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

'~ r~-r /

r • • :.
4
.. • 41.
• 4 -441
• t. /6,4 4
lht, kv 4 .
ts.
MR •
t -
Ant' ' • „ • 7.'"; " 411% •
rk." •
7.1 A
•••"••••
"tr. •
, 117, .
•
t . - 119 , Ge
„ _ , ,
-*, • 80--cgt • b ritt

APRIL 30, 1849.

.t
ES the Emperor of Russia. how was that
luestion dealt with in that minute which was
written by Mr. Mangles, an 1 to which so
aany Directors had pinned their faith? By an
!laLorate attempt to prove that it was the intention of
Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphinstone by the treaty to
,lace the Rap of SAttara on a footing totally different
rum that of all the other states in alliance with the
Company, and to make him a sovereign in some
pecial sense ; and this they say was proved
.:onclusively from the dispatches of Lord, 'Listings
nd Mr. Elphinstone. Now was it not mar-
vellous that gentlemen who had been search-
ing in those dispatches in order to discover the
minus of the writers, saying as they did that
hey had conclusive proof from those dispatches that it
was the intention of Lord Hastings and Mr. Elphin-
:tone to make him a dependent Prince and a Sovereign
n their own particular sense, that they should have
Jverlooked 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
3ajee Row's hands, will be released, and placed at the
head of an independent sovereignty of such an extent as
nay maintain the Raja and his family in comfort and
lignity."

And in this letter from Mr. Elphinstone to the Raja,
lated 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 Gov-raor-General wrote thuc
to Mr. Elphinsto.le

":The Governor-General has already signified to you
.Is entire assent to the force of those considerations
mhich induced you to extend the original objects of the
establishment of the; Raja, of Sattara in an independent
,orereignty, and the consequent sxtension of the erri-
cory 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 Came thus expressed himself:—
" We should be accused," ho says, (when speakirg of
he proposal to subject the Raja to a trial, by a cool-
nission of company's servants) " of degrading a sove-
eign from his acknowledged rank, and offering.violence
o his feelings and dignity, and of assuming iriAt of
superiority to which we have no claim. In fact, I know
tf no mode by which one state can arraign for trial the
iovereign of another state."

Now, in the first of the extracts they had a solemn
,)ledge given by Mr. Elphinstone to the Mahratta
,ation that the Raja of Sattara should. be placed at
.he 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
f Sattara. They had, 'thiidly, the avowal
d Elphinstone and the Governor—General that
the Raja of Sattara should be placed on the same
independent footing as that of every other indepen•
lent sovereign; and twenty years afterwards they
had the acknowledgment on the part of Sir James
Cantle that the Raja 'of Sattara was not only "a
Sovereign Prince quota 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 tneaning? Could it ba permitted, in
he face of that language used by Lord Hastings and
M. Elphibstone, in which they avowed their intention
,f placing the Raja of Sattara- in the .position
of an independent Prince, and. to make
aim 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
lad a ',directly contrary intention, and thae,was
to make the Raja of Sattara a Sovereign sui :gcneris,
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 R,ija•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
ileased on a Sovereign Prince without degrad-
mg a Sovereign Prince into the character of a
feudatory. But what were these limitations and re-
itrictions which were said to be so unusual, and
which placed the R'tja of Sattara upon a different
tooting 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 Nagpore;
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
increa!e or diminish his military forces without the
leave of the British Government. That was a
restriction common .to all the allied Princes, fer
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
consequence that the design should be clearly under-
stood.

This was a clear index to that restriction. Both
Lord Ilastings and Mr. Elphinstone were apprehen-
sive that the restoration of the neje of Set-
ters would lead to the re-integration of the
Ilahratta confederacy, and hence it was that care
was taken to prevent the Raja's having any corre
spondence with neighbouring states. There was no
intention to degrade the Raja himseif below the status
of other Princes. If they had intended to deal with
the Raja of Sattara as a dependent Prince—if they
had intended to have given him a power different
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 Ms 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 Governmegts, the Maharaja hereby agrees to
recognise the independent sovereignty of Raja 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 Kurrunk 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 u separate
treaty with the British Government."

