inhabit-
ants), as well as on the Raja, that it is not intended to
revive, even in name, the empire of Sevajee, but to
create for the Raja a new state, and it is of the utmost
consequencestood that the design should be clearly under-
This was a clear index to that restriction. Both
Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphinstone were apprehen-
sive that the restoration of the Raja of Sat-
tara would lead to the re-integration of the
they negn hadh dependenti m states.
intendeda
pr There hnt
eoecrrede—edlvi
Prince—if
was
different
rhei no
intention Mahratta confederacy, and hence it was that care
was taken to prevent the Raja's having any
intention to degrade the Raja himself below the status
corre-
spondence with neighbstohgnaeir
oth hfa ed cta
oet st
ad
havera Iffa
oßitnia'tjeearn diolrfdi Princes.
from that of other allied powers, they should
have done so in distinct terms. They should
have dealt with him, for example, as they
had recently dealt with Ghoolab Singh.
Well, then, what was the nature of the treaty with
Ghoolab Singh ?
"In consideration of the services rendered by Raja
Ghoolab Singh, of Jummoo, to the Lahore State, towards
the restoration of relations of amity between the Lahore
and British Governments, the Maharaja herchy agrees to
recognise the independent sovereignty of Ruja Ghoolab
Singh in such territories and districts in the hills as may
be made over to the said Raja Ghoolab Singh by sepa-
rate agreement between himself and the British Govern-
ment, with the dependencies thereof, which may have
been in the Raja's possession since the time of the late
Maharaja Riurrunk Singh; and the British Government
in consideratiion of the good conduct of Raja Ghoolab

Singh also agrees to recognise his independence in such
territories, and admit him to the privileges of 13 separate
treaty with the British Government."

" The British Government transfers and makes over,
for ever, in independent possession to Maharaja Ghoolab
Singh, and the heirs male of his body, all the hilly or
mountainous country with its dependencies, situated to
to the eastward of the river Indus, and westward of the
river Ravee, including Chumba and excluding Lahool,
being part of the territory ceded to the British Govern-
ment by the Lahore State, according to the provisions of
the
state 3.
article 4 of the treaty of Lahore—stated March 9, 1846."
—lcsrt
Ghoolab
will
an
bbe i ngi
seenarn
Singh' s thataHistoryr
madeo': l a' ttn/ii e
o independent to ki /s
h Sovereign, of Lahore,
but in relation to the British Government he was
made a dependent Prince. He formally acknow-
ledged the supremacy of the British Government.
See the different terms employed in the two treaties.
To the Raja of Sattara the territory was " ceded in
perpetual sovereignty, and
,to his heirs and successors
generally. To Ghoolab Singh the territory was
ceded not in sovereignty, but in independent possession,
not to his heirs and successors, but to the heirs male
of his body." See the instructions given by Lord
Hastings for the formation of the treaty :—" In any
treaty the dignity of the Raja must be scrupulously
preserved." Would that instruction have bee-
obeyed if the Raja had been reduced to a 19-Jer
status than that of Holkar, Sindiah, the Rsja
vof-z`4!g:ass s T
pore, and the Gnecowa, who had been his I
Now, he asked if this instruction would nay baeen
written if it was intended to roduce tl4 Baja to the
oor
status of Sindia, Holkar, Gwalior, agl). •o!i He
of
the
had been at some pains to dissect mfrsporti
minute, because the writers el
great it had said, with
13
confidence, that it 01 conclusively proved
that it was the intention of Lord Hastings
and Mr. Elphinstone tr place the Raja of Sattara
lower than other princes. They had done this in the
same way as a counsel proved the case of his client,
admitting all the " pros,: and omitting all unpleasant
,4 cons." Now, he believed he had clearly proved

that it was their intention to place him in the position
of all other princes and allies; but not only did the
writers say that they had conclusively proved
this to have been the intention of Lord
Hastings and Mr. Elphinstone, but they went
on to say that the whole question hinged
upon this, and that if it was proved that the
Raja was an independent prince, that the ceding of
his territory to the company was perfectly justifiable.
Now if that was the case all they had to do was,
either to reason him out of his independence,
after the fashion of this minute, or to rob
him of it. He had shown how easy it
was to reason a native prince out of his pos-
sessions, and he would proceed to tell them
how easy it was to rob him of his independence ;
and in doing so he should take the liberty of reading
an extract from a letter which he should call anony-

mous, and if the Gallant Chairman rebuked him, as
his predecessor had done, for reading anonymous
papers, he perhaps might be induced to give the name
of the writer. The writer was describing the way
in which we had dealt with our ancient ally, the
Raja of Travancore.

