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

BILL

On the motion of the SOLICITOR GENERAL for
the consideration of the Lords' amendments on this Bill,
for suspending its operation from the end of the present
session to the Ist of June next,

Mr. TENNENT objected to the motion, on the ground
of the apprehension which the suspension would occasion
to the tenants of land in the district of country with
which he was connected that it would disturb their title.
Mr. HUME asked what would be the effect of the
suspension?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was just as if
a clause had been introduced into the Bill for suspending
its operation from the end of the present session until
the Ist of June next.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. Roebuck,
Mr. Stuart, the Solicitor •General, and Mr. Teunent,
took part, the amendment of Mr. Tennent was negatived
without a division, and the Lords' amendments agreed to.
ANNEXATION OF THE SATTARA TERRITORY.
Mr. HUMS rose and said—l have to present a peti-
tion from proprietors of East India stock, stating that
they have an interest in the welfare of the British Em-
pire in India; that orders have been issued by the East
India Company, and have received the sanction of the
Board of Control, to deprive the heirs of the Raja of
Sattara of the territory which belonged to him; and that
these orders have been sent out for the purpose of being
carried into effect; that this proceeding is opposed to
every principle of justice and honour, and is calculated
to destroy the confidence of the native princes in India
in the treaties which have been solemnly granted to
them by the East India Company; and they, therefore,
pray that this House will interfere to prevent these order a
being carried out. I have, Sir, another petition from
Rungo Bapojee, Vakeel of the late Raja, relating to the
same act of injustice, and praying that the House will
rnii tosnt
soliut t e
thane
territory,
inquiry
give to
su thche
reseizuredres e s
to
d t
haen a-
Heirs
d ecessora of the Raja as it might in honour and jus-
tice think best.

. --
The petitions were received and ordered to lie upon
the table.

Mr. HUME moved " That it appears from the papers
laid before this House, that, by the law and usage of
India, as recognised by the British Government, and
distinctly expressed in a minute of Sir Charles Metcalfe,
Lieutenant-Governor of the North Western Provinces
of India, and dated the 28th day of October, 1887, that
Hindoo Princes, in failure of heirs male of their body,
have a right to adopt, to the exclusion of collateral heirs,
and of any supposed reversionary right of the paramount
power; and that the British Government is bound to ac-

knowledge the adoption, provided that it be regular and
not in violation of Hindoo law. That the East India
Company, by a: treaty concluded on the the 24th day
of September, 1819, ceded the territory of Sattara
to the Raja of Sattara, his heirs and successors, in per-
petual sovereignty, which treaty was confirmed on the
4th day of September, 1839, when his brother and suc-
cessor was raised to the throne. That both the Rajas
died, leaving heirs by adoption, heirs by
blood, and collateral heirs. That the East India Com-
pany nevertheless (without giving an opportunity to
any claimants of stating their claims) have set aside the
Hindoo law of succession, and have ordered the Sattara
territory to be annexed to the British dominions, on
the plea that it has lapsed by failure of heirs. That
such a proceeding being in violation of national faith,
and against the recognised rights of all the sovereign
princes of India, it is the opinion of this House that the
orders for annexing the Sattara territory should be
suspended until those members of the family who have
the right to claim to be heirs to the throne
have been heard, and their rights determined."
He said—The question, Sir, of which I have given notice
is more connected with religious liberty than perhaps
any question which has lately been brought under the
attention of Parliament. The country and the House
will see how difficult it is for any Member,
under the rules of the House, to bring any subject with
reference to this country under consideration. On the
Ist of March last I moved that certain papers, which
might have been printed in twenty-four hours, should
be laid before the House, detailing the robbery which I
am now about to show is opposed to the principle of re-
ligious liberty. These papers were ordered, but up to
this hour, Sir, you are aware wo have not succeeded in
getting them, although all duo diligence has been used
by us for this purpose. I feel Myself, Sir, under this
disadvantage in addressing the House—l shall neither
have an audience to hear what I am going to say,
nor an opportunity, which I might have under
ordinary circumstances, of explaining properly
the grounds on which I make this appeal. I
therefore, Sir, on the present occasion will content
myself by stating the broad, general grounds, upon
which I enter my protest against that downright robbery
—for such I do not hesitate to term it—which has bean
perpetrated by the East India Company, in the face of
the claimants to this territory. The President of the
Board of Control has again and again declared that
whatever was done with regard to the principality due
attention should be paid to the claims of the heirs to
the property of the late Raja.—(Hear, hear.) That
forms, Sir, another reason for ray bringing this matter
again before the House; and knowing of how much use
and value the East India Company has been, and may
be still, I am anxious to protect them from being
denominated spoliators and robbers—a character to
which they will be eh titled if tho orders that
originatedjwith the directors, and were sanctioned by the
Board of Control, are allowed to be carried out. It is a
matter of great regret to me, r, that I should be
4 obliged to say that the E ost II Company, instead of

