The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-22 00:00:00

S 17 NI DECEMBER 22, 1848.

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

TIIREATENED ANNEXATION -OF THE SAT-
TARA TERRITORY BY THE EAST INDIA
COMPANY.
The usual quarterly General Court, which was ad-
vertised to be held on Wednesday last, was on this
occasion made special by the directors, in conse-
quence of a requisition signed by nine proprietors.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Court had been
made special in consequence of the following requisi•
tion, which was read :

" London, December 7, 1848.
" To the Chairman and Directors of the East India
Company.
" llonourable Sirs,--We, the undersigned, Pro-
prietors of East India Stock, duly qualified by law,
request that you will convene a Special General Court
of Proprietors for the purpose of taking into conside-
ration the accompanying resolutions, and that you
will be pleased to publish the same with this our re-
quisition.
" We have the honour to be, Honourable Sirs, 3 our
obedient servants,
(Signed) " J. SULLIVAN.
ARTHUR J. LEWIS:
M. LEWIN.
THOS. FOX.
CHAS. FORBES.
JOHN POYNDER.
J. W. GRAHAM.
JOSEPH HUME.
JAMES STEWART FORBES.
RBSOLIITIONS.
"' That the East India Company having, by the first
article of the treaty -contracted with Maharaja
Pertaub Sing on the 25th. September, 1819, ceded
the territory of Sattara to the Raja of Sattara, his
heirs and successors, in perpetual sovereignty ;' and
having by the first article of a treaty concluded on
the 4th of September, 1839, with Maharaj Shajee
(commonly called Appa Sahib), solemnly confirmed
that article, the East India Company cannot alienate
the territory of Sattara from the rightful heir of the
Raja of Sattara without a gross violation of public
faith, and without shaking the confidence of the
native powers of India in the stability of the trea-
ties into which they have entered with the said
Company.
" ' That the seizure of the Sattara territory by the-
East India Company, in virtue of a construction ar-
bitrarily pit upon the said treaties by the stronger of
the two contracting parties, would be a proceeding
repugnant to every principle of justice, a breach of
the law of nations, and calculated to cast a foul stain
upon the character of that Company and the British
Government.'

" Jamas C. MELVILL, Secretary."
THE RAJASHIP OF SATTARA.

