The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-01 00:00:00

violated, and that their own just rights were
not circumscribed or altogether set aside.—(Hear,
bear.) There could be no doubt that to that
extent their sanction was required and ought to be
enforced. It had been stated, and no doubt very
justly, that in cases of private adoption a notice from
the Raja was required. But Sir Henry Cole-
brook considered that the adoption was proved,
and his opinion was in strict accordance with
the universal practice at Bengal. He (Mr.
Mackenzie) was familiar with thousands of
instances in which estates had been carried from
one to another by adoption, while he was not aware
of any one case in which a court of law in India had
decided that the adoption must fail in consequence of
a proper notice not having been given of the person
adopted. It was highly important to recollect, when
they spoke of the sanction of the Government being
required, that they meant such a sanction and recog-
nition as was necessary to avoid disputes, and to
maintain the peace and tranquillity of the country.
—(Hear, hear.) In the case of Holkar, Lord Auck-
land, in a letter dated 30th August, 1841, lamenting
the illness of farce Row, urged upon him the duty
of providing for the future disposal of his affairs,
especially in: a prince upon whom thousands of
pounds depended, and advised him to exercise
prudence and foresight in selecting one who, in case
of his demise without issue, might succeed to his
property. That led to the adoption of Kundee Row,
the son of Bspojee Holkar, and accordingly that s
did succeed. Therelwas: also the case of Sindiah, in
which the adoption by Byze B}aaw was recognised, the
only question being whether the adoption was made
in accordance with the laws and rites of the country,
and with the concurrence of the chiefs. The sole
objection in sanctioning the adoption was the peace
and tranquillity of the country, and the idea of doing
so for their own benefit never entered into the minds
of those who administered under the Governor General.
Sir Charles Stirling, whose opinions were entitled to
very great respect, not only for his perfect knowledge
of the Hin 100 language, and for his anxiety to pro-
mote the public service, but for the benefit he derived
from being in constant communication with Sir
Charles Napier, hal entered into a fall discussion of
the relations between the Supreme Government and
the states, but never dreamt for a moment of sanc-
tioning such a view, which said that the rights of
others should he withheld because they wished
to put money into their own pockets.—(Hear, hear.)
There were many other cases to which he might call
the attention of the Court, but he thought he need
hardly go over them. He would, however,
mention the case of the Raja of Nagpore.
There was a most valuable report on that suhjeat
published in 1827, by Sir Richard Jenkins, which
was full of valuable information and research, and
in that work Sir Richard Jenkins laid it
down most decidedly that the Raja was hereditary in
the male line, but that it might be changed by adop-
tion by the ruling Prince. In that report Sir R.
Jenkins went on to say that if there was no heir male,
and there was no adoption by the Raja, the prin-
cipal widow might adopt. In that case the Raja
was the adopted heir of the former Raja ; ha
having no son he adopted a distant relation of the
family. In that case the Raja had no army of
his own, and the treaty proposed by Sir
Be Jenkins was more stringent in that
case than in that of Sattara. He was not allowed
any military force, and he was, in fact, to be a sort of
partner with the Raja, because he was only to enjoy a
part of its revenues. Sir R. Jenkins therefore decided
that the Raja was hereditary in the male line, and
that not only might the Raja adopt, but
that his principal widow might do so
also; but not a single word was said
regarding the escheat, with power of claim on the
part of this country. Sir R. Jenkins said that in the
case of Nagpore the Raja had no son, and therefore the
question, if adopted, would recur, but he never
dreamt that, subordinate as that Raja was, utterly
without claim as he was to the sovereignty of an
independent state, that the British Government
had the title to escheat if there was
a legal heir. Now this, :in his opinion, was one
objection, and a great and valid one too, to
the course putrsued by the Court, and the orders that
it had made upon the subject, because the
principle laid down in those orders would
not only apply to Sattara, but to all
Indian Chiefs, because:they all held their ter-
ritories on the same ground. If the orders
that had been issued by that Court were to
be adhered to, these Rajas, as far as their
sovereign power was concerned, were to be at the will
of that Court ; and he believed that it would excite
one universal shoat of surprise in Sattara if that Court
was to say their independence was on its will. All
authorities condemned such power as un-
English, unjust, and impolitic.—(Hear) Mr. Tod,
in his excellent work, and a better authority
he believed could not be found ; for his own part
he believed every word of his book, and con-
sidered it an authority of the highest descrip-
tion. Mr. Tod said that the hereditary prin-
ciple was unalterable, but that adoption preserved
honours and titles, and that neither Raja nor great
feudatories ever lived without heirs, but that smaller
ones did. Then there was the case of the Ragpootara;
there the right of adoption was admitted and acted
upon. Then with respect to Colaba, there the
treaty of August, 1822 expressly reserved
the entire supremacy and right of conferring inves-
titure. There the adoption was by a widow of
Raghopi, the predecessor of Kanoope, whose de-
cease made the vacancy in the Musnud.