" If it is asked by what misconduct or by what hos-
tility, either open or concealed, towards the British
Government, the Raja has forfeited his rights as an in-
dependent Prince, it would be difficult to answer the
question. I remember very well the alarm that was felt
in 1788, at Tippoo's growing power, and that the alli-
ance with Travancore was regarded as a fortunate event,
as the possession of that country by Tippoo would have
endangered our southern provinces. This alliance was
frequently renewed, but always on a footing of equality
while Tippoo lived ; but-on the fall of this enemy of both
states, the terror of whose arms had been the first cause of
their alliance, and when the Raja might reasonably have
expected to be relieved from the whole, or at least a part,
of the expense, of being protected against invasion, he
finds himself compelled to make a virtual surrender of
the dominion of his country to his ally."

So long as the Raja of Travancore was a trump
in our hands, we cherished him, and upheld his
independence, treating with him on a footing of
equality, but no sooner had we vanquished the com-
mon enemy than we threw him out of our hand as an
useless card ; robbed him of his independence,
and virtually deprived him of his territory.
Who accused them of want of good faith with an
ancient ally ? Does the letter come from a Radical,
as he believed the left of the Court was called ?
(Loud laughter.) No ! it was written by Sir
Thomas Munro, with his usual magnanimity of
character. He held at the time an official situation,
and wrote in this strain to the Governor-General.
He had shown how easy it was to rob a prince of his
independence. To save his breath and the time of the
court, he would admit that it was the intention of the
treaty to place the Raja on a lower level than other
Indian princes. But was his mouth closed—had he
uoth:_ng more to say—was he put out of court ?
Did his admission that he was an independent prince
void the treaty ? Did that become a dead letter be-
cause it was admitted that he was depen-
dent ? No. The territory of Sattara was ceded by
the treaty to the late Pertaub Singh and his heirs and
successors, without any reference to his status. So far,
therefore, from the question hinging on his status, on his
dependence or independence, how easy it was either
to reason or to rob a
_Prince of his independence,