Mr. Lawia then rose, and addressed the Court as
follows :—Sir, I regret to state to the Court that the
Hon. Proprietor, Mr. Sullivan, whose name appears
first in the list annexed to the resolution which is
about to be submitted to the Court is unable to be
present in consequence of the severe illness under
which he is now suffering. I regret the circumstance
most sincerely, not only on his own account, but for
the sake of the important question -which is now about
to come under consideration, and because we shall be
deprived of the aid of his great talents accurate infor-
mation, strong and powerful elesuence, and that
high position which he maintained in India as one
of the most distinguished members of your service.—
(Hear, hear.) Sir, the proposition involved in the
resolution just read may be thus shortly stated—that
the alienation of the Sattara state by the British
Government and its annexation to our own ter-
ritories in India would be a proceeding
in cotitravention of the plain terms of the treaty,
against good faith, and a dishonour and stain on the
British nation. That proposition depends obviously
on the construction of two treaties ; the first entered
into on the 25th of September, 1819, with Pertaub
Shean, and the second entered into with his brother
Appa Sahib, in 1839. But, sir, before I advert to
the language of the treaty, I would admit at once in
the outset (in order to disentangle the question from
any confusion that might arise from the difference of
opinion entertained on the guilt or innocence of the
former Raja, Pertaub Shean), that that Prince, in con-
sequence of certain alleged acts of indiscretion, did
forfeit all the rights which were secured to him by
the original treaty. I say, sir, I admit that hypo-
thetic-41y, and for the sake of the argument, hut only
hypothetically, f.r as to the innocence of Pertaub
Shean, nothing can ever change my strong and
solemn conviction upon that point. We are all,
sir, aware of the fact, that on the deposal
of Pertaub Shear], the East India Company transfer-
red the raj to his brother Appa Sahib ; that that
event took place under a supplemental treaty, dated
the 4th of September, 1839, the first provision of
which confirmed all the articles of the treaty of 1819
with certain modifications. Those modifications
merely affected the rights of certain jagheerdars,
whose rights had been the sue jest of dispute between
the 13ritish Government and the Raja of Sattara.
All the other provisions of the treaty of 1819, with
that exception, were left intact and unimpaired. It is
manifest, then, that the treaty of 1819, defines the rights
of Appa Sahib as they did those of Pertaub Shean.
Now, sir, by the first article of the treaty of Sep-
tember, 1819, the territories of Sattara were ceded
by the British Government to Pertaub Sheen, his
heirs and successors, in perpetual sovereignty ; and
the question is, what is the state, what is the extent
of interest conferred and given by those expres-
sions to the Raja of Sattara. Those words
are a translation of corresponding words in the Mah-
ratta treaty, and therefore for their force and meaning
we must look to the expressions employed in that
treaty. Now if we advert to that document we find
that those words are expressed by the native terms
" Furzund, Warris, and Koyam Mookam." The
.first, " Furzund," imports children or sou's direct lineal
issue ; the word " Warris" means heirs general; and
the word "Koyam Mookam," as I understand, refers to
a person who is substituted for another—a successor.
We see, then, by referring to the Mahratta treaty,
that the phrase made use of in the English translation,
namely, " his heirs and successors," clearly and dis-
tinctly mean a cession of the Sattara territories to
the Raja Pertaub Shean, his heirs lineal, and his
heirs general, collateral, and that they also embrace
and include, from the comprehensive terms used, an
adopted child. Now, sir, whet are the facts ?
Appa Sahib, the last Raja of Sattara, who
was placed upon the throne by the East India
Company, is now dead, leaving no direct issue—no
son—but leaving an adopted child, and leaving also
an heir general by blood, his nearest descendant. I
contend, sir, that the adopted son is entitled to suc-
ceed, and that if there has been no adoption, or if
that adoption should be held invalid in consequence
of some informality, then I contend that the heir
general of Appa Sahib is entitled to succeed as a
matter of right under the treaty of September,
1819. I will addl..% myself shortly first to the
question of adoption. It appears to me that the
treaty of 1819 confers the right of adoption by its
comprehensive terms. This is apparent if we con-
sider the position of the two contracting parties
before the treaty was entered into. On the
one hand we have an Hindoo Sovereign,
whose dynasty had been continued and per-
petuated by adoption; and on the other band we
have the Honourable Monntstuart Elphinstone acting
as the representative of the British Government, a
man deeply conversant with all 'Endo° usages, cus-
toms, and laws, who perfectly well knew that the
law of adoption formed part of the law of inheritance
of the Hindoos. Not only so, but he also well knew
that the dynasty of Sevajee had been kept up and per-
petuated by the law of adoption; for I find in a letter
of Mr. Elphinstone's to the Governor-General,
written shortly after the treaty was entered into,
and dated the 95th of October, 1319, and which is
contained in the Setters Papers—l find that he states
that " Sahoo Raja was, on his death, in 1777 (he is
here speaking of the lineage of the Sattara
family), succeeded by Sahoo, his adopted
son, who was born of a remote branch of
the family." Looking, then, at the relative
position of these parties, and the knowledge that
each of them possessed, is it not.the fair, just, and
necessary inference that, by the general words
expressed and made use of in the treaty of 1819,
the contracting parties intended that the right of
adoption should be conve3ed and given. If the
British Government intended to exclude the right of
adoption, was it not their duty, was it not incumbent
upon them to have explained themselves, and to have
expressed themselves explicitly, and in terms which
could not be mistaken upon the subject ? If you
look to the writers on the laws of nations you will
see that they lay down this fundamental rule on
the interpretation of treaties. I quote from Mattel's
work, from the chapter on the interpretation of
treaties :—" If he who could and ought to have
explained himself clearly and fully has not
done it, it is the worse for him ; he
cannot be allowed to introduce subsequent
restrictions which he has not expressed.
This maxim is founded on the common
principles of honesty, for if it were otherwise, if it
were competent to persons who had conveyed and
given to another any specific rights or privileges, after-
wards to turn round and say, 1,1 did not mean that,'
or ' I want ,to exclude this, that, or the other,' the
faith of treaties would be at once at an end, and

[PRIcg SD.

