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

setting an example and supporting the honour and dig
nity of the British name, have committed this act of
spoliation from nothing but downright greed to their
territories. My Right lion. Friend (Sir J. Hobhouse)
will allow me to say that I consider it one of the most
extraordinary parts of this proceeding, that in England,
which claims to act nobly and manfully on all occasions,
the Government, in depriving the Rsja and his heirs of
those rights which he enjoyed by solemn
treaty, should never have dared to mention
their opinion with reference to the statements of Mr.
Elphinstone, the officer who, under the direction of
Lord Hastings, completed and concluded the treaty. I
have in my hand, Sir, a copy of the correspondence
which has passed between me and Mr. Elphinstone. I
thought it right, when I first heard of this attempt at
spoliation—this dispossessing the heirs of the Raja of
the territory that belonged to them, and this setting
aside the treaty—to write to him to know whether he
had been consulted upon the subject. I asked him two
questions, first, whether his opinion and interpretation
of the treaty of September, 1819, had been asked; and,
secondly, whether ho had given an opinion that the
treaty and state had lapsed, and that the lineal and
the adopted heir had no just claim ? He answers
me in the following terms : "I have just
had the pleasure of receiving your letter of yesterday,
and have no difficulty in answering your two questions.
No question has been put to me by the Board of Direc-
tors on the interpretation of the treaty of 1819 with Sat-
tarn, and I have never given my opinion that the treaty
has lapsed, and that the lineal Or adopted heirs have no
just cl dm." This, Sir. was the first letter. I afterwards ad-
dressed him to know whether he considered that the treaty
which was negotiated in 1819 settled the territory upon
the Raja and his heirs and successors in perpetuity? His
answer to that is, " The terms employed, perpetual sove-
reignty' and heirs and successors,' are of constant use
in our Indian treaties, and wore meant to bear
the same sense in this treaty that they do in all others."
He gives no opinion as to the adoption, but he says I
am at perfect liberty to make use ot this correspondence
if I think fit. He gives no opinion upon the adoption,
because he says that the words used are so clear and dis-
tinct that the same words are used in all treaties, and are
also now applied to the heirs and successors of indepen-
dent men. I wish, Sir, having thus disposed of the Rajaof Sattara, to state in what view I look upon the violation
which has taken place. I do consider it a matter of the
deepest importance that the East India Company should not
commence any interference with the religious ceremonies
of the Hindous, or with those things which these people
consider essential to their religion.—(Hear.) We have
an instance in point in the case of Ceylon. It will come
out by-and-bye, that by our interfering with the reli-
gious ceremonies of the Buddhists in that island, la-
mentable results have followed—loss of life and loss of
character to this country, and all the other consequences
which follow from these. I therefore, Sir, deprecate the
course which has begun in India, because if there is one
thing more than another of which I approve of in the
East India Company it is this—that they have until now
maintained, from first to last, the pledge they gave
that they would not interfere with the re-
ligious ceremonies of the natives.—(Hear, hear.)
Why, what were the instructions to Captain Grant on
the very poiat? Why, in Mr. Elphinstone's instructions
to Captain Grant, the Political Resident at Sattara,
dated the Bth April, 1818, there are these words:—"For
the second object it is necessary to show the utmost con-
sideration for the customs and prejudices of the people.
No innovations ought to be attempted unless to remedy
great abuse, or to meet the wishes of the people. Capital
punishment of Brahmins must be avoided, and every-
thing likely to render the Baja's government odious to
those of his own religion carefully abstained from. Cattle
on no account to be killed at Sattara. All lands allotted
to charitable and religious purposes must be continued,
and the titles ought not for the present to be strictly
examined. Justice is to be administered according to
the forms established in the country, with such modifi
cations as you may think essential to the attainment of
the end in view. Where they are not clearly repugnant to
reason and justice the laws and customs of
the country must be implicitly conformed to.
Further, Mr. Elphinstone adds in a letter
to the Governor. General, dated the 18th of June,
1818.— Next to maintaining such a force as shall pre-
vent all thoughts of rebellion, the best means of secur-
ing the tranquility of the conquered country is to con-
ciliate the people—the Mahrattas by setting up the
Raja of Sattara, and by liberality to the Jagoerdars; the
Brahmins by keeping up their pensions and religious
institutions; both castes by finding employment for the
civil and military servants of the former princes; and
all by just and good government. It is, however, to
be remembered, that even just government will not be a
blessing, if at variance with the habits and character of
the nation." So far, then, I say, we are bound to
maintain and respect what are considered the religious
ceremonies. One of them is noticed in a most
important particular, and alluded to in the pro-
clamation issued on the sth September, 1839, in
these words:—"All wuttum and enam (hereditary lauds),
wursha shuns (annual stipends), and all religious charit-
able establishments will be protected, and all religious
sects will be tolerated, and their customs maintained.
The British Government, however, having no views of ad-
vantage and aggrandizement;" thus continuing to the
Raja, his heirs. and successors, all the rights which were
by treaty or by custom conceded to him. Now, it is to
me a matter of some satisfaction that I am not advo-
cating this question singlehanded—that lam not bring-
ing this forward as a question taken up by me alone, fur
I find amongst the dissents names of the highest
respectability; and I mention this merely in order
to put in a claim for an early discussion of the
matter in the ensuing session of Parliament,
and I am merely now putting Government
in possession of some of the grounds which I shall then
stare in the face ot the world against the gross injustice
which has been perpetrated by the East India Company.