Isetting an example and supporting the honour and dig-
nity of the British name, have committed this act of
spoliation tr, m noth;nrs hie doe-erifshs greed to their
' te,rtiioi ii s. Ili) itig..i 1; oi.. I ..eii,t (Sir o. ilobhotis,-)
will allow me to say that I consider it one of the most
extraordizlary parts of this proceeding, that in England,
which claims to act nobly and manfully on all occasions,
the Government, in depriving the Reja 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 he had given an opinion that the
treaty and state had lapsed, and that the lineal and
the adopted heir had no just claim ? lie 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-
tare, and I have never given my opinion that the treaty
has lapsed, and that the lineal or adopted heirs have no
just claim." 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 were 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 of 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 Raja
of Setters, 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 interfei ence with the religious ceremonies
of the Hindoos, 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 a hich 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 I
that they would not interfere with the re- 1
ligious ceremonies of the natives.—(Hear, hear.)
Why, what were the instructions to Captain Grant on 1
the very point? Why, in Mr. Elphinstone's instructions 1
to Captain Grant, the Political Resident at Sattara, '
dated the Bth April, 1818, there are these words :—" For 1
the second object it is necessary to show the utmost con-
sideration for the customs and prejudices of the people. I
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 Raja'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 olght 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. 1
reason and justice the laws and customs of
the country must be implicitly conformed to. I
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 religions 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 I am not bring-
ing this forward as a question taken up by me alone, for
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 Parliamant,
and I am merely now putting Government
in possession of some of the grounds which I shall then
state in the face of 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 accordance with the wish and according to the dis-
sents entered by some of the ablest and most honour-
able directors. To my surprise there has been laid on
the table a certificate in a minute signed by an Hon.
Member of this House and 80 other of the directors,
stating that there are no collateral heirs to this property
and consequently it had lapsed to the Company, the Court
of Directors had assumed the property. Sir, to me it is
most surprising that these directors should say this in
the face of the papers which I have before me, and in
which Mr. Freere 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 Setters 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 be 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 had .an adoption taken place, and
who may possibly assert it now, should the adoption be
proved invalid at any time in a court of 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 Raja against the
British Government in their character of heirs by
escheat. It was only in the character of escheators that
the British Government could claim the property, while
the reason the higher claims have 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, failing 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 I am 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 Hindoes 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. Hero 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, ho 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 had
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. Elphbastone's letter to Lord Hastings of the 18th
June, ]BlB, were most effectually accomplished by the
treaty in question. That it was a sovereignty in reality,
and not merely in name.
.It then the treaty was
intended to be perpetual, and I.f. the :sovereignty has not
been forfeited by the last Baja through any breach of
the said treaty, can w© 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 all join together, in hoping, as I do, that