because the authors of the minute asserted that the

whole question hinged upon the status. If he was
independent, they bad no right to interfere with
him, but if dependent they might interfere to set
aside his adoption. This status had really nothing
to do with it. The territory was ceded to him—
dependent or independent, prince or peasant, bond or
free. The question, therefore, hinged entirely on the
meaning of the treaty. But although you do make
the treaty hinge upon the status of the Raja, you
condescend to bring in the treaty as a makeweight
to your argument. The meaning of the treaty,
you say, is transparent, inasmuch as the letter
admitted that no adoption would be valid unless
approved of by the British Government; and
Sir James Carnac declared that the principality would
lapse unless the British Government should allow it
to be perpetuated by adoption. Now, before he
entered on any reasoning upon the meaning of the
treaty, he would read a canon for the interpretation
of treaties, which was laid down by one who had
made more treaties with native Princes than any indi-
vidual that ever was in India, viz., Sir John Malcolm.
He said we were bound by our obligations and good
faith to interpret our treaties with native princes in
the sense in which we interpreted the treaties to
them, and in accordance with equitable language, or
the language of Sir George Clerk. In what lan-
guage did we interpret this treaty to the Raja of
Sattara? The words of Sir John Malcolm were—
" It belongs to good faith to interpret our treaties
with consideration to the sense in which they are under-
stood by those with whom they are contracted, and with
every indulgence to their lax habits in such points. We
can, I think, have no right, except under the most posi-
tive and clear breach of treaty on their part, to go in
any shape beyond the spirit of our engagements, except
on occasions when the public peace of the country under
our general protection is threatened in a degree that
calls for a change of rule as a matter of positive neces-
sity, in order to preserve the tranquillity of our own
territories and those of others."
He should interpret the treaties in the equitable
language of Sir George Clerk. Let them remember
what Sir George Clerk had said—and no one had had
the boldness to deny, it—that the words used in the
treaty were remarkably explicit and distinct, viz.,
that they bound the British Government to perpetuate
the territory of Sattara in the house of Sevajee.
No one, as he had said, had bad the boldness to im-
pugn the construction put upon the treaty by Sir
George Clerk. He believed that an excel-
lent code of morality might be drawn up out
of the dispatches sent to the Governor of
India from the East India House. As it
was with individuals, so it was with corporations,
there was a great difference between preaching and
practice. There was a wide difference between the
two—the preaching was excellent, but the practice
of the doctrine was most deficient. This was
the case in the instance be had mentioned.
Let us take care that the sword which we see
about to rise does not cut two ways, that it does not
cut in twain the very title upon which we hold our
own territorial possessions. Upon what tenure do we
hold these possessions, but by solemn treaties with
the native powers ? Upon what tenure, for instance,
do we hold our Bengal ceded provinces, but by a
treaty concluded in 1801 with the Nabob Vizier, by
which he ceded those provinces in perpetual sove-
reignty to the East India Company ? Upon what
tenure do we hold the Bengal Doab ?—a treaty
concluded with Madajar Sindiah in 1803, by which
he cedes that province in perpetual sovereignty to the
East India Company. By what tenure do we hold
the provinces of Cuttock, Furrukabad, Bawaub, &c.,
&c., but by treaties by which those provinces are
ceded in perpetual sovereignty to the Company ?
What is the title of the King of Oude to those pro-
vinces which we conquered from the Nepaulese and
transferred to him for a million sterling?—a treaty with
us by :which we ceded them to him, his heirs, and
successors in perpetual sovereignty. What is his title
to all his possessions but a treaty with us, by which
we guaranteed them to his heirs and successors ?
Now let us see what Lord Dalhousie says on the
meaning of heirs and successors :—" The terms heirs
and successors' must be taken in their ordinary sense,
and have the same meaning as in other treaties."
Put, therefore, the same construction upon those
treaties with the King of Oude as you are now put-
ing upon the treaty of Sattara, andlyou come:in as heir
to the Oude dominions, whenever the King may die,
without lineal heirs, and the King of Oude may upon
the same ground reclaim the possessions which he
ceded to the Cosnpany in perpetual sovereignty whe--
ever the East India Company may cease to c•-ish,
for there is, no mention in that tre"Ye of
s ot
" heirs and sv,ccessors" toThe:Company.
a native Prince who would not spurn.sy''.:
per etual
subter-
fuge—that Iwhen they cede territoL2ever.
ft will
sovereignty—they have done with
er
be seen that the .question w4.b
le. descnt interests of
n'dwe were then dis-
cussing affected not only
every native Prince in Inds''.thir own possessions, so
but the every title upon
which the Cnmpany het'
far as that de.pended upon trustees.
But it is *amp to justify this spoliation by
u: examine them. The first is, that
precedents. Le,
the Raja or ~attars dictated the terms upon which
Punt Snake was allowed to adopt. He did so because
the Ilan "
was lord paramount of Sattara, and
Pun t .juab ar washis feudatory. The next was
th,,, the G' aecowar refused to permit Kustra Rao to
H ere again the Gnecowar was ilord para-
mount of the Bandas state, and Kustra Rao his
feudatory. These precedents are, therefore, quite be-
side the qt testion. We next see that the widows of
Sindiah and Holkar had made adoptions
with the concurrence of the British Go-
vernment. But these Princes both died
without h. ring exercised the right that was vested
in them of adopting—they died without heirs ; but
the Raja of Sattara had exercised that right, and
died, km, ing an heir in his adopted son. Those pre-
cedents, herefore, are inapplicable. General Caulfield
has chat enged you, and he repeated the challenge from
an instim ice in which the paramount power has claimed
a right I Ai negative an adoption made by a Sovereign
Prince . He perfectly agreed with the Gallant
Genes a [that Holkar's case was not a fit prece-
dent for us, because we made it a precedent