I wish only to state now that in bringing forward this
motion, and in thus appealing to the public, that I do it
in accui dance with the wish and according to the dis-
sents entered by some of the ablest and most honour-
able directors. To my surpi be there has Leen laid on
the table a certificate in a minute signed by an lion.
Member of this House and 80 other of the directors,
stating that there are no collateral heirs to this property
aud consequently it had lapsed to the Company, the Court
of Directors bad assumed the property. Sir, to me it
is
most surprising that these directors should say this in
the lace of the papers which I have before me, and in
which Mr. Freese points out in the clearest manner that
there were heirs to the extent of 30 families. This is
asserted by the local resident, who was at Sattara at the
time the late Raja died. He declares there is at present,
as I am aware, no claimant to the heirship of the late
Raja. But why ? Simply because the principle of
adoption, which has been in practice for the last 200
years, has been acted upon, and therefore, so far as re-
gards heirs, the adopted son succeeds to the dying man,
and all the collateral heirs are set aside by the adoption,
and the adopted child comes in just as if he had been
the Raja's own son, setting aside all other heirs; 'but,
says Mr. Freere, there were many who might have
asserted their claim bad .an adoption taken place, and
who may possibly assert it now, should the adoption be
proved invalid at any time in a court ot law. If, there-
fore, the adoption should be set aside, any of them will
be able to establish a good claim in a court of
justice to the property of the Baja against the
British Government in their character of heirs by
eacheat. It was only in the character of esoheators that
the British Government could claim the property, while
the reason the higher claims haie not been put forward
is simply that the question of adoption has not yet been
settled. It has not yet been proved, as far as I am
aware, but, flailing that proof, this gentleman urges in
the strongest manner that the practice and right of
adoption has existed for upwards of 200 years, and all
he says upon that is this, that you refuse the
principle or right of adoption. He happens
to know that there are those in existence
who are heirs at law ready to establish their claims in a
court of justice. It is upon that ground, and that
ground alone that I have taken up this question. It
was my intention to have submitted it to the House in
the fullest possible manner. Indeed lam ready with all
the papers to do so now, but in the present state of
the House, I think I shall best consult the interests of
religious liberty—and I think any interference of this
sort with the religion of the Hindo'ls is an interference
with religious freedom—by postponing the details of the
case till next session.—(Hear, hear.) There are some
men so regardless of the truth that they will assert
anything. Hers is what one of the directors says upon
the subject. Mr. Tucker, one of the most experienced
of all the directors in the affairs of India—l will repeat
it in the face of any of them—and what does
he say of the treaty made by Mr. Elphinstone?
Why, he says—" These terms convey distinctly
the right of hereditary succession to a sovereignty ;"
and he goes on to say, observing upon the
words of other treaties, that "even those who
are most forward in advocating the policy of resumption,
are compelled to admit, that if the late Appa Sahib bad
left lineal issue, there could have been no doubt or ques-
tion with respect to the right of succession. I find the
same terms, heirs and successors,' introduced into
other treaties with native states, and I cannot imagine
any terms more precise or comprehensive." Therefore,
the resolution of the Court for the resumption of the
territory is a violation of all law and justice.—(Hear,
hear.) And Mr. Sheppard, another director, who is
certainly not second in point of knowledge to any man
upon Indian affairs, takes the same view of the matter.
He says—" First, I consider the resumption of the
State of Sattara at variance with the spirit
and letter of the treaty of the 25th of September,
1819, which was ratified by the East India Company."
Again, he says the perpetual sovereignty has not been
forfeited. The first Raja, I admit, may have forfeited the
sovereignty—l will give the Court that advantage—but
if the treaty was intended to be perpetual the
sovereignty is not forfeited. "If," says Mr. Sheppard,
" Mr. Elphinstone's letter to Lord Hastings of the 18th
June, 1818, were most effectually accomplished by the
treaty iu question. That it was a sovereignty in reality,
and not merely in name. If then the treaty was
intended to be perpetual, and if the
.sovereignty has not
been forfeited by the last Raj t through any breach of
the said treaty, can we with. justice resume the territory
on the ground of the failure of lineal heirs?" The
word heirs, Mr. Sheppard contends, and I contend,
means heirs generally, and yet, on the face of all this,
the Court have passed a resolution annexing the terri-
tory, and I believe the papers of this day, and
which have come by the last mail, an-
nounce that the proclamation has been made—a
proclamation which will ever stand against the character
of the East India Company for honesty, which formerly
I was ready to concede to them. They have, how-
ever, departed from an honourable course of proceeding,
and now they act like the barbarians of the north, upon
the principle of might against right, and take posses-
sion of that which is not their own, but which has been
transferred and guaranteed to others.—(Hear.) I find
Major Oliphant, General Caulfield, and Sir H. Willock,
all protest against the act as a gross robbery and spolia-
tion; and they enjoin together, in hoPiniti** j de, that