success will not attend it, and with me they think that those
who have taken this gross end extraordinary proceeding,
are setins nysst imn-F•ie2.llv.—(Hear, hoar.) S;r,
t. ouai t (-wind the 01 whit is recorded in the
Statute Book upon this very sulject. One Act of Par-
liament prohibits, in the strongest manner, the acts and
preaeedings which lam now protesting against. In the
21st Geo. 111., cap. 70, sec. 18, for instarce, which grants
a charter from the Crown to the East India Company,
it is provided that, "in order that regard should be had
to the civil and religious usages of the said natives, be it
enacted, that the rights and authorities of fathers
of families, and mothers of families, according as
the same might have been Exercised by the
Gentu (1. e. Hindoo), or Mahommedan law, shall
be preserved to them respectively within their said fa-
milies;irtfahaunmelrule
families
sdenTolomnahrwlet
,o,h,fnaabocgl
elatasibahtneen:, ylhbd
ey al datc
and
sci respecting
adjudged
et
h i
en
mc
eoamn scbereqirmus cofael
thetho fo
sutaghi
hde
eus3ti3fidabGleeob.yltlhLe, lcaawps. osf2—En4g2;
it is provided, " And, forasmuch as to pursue
schemes of conquest and extension of dominion
in India are measures repugnant to the wish
the honour, and policy of this nation," &c.,
&c. A greater violation of an Act of Parliament, or a
greater act of injustice, I say, there could not
have been committed than that which is now
being perpetrated by my Lord Dalhousie. I
extremely regret that this policy has been adopted,
because it will make every native prince in India feel
himself in a situation that he will some day see his
pftuaonrmoibvpieleeyrsr.se_t
ayi
(eal uedns
rda
getanesedroroefi
fotlonnrifi,d,
sei
cHas a
etvheniadorsl al
conferredti
hek dee
a,
the
h. and h ,
e,)c
ntlufitpasoteininas
thimoiwhichoovnn moving
those
the
toibchsl
which
grounds,
ra
os actuallyund s,
Srtaken
tb
at apctrheoitisne
myselftsitthe
wec,
againstati shn e
tohfteh
simplytehpa riese unfortunateepresent
proceedings;
stat e
of
the House, to enter into details to prove the case I have
obpuetnaesd lI am ncaobnl et
eantt
resolution which I have placed upon the paper; the
House will of course dispose of it as it may please, but I
must at the same time be allowed to state that at an
early period next session, if I am alive and well, I shall
bring this matter forward, if I cannot in the mean-
time shame the spoliators into a sense of pro-
priety.—(Loud laughter.) I see cne of them
before me. He is a spoliator—he is a robber.—(A
laugh.) He and his brother directors have sacrificed
religious freedom, which they ought to have held sacred,
for what ? Why, for the sake of a paltry annexation of
property, amounting to 120,0001. a year. Here is the
great East India Company, possessing a revenue amount-
ing to 20,000,0001. per annum. What has lapsed to
them sinoe the war I cannot tell; but previous to
it the income arising from their dominions
amounted to 20,000,0001. a year, and yet, Sir,
like the large rich man, they envy the poor indivi-
dual possessing a mere trifle of territory compared with
their own, and they sieze upon his lands while they are
revelling in the affluence of their own immense territo-
ries.—(Hear, hear.) With these observations I feel
that I have done my duty for the present with
this unfortunate Sattara family, and in now tak-
ing leave of the subject for a brief while,
give me leave to say that the only ground upon
which I have made this appeal to empty benches is to
secure for them an opportunity of having their case
fully considered at the earliest possible period next ses-
sion, and in now resuming my seat I have only to move
the resolutions I have already brought forward.—(Cheers.)
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE—Mr. Speaker, I think, Sir,
and have a right to say, that those who entertain an
opposite opinion to that entertained by my Honourable
Friend, and those who think with him, have some right
to complain of the way in which he has spoken of the
conduct which the Government have felt it its duty to
assume upon this matter—(Hear, hear)—for the act of
annexation, of which my Honourable Friend complains,
was ordered by the Court of Directors, confirmed by
the proprietors of East India Stock, and approved of by
the Board of Control. I have not the least doubt that it
was within the knowledge of my Honourable Friend,
and those who with him take an interest in this matter,
that such an order as the one to which he refers
had gone out ; and if anything effectual is
to be dome—(" Hear, hear," from Sir J. W. Hogg)—by
proceedings of this kind, if the annexation was to be
prevented by any intermediate act at home, surely it
was the duty of my Hon. Friend, on the day Parlia-
ment met, on the Ist of February, in accordance with
the notice he had given, that be should call the atten-
tion of the House to this deed on the part of the East
India Company; surely it was his duty to have brought
on this motion in order that no time might have been
lost in counteracting this act on the part of the East
India Company. The Hon. Gentleman did not, how-
ever, do so, and on one occasion I was here in my place
ready to listen to the statements he might feel disposed
to make—(" Hear, hear," from Sir J. W. Hogg)—to
give any explanation of this question ; and on
another occasion I thought the matter was coming
on, and though it did not, it was neither my fault nor the
fault of the House. Sir, as my Hon. Friend has not, on
this occasion, entered into a consideration of the whole
of the questions that have been raised in this matter, I
shall not think it necessary to occupy so much of the
time of the House as I otherwise should have been com-
pelled to do, but I cannot avoid noticing one or two of
the observations of my Hon. Friend, which are so little
founded in fact, and have so little of justice in
them, that I am surprised a gentleman, so well
acquainted with Indian affairs, and who has paid such
great attention to this affair, could have fallen into the
errors he has. My Hon. Friend, to my great surprise,
stated that what has been done is an interference with