a gross breach of our treaty with that Prince.
We took advantage of a lapse in the succes-
sion to rob the Sovereign of his right to adopt.
But then it was said that collateral heirs could
not
heirssay could so.
lot succeed to the territories, but the •treaty
succeed,Agai butnitNVatsheurtgreedattyhadtidnonnoet butssy
_m
so. The territory of Sattara was ceded to the Raja,
his heirs and successors. Whoever was Rijah of
Sattara was heir under the treaty. Moreover, this
denial of the right of collateral h • Kra was in the face
of the dictum of Sir James Carnac, who acknow-
ledged that if he was to maintain the treaty of 1819
in its integrity, he had no choice but to place the
next collateral heir upon the throne, namely, the
brother of the late ex-Raja. sTow if that
privilege had lapsed to the Government the
treaty was void. The treaty of 1819 might have
been adhered to in one sense, but if the treaty
of 1819 were taken in all its integrity, they: were
obliged to take the heirs of the former Raja's brother
and place him on the throne, because he was the next
collateral heir and admitted to be such. But the
East India Company said more bait the
lineal heirs were to succeed, and if they carried out
that policy did they think the Princes would ever) want
natural heirs ? No; so far from their avanting then;
spurious heirs would spring up like mushrooms. For
so long as they allowed the practice of adoption and
collateral heirs to succeed, the collateral heirs took
good care to 'check the practice of adoption ; but the
moment they denied the practiee of adoption, the
collateral heirs would join with others to cheat them,
and he sincerely hoped they would cheat them every
time they had an opportunity of doing, so.—(Hear,
and laughter.) He had now, to the best of his re-
collection, examined all the arguments contained in
these dispatches. It would seem to him that the
reasons advanced in favour of the present course of
the East India Company simply begged the whole
question. The question as to whether,the Raja had any
right to adopt, or whether the collateral heirs had any
right to succeed, was begged altogether, and certainly
it was a very easy way of getting over all the
difficulties ; but the law ought to tell them that they had
no right to deal with the matter in that way. It must
be decided by the international law, and he for one
must insist in the first instance that upon no principle """
of law or justice ought they to undertake to deprive this
man of his territory. They had undertaken the task
of amassing judgment in this one case, but be would
take leave to ask whether in a regular civilized coun-
try that was a fair or honest mode of settling their
treaties ? In settling our treaties with the United
States of America did we not refer them to an um-
pire did we not appoint commissioners, before which
both parties were heard, and all the claims were set
forth and fully inquired into ? But, in the present
instance, they were departing from all jus-
tice and precedent, all law and equity,
because in this case they were the lions and the Raja
was the lamb. Now, he felt satisfied they would
blacken the character and reputation of the East
India Company in the eyes of the native Princes and
people of India if they refused to constitute any other
tribunals but themselves, before whom the claims of
all parties could be practically inquired into, and if
just, established. Unless they followed the advice of
Sir G. Clerk and others in that respect, their charac-
ter for political faith would be irretreivably blasted,
and all their treaties with the native Princes of India
would be treated as mere mockeries.—(Cheers.) Pass-
ing from the morale of this question, he would just
take a glance at the policy of it.—(Hear, hear.)
But this was far too important a subject to be pro-
perly discussed at the fag end of a long speech.
Nevertheless there were some :prominent points
which he would just [notice. Let the Court consult
their records, and they would find it to be the opinion
of every one whose opinion was worth having, that in
the present state of our territorial dominions in India
the wanton extinction of a native state is the greatest
political blunder that we can commit. Hear the
emphatic words of Sir John Malcolm., He says:—
"Considering, as I do, from all my experience, that it
is our policy to maintain as long as we possibly can, all
native states now existing, and through them and by
other means to support and maintain native chiefs and
an aristocracy throughout the empire of India, I do
think that every means should be used to avert what I
should consider as one of the greatest calamities, in a
political point of view, that could arise to our empire;
the whole of India becoming subject to our direct rule.
I am decidedly of opinion that the tranquillity, not to
say the security, of our vast Oriental possessions is in-
volved in the preservation of the native principalities
which are dependent upon us for protection. Besides
the other and great benefits which we derive from those
alliances, their co-existence with our rule is of itself a
source of political strength, the value of which will never
be known until it is lost. I am convinced that though
our revenue may increase, the permanence of our power
will be hazarded in proportion as the territories of native
princes and chiefs fall under our direct rule."
Now he begged their attention to the opinion of an-
other equally eminent man. What did Mr. Elphin-
stone say on this part of the subject :
" It appears to me (said Mr. Elphinatone) to be our
interest as well as our duty to use every means to pre-
serve the allied Governments, it is also our interest to