" The British Government transfers and makes over,
forever, in independent possession to Maharaja Ghoolab
Singb, 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 Ravec, including Chumba and excluding Labool,
being part of the territory ceded to the British Govern-
ment by the Lahore State, according to the provisions of
article 4 of the treaty of Lahore—stated March 9, 1846."
—Cunningham's History of the Seikhs, pp. 409 and 413.
It will be seen that in relation to the state of Lahore,
Ghoolab Singh was made an independent Sovereign,
but in relation to the British Goiernment 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 Rajs 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 arid 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 been
obeyed if the Raja had been reduced to a lower
status than that of Holkar, Sindiah, the Raja of Nag-
pore, and the Gnecowa, who had been his vassals ?
Now, he asked if this instruction would have been
written if it was intended to reduce the Raja to the
status of Sindia, Holkar, Gwalior, and Nagp?er ? He
had been at some pains to dissect this portion of the
minute, because the writers of it had said, with
great confidence, that it had conclusively proved
that it was the intention of Lord Hastings
and Mr. Elphinstone to 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
arly proved
" cons." Now, he believed he had cle

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
en to say that the whole question hinged
upon this, and that if it was proved that the
Raja vvai 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 haw 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 ba 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 Briiish
Government, the Raja has forfeited his rights as au 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 wi,ole, 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
equility, bat 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,
es 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 Baja on a lower level than other
Indian princes. But was his mouth closed=-had he
noth'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, tl-ey had no right to interfere with
him but if dependent they might interfere to set
aside his adoption. This status had really nothing
Co do with it. The territory. .was ceded to him—
dependent or independent,- prmcii or peasant, bond or
rree, The question, therefore,;:liiiiged entirely on the
meaning of the treaty. But ';;Egthqugh you do make
the treaty ,hinge upon the Status of the Raja, you
c6ndesceud: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 'n6 adoption would 'be-.valid unless
approved of 'by the British G6vernment; and
Sir James Canine declared that the principality would
lapse unless the British Govetnrnent•should allow it
to •be perpetuated• by adoption. Now, before he
entered on any reasoning upon the Meaning of the
treaty,, he would reed 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.
tie 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
ti em, and in accordance with equitable language, or
the language of Sir' George Clerk. In what lan-
guage did we interpret this treaty to the Baja of
Sattara? The words of Sir John Malcolm were—
"lt belongs to good faith to interpret our treaties
with cotthiderati,n 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
Lu, 1 think, have no right, except under the most posi-
dye 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."

Ile should interpret the treaties in the equitable
language of Sir George Clerk. Let them remember
what Sir George Clerk had said—and no one bad 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
thi territory of Sattara in the house of Sevajee.
No one, as he had said, had had the boldness to im-
pugn the construction put upon the treaty by Sir
George Clerk. lie 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 excel!ent, but the practice
of the doctrine was most deficient. This was
the case in the instance he 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 cur 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 Eist 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 ?
IVhat 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, andjyou 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 Company in perpetual sovereignty when-
ever the East India Company may cease to exist,
for there is no mention in that treaty of
" heirs and successors" to the Company. There is not
a native Prince who would not spurn such a subter-
fuge—that when they cede territories in perpetual
sovereignty—they have done with it for event_
elt
dwiisl.
be seen that the question which we wer.e h
every native Prince in India, but the very
cussing affected not only the descent inttietrleensuts
upon
trustees
far as that little depended u
which the Company held their own possessions, so
precedents. Let us exam.
But it is attempted to
.jnuestthifeynnthirchesnpfiorlsiattiiso,nthbayt.
the Raja Sattara dictated the terms upon which
Punt Suabar was allowed to adopt. Ile did so because
the It'ja was lord paramount of Sattara, and
Punt Suabar was his feudatory. The next was
that the Gnecowar refused to permit Kustra Rao to
adopt Here again the Gnecowar was Lion' para-
mount of the Bandas state, and Kustra Rao his
feudatory. These precedents are, therefore, quite be-
side the question. We next see that the widows of
Sindiah and Holkar had
madetl:e Britaisdhopt Go ns
with the concurrence
veeemcot. But these Princes both died
without having exercised the right that was vested
in them of adopting—they
erecised withoutthat
rhiegihrst,;
and
the Raja of Sattara had
died, leaving an heir in hisexdi adopted
General
Those pre-
ch eadsennhtasl, l
e n therefore,gedy n n are inapplicable.erepeated
andh the
challengeC a Caulfield
lffir
from
an instance in which the paramount power has claimed
a right to negative an adoption made by a Sovereign
Prince. He perfectly agreed with the Gallant
General that liolliar's case was not a fit prece-
dent for US; beCAII6O we MOO it ai PrOVedePt