religious liberty.—(Hear, hear.) I thought at the time
that he was alluding to some debate in the former part
of the session—something about the Test Act—but my
Honourable Friend went on to explain thut
the violation of religious liberty of which
he complained was, preventing a Hindoo
from adopting a son and creating him heir to his sove-
reignty.—(Hear, hear.) This was the religious liberty
which he says we have infringed. Now, since the dis-
cussion of this matter has taken place in Parliament, one
of the strangest notions has got abroad, and one which I
never heard advanced with respect to any other case—
namely, that there is no such thing as a permanent state,
that the British Crown has not succeeded to that ter-
ritory, which it is said has been crushed, and that even
if the British Crown had been a paramount power in
respect to these Indian territories, that the persons placed
at the head of them may create heirs to succeed them in
the sovereignty in the same way, and with the same
legality as persons are created heirs to property. Now,
I never heard that argument
,used until this matter was
discussed ; and I perfectly well recollect my Hon.
Friend, attended by a great number of gentlemen, coming
as a deputation to the Board of Control last year upon
this matter, but not one of them advanced that point,
not a single man of them. My Hon. Friend did not do
so; neither did any of the gentlemen present. A gentle-
man was there who, it appears, had taken up that view.
That argument is now advanced in this House by my
Hon. Friend, indeed it was the main thing upon which
the whole of his argument hinged. Why, Sir, I have
here quotation after quotation, from some of the best
authorities whom we can consult ; but as my Hon.
Friend has abstained from reading those authorities,
and considering, also the late period of the session, and
the condition of the House—(Hear, hear)—it would be
unpardonable if I did not follow so worthy au example;
but when my Honourable Friend appealed to Mr.
Elphinstone, he had, I must say, the candour
to state what deprived him of that gentleman's au-
thority, namely, that he gave no opinion with
respect to the right of adoption, but that he
wishes his hon. correspondent to infer from the former
part of his letter what his opinion is. My Hon. Friend
evidently wishes the House to infer from the part of
the letter which ho read that the adoption was as good
and valid with respect to a sovereignty as to personal
property. Now, Mr. Elphinstone was not a man to
shrink from expressing such an opinion if he had en-
tertained it. Would he; not have said, "this is a
question I have well considered, and I consider that
the act of adoption is just as good with respect to a
sovereignty as with respect to personal property ?" But
he did not give any such opinion. He, in tact, declined
to do so, saying that the treaty was made with the Raja
for the benefit of his " heirs and successors," in the well-
known meaning of the term. If there were heirs the
property would have gone to them. My Hon Friend
says there were. I boldly say, without tear of contra-
diction, that there were not. What, Sir, was the case
thee
gwri et he:t rupee sos pwt
question
nrt itnhoenth lndia,arose
r 0 treaty
saendw hh
eao
whether
Ine Bgr 1 e9O or? m
npWol et et
we hl
we should
dsdhecofreuualsdthed a
etdaki te,
this: small territory, or put up a sovereign subject to
us. The latter course was the one adopted. That was
the real case. The petition of the late Raja of Benares
makes a distinction between independent princes and
a person of his condition, and says honestly that it is the
creation of British power. My Hon. Friend has alluded
to the opinion of certain gentlemen composing the Court
of Directors, whom I should be the last man to dispa-
rage. Their opinion has its weight, but the Court came
to an adverse decision after a perusal of the whole of
the documents, and the Board of Control, to whom they
were submitted, confirmed that view after weighing all
the opinions that had been given ; and I find that the
late Governor-General, Lord Auckland, was decided
with respect to the propriety of the annexation. Indeed
be was in favour of it at the time Pertaub Singh was:de-
posed. I also find that Lord Dalhousie and his Council were
in favour of annexation. The Government of Bombay
was in favour of annexation with one exception—
namely, Mr. Clarke. I find also that of the Court of Di-
rectors, composed of twenty-four persons, but five voted
against annexation. And when the question came to be
put before the constituent body, the Court of Proprietors,
what:, was the result? I find for the decision of the
Court of Directors, confirmed as it was by the
Government, confirmed also by a large majority of the

Proprietors-297 iu favour of annexation, and but
96 against it. Now, Sir, we have all the authority for
this act that we can require, yet my Hon. Friend comes
to Parliament and says, " Though the Government of
India and of Bombay—although the Court of Directors
and a Court of Proprietors have resolved upon this act,
yet it shall not be confirmed by this House, and
we shall send out an order to suspend the
annexation." Now, we cannot suspend what is done;
the thing is done. The order was sent out on the 24th
of last January. But does my Hon. Friend seriously
think, that if by any accident his motion was carried, it
would have the least effect on the proceedings of the East
India Company or upon the Governor General of
India? It certainly would not. As long as the
Court of Directors, who were the constituted h Bu-
this
responsibility.
The
ee
au-
thorities, had the governmentfof India vested in t m
rcaantnceaxraetiaonnd. s kli It :;s
views I have heard. No interference of P
eshes. I have apa
produce what my Hon. Friend wi .
in my hand w
it is a masterly performance, and is a complete answer
Hofonth. oGseenatlcetisuyaonutinakuesstaliavmseteroaninttgliceeeasinr:
written by Mr. Mangles. It completely shows
that there is not a shadow of pretence to
bicebenissdaridawangauipns%tvitthhigs
to all that has