Then in the case of Mundwee there adop-
tion similarly occurred by the widow of the
Prince preceding him, whose death made the vacancy.
Then there was the case of Kotah—the right to adopt
was admitted. Then in the case of Dorregapoore and
Pertaub Shean, there Pertaub Shean became entitled
to the principality of Dorregapoore by adoption of the
Reward. The chief objection to the union of the two
states—he adopted a boy to occupy gaddee of Dorre-
gapoore, he continuing Regent during his minority.
On the question of second adoption, Col. Satherland
said he did not understand by what process a Rajpoot
principality, with which they were only connected by
treaty, could'become an escheat to the British Govern-
ment, since there must always be collaterals or adop-
tions, and the Governor-General, in reply, stated there
would be no objection to the second adoption in the
event of the death of the adopted son, so little did he
think the East India Company were entilted to the
power they had secured. Then, in the case of Kishen-
gark, there was the adoption of the widow with
the consent of the chief recognised as voted by
legal custom, and in that case it was decided that in
such a case the British Government were bound to
recognise such succession without raising the question
of Wazzeorra. Now, with respect to the present
case he thought that instead of the case of Sattara
being weaker than the cases he had reverted to, was
much stronger. It was, in his opinion, of high
political importance that the natives of India should
know that the best tenure they possessed was British
justice. He would not now go into the question
the Chairman started yesterday ; but he
would say this, that he should be sorry
to see a vote carried in that Court which would have
the effect of putting in jeopardy the rights and cus-
toms of the people of India.—(Hear, hear.) As
every honest Englishman regarded that Court, acting
under Parliament as de facto for the time the rulers
of India, and every statesman would hold
England bound for its acts as the acts of
the Crown. But the treaty which had
been entered into gave the Raja a better
title than any other, and it was not the mere ques-
tion that he was deposed by that Court that
would affect his right. It might be said that
the family of Sevajee was not of antiquity,
he believed that the Sevajee race was more
antiquated than was supposed ; but admitting
it not to be of antiquity, it was to be remembered
that the Mahratta race existed long before Sevajee,
and that his power depended, not upon what hap-
pened subsequent to him, but that which was
long before him. It W 33 a great mistake to
suppose that the Raja of Sattara gave
no consideration for the treaty, and that he was of
no importance ; when the treaty was made he was
considered to be a person of the highest importance
and the fact of his joining this country was looked
upon as most important for the future peace of the
country. Mi. Prinseps spoke of the Raja as the
greatest prize of the day to get possession of. Sir
James Monro, who had been so long in India,
considered that the family of.Sevajee had such a hold
upon the people, that he suggested to Mr. Elphin-
stone whether the Company should not get itself
pasted to the Sattara territory. Sir James
Itlonro attached the highest importance, as well as
Lord Hastings, in getting the Raja to the British
-Government, and to become dependent a tpartof upontle
it, if they
pleased, in fact to become British
empire, and it was an important circumstance
separated
e
to consider that in doing so se
he
himself from all the hostile spirits that pervaded
country. They might therefore as well be justified in
e
considering the state of Sattara as part of
the dominions of the country, and setting its Raja
aside, as they might consider the House of Han-
over as a dekendent upon the country and set it aside.
The Raja di possess, as it was evident from the cor-
respondence, a very great influence over the public
mind. It was of great importance that he should
separate himself from the hostile part of the Mahratta
nation. Now, they might take his territory from him,
and deny his title, bat in the minds of the Hindoo
people
the family of Sevajee would still remain.
The people of India were abundantly tenacious in
matters of rightful tenure, even where the title to a
llireloo village was only concerned ; therefore it would
be a great pity to suppose that he had not. power,
wleen he had not authority with him. He had that
which constituted the best
_power of a Sovereign,
namely, a strong hold over the minds of great mul-
titudes of people. They might as well say that