keep up the number of independent powers; their terri-
tories afford a refuge to all those whose habits of war,
intrigue, or depredation, make them incapable of re-
maining quiet in ours (and the contrast of our Govern-
ment has a favourable effect on our own subjects, who,
while they fel the evils they are actually exposed to, are
apt to forget the greater ones from which they have
been delivered). If the existence of independent powers
give occasional employment to our armies, it is far from
being a disadvantage."
And in the life of Sir T. Munro, speaking of the
effect of this policy upon Indian warfare, he says—
" The effect of this state of things is observable in all
the British provinces, whose inhabitants are certainly
the most abject race in India. (No elevation of charac-
ter can be expected among men who in the military line
cannot attain to any rank above that of Subhadar, where
they are as much below an ensign, as an ensign is below
the commander-in-chief, and who in the civil line can
hope for nothing beyond some petty judicial or revenue
office, in which they may by corrupt means make up for
their slender salary.) The consequence, therefore, of
the conquest of India by the British arms would be in
place of raising, to debase the whole people. (There is,
perhaps, no example of any conquest in which the na-
tives have been so completely excluded from all share in
the government of their country as British India.
Among all the disorders of the native states the field is
open for every man to raise himself, and hence there is
among them a spirit of emulation, of restless
enterprise and of independence far preferable to the ser-
vility of our Indian subjects. The existence of inde-
pendent native States is also useful in drawing off the
urbulent and disaffected among our native troops."
But what did the Duke of Wellington say in writing
fifty years ago to this Court. Why, he said—
"ln my opinion, the extension of our territory and
influence has been greater than our means. Besides, we
have 'Aided to the number and description of our ene-
mies by depriving of employment those who heretofore
found it in the service of Tippoo and of the Nisam.
"Wherever we spread ourselves, particularly if we
aggrandize ourselves at the expense of the Alahrattas,
we increase this evil, and throw out of employment and
means of subsistence all who have hitherto managed the
revenue, commanded or served in the armies, or have
plundered the country. These people become additional
enemies at the same time that, by the extension of our
territory, our means of supporting our Government and
of defending ourselves are proportionally decreased."
There with his usual penetration the Gallant Duke
pointed out the evils that were likely to result from
the extinctions of these native states, namely, the
beggary of the natives, and their consequent
hostility—extinctions that were brought about
simply for the sake of procuring employment
for Europeans at the expense of the natives.
It was such a policy that had brought about the
revolution they had recently witnessed in many
parts of India, for in many of our Indian provinces
labour, which was formerly distributed amongst 20
and 40 natives, at salaries varying from 100 to 300
rupees, was now monopolised by two Europeans at an
expense of between 2,000 and 3,000 rupees. And of
what nature w
di the distress which this system
by en-
gendered it India ? Why, extract from one of
an
the dispatches of Mr. Frere, a sad feature was given of
the distress resulting from their conquests impoverish-
lag 4.1 e natives for the sake of. affording employment
to Europeans.
Mr. Frere said—
"lt is right I should inform the Government that
a se as to the
very great anxiety exists fouonbut l g
that I hear
it has
future, and no act is so trifling
been interpreted in various ways, favourable or unfa-
vourable to the continuance of the State, according to
the hopes or fears of the party. Government will
not be surprised at this when it is consi-
dered that the bread of almost every one in or
about the city depends, more or less, on the decision,.
Besides, the holders of Jagheers, Enoms, &c., who
may feel more or less secure, according to the tenure on
which they hold their possessions, there are at least
10,000 individuals directly supported by salaries from
the Court, and most of them have probably many persons
dependent upon them for subsistence. On the expendi-
ture of such Government servants mainly depends the
trade of the city; and there are few of the cultivating
classes, even throughout the territory, to whom the ex-
tinction of the dynasty of 14,erojee would be matter of
indifference."
And how was this national distress treated in the
minutes of a member of a Supreme Court of India?—
" We are not to regard the advantages which a few
courtiers and shopkeepers would lose by the dispropor-
tionate local expenditure?'
And how was it treated by Mr. Mallet,
another member of the Supreme urt;
And now, Sir, after all, what would the Court
chfirst
Proprietors say to the cold-blooded ,
lthat it waswbi
of all created the evil and then complained
unavoidable ? Did not the security of the Indian
empire depend upon these treaties ? Certainly it did;
and with a former Governor-General he warned the
East India Company not to extinguish native states
in this way for the sake of plunder.—(Hear, hear.)
They had heard the voices of the political gie.nts
warnin g. them of the danger of the policy they were
would now direct their attention to the
pursuing, and he
comparison which was presented to those -accounts in
the statements of those whom he would, ;tail pigmies.