diplomacy Would become mere mockery and chicanery
and he would be the Shiest diplomatist who carried
on the affairs of his state with the greatest possible
duplicity." Sir, it is objected by some who do not
doubt that the terms of the treaty of 1819 are com-
prehensive enough to include the right of adoption,
that the adoption in this case is not valid, because
Appa Sahib had not the antecedent permission of
the British Government. I beg, respectfully to say,
that the permission was not necessary In this case, and
for this reason, because Appa Sahib was an indepen-
dent Sovereign. I admit that the doctrine is ap-
plicable to jagheerdars and other inferior feudatories ;
it existed as between the Raja, as an independent Sove-
reign, and his jagheerdars and feudatories, it exists as
between the British Government and their jagheedars
and feudatories—those subordinate dependents who
now hold under the British Government by 'virtue of
the conquests we have made, as they formerly held
under the Peshwa, I have been unable to find—l
do not think any one will be able to show an instance
where that doctrine has been maintained as between
the British Government and native independent sove-
reigns. Each is the lord paramount (if I may say
so) in his own country, and his own province. But.
sir, if it were admitted that the treaty of 1819 did
not include the right of adoption, if it were ad-
mitted that the adoption were invalid in consequence
of the permission not having been obtained, I ask
what then—is not the next heir by blood entitled
under the clear and distinct terms of the treaty ?
What is there that can exclude the heir general of
Appa Sahib from succeeding to the raj. You have
only to look at the words of the treaty itself which
draws the distinctioh in terms you cannot mistake.
The word " Furgund" points to children—the heirs
lineal ; the word Warris," alludes to heirs general
and collateral, and the words " Koyam Mookam"
denotes (as is translated into English) successors.
Can there be a doubt then that heirs general are en-
titled to succeed ? I apprehend not. But, sir, it is
unnecessary for me to discuss this point, and for the
best of all reasons, because the British Government
itself—the East India Company—have put the same
construction upon the treaty as the one I am con-
tending for. The British Government has admitted
that. under the treaty of 1819, Appa Sahib was en-
titled to succeed, not as a lineal heir, but as the next
in succession, the next heir general and collateral.
Let me call your attention to some passages on
this point in the minutes of Sir James Carnac
and Sir Robert Grant, when acting as your re-
presentatives, and, of course their statement binds you.
The British Government," says Sir James Carnac,
"having no views of advantage or aggrandisement,
has resolved to invest the brother and next in succes-
sion to the Raja with the Sovereignty of the Sattara
state." Now, I ask, in what right as next in succes-
sion ? Not as lineal descendant, but as heir general,
collateral under the treaty, for Appa Sahib was net
the son but the brother of Pertaub Shean. Again, in
another passage, Sir James Carnac observes, " There
was only one person on whom the investiture could
be conferred." (Sir James is here speaking of Appa
Sahib.) For what reason, I ask, was he the only
person on whom the investiture could be conferred ?
Obviously because Sir James considered him to be
the next heir entitled under the treaty. Again, Sir
James Cameo remarks, " I know of no other family
that can claim to succeed by hereditary right." By
what hereditary right ? Not as deriving title under
his brother Pertaub Shean, but as deriving title col-
laterally and under one person, who was the common
ancestor of both Princes. Sir Robert Grant takes
the same view and puts the same construction upon
the treaty, and in rather stronger terms, rather more,
if I may use the expression, pointedly and practically.
In a minute of Sir Robert Grant, contained in the
Setters Papers, at page 68, and in the thirteenth
paragraph, you have these words. I will, however,
first read the last sentence of the antecedent para-
graph. It is not unworthy of your notice.
Sir R. Grant says, " I admit it is our sacred duty to
keep down the expansions within the slowly progres-
sive boundary prescribed by actual and irresistible
necessity. We ought not to snatch with eagerness at
occasions of aggrandising our power or extending
our territory, still less to seek or create them, or we
shall almost unavoidably be hurried into acts of in-
justice and cruelty." And then he goes on in the
13th paragraph, as follows—" Without reference,
however, to the general considerations on which I
have touched, there are particular circumstances
which would make it difficult for us to appropriate the
Sattara territory to ourselves. The Raja himself Is
guilty, but there is no evidence of guilt on the part of
Ms brother or his cousin, who, atter him, are in the
immediate line of succession." Now, here is not a
mere abstract opinion on the treaty, but one applied
to the facts; he tells you that the brother and the
cousin are entitled to succeed after Pertaub Shean.
Again, in another passage in the 911 paragraph of
his minute, d .ted Sept. 22, 1837, Sir Robert Grant,
adverting to the subject of succession, says, " The
question as to Ballajee Serraputte, which Colonel
Ovens discusses in the 12th and four following para-
graphs is, in my opinion, far more doubtful ; he is
the near relation of the Raja, and, supposing the
Raja and the Raja's brother set aside, the proper re-
presentative of the family." We have, then, in the
above extracts I have read to you, shown the con-
struction of the British Government itself on the
treaty of 1819, at that time, clearly admitting that the
person next in succession, that the person entitled,
under the terms of the treaty, to succeed was not
confined to lineal descendants, nor to the immediate
issue of the person in possession, but embraced and
included heirs collateral and heirs general. Now,
sir, is it possible to believe the Court will adopt
another construction—is it possible to believe that
the Court will deny, or repudiate, its own words ?
Shall it be said that when certain motives
and views did not actuate them; when they were
not bent on acquisition of territory,they put one con-
struction on the treaty, but when their motives and
views changed—when extension of territory became
their object—then, in order to carry those views and
that object into effect, and for their personal benefit
and aggrandisement they adapted another construc-
tion, which they found more convenient ? Sir, it
appears to me that the case of the Raja of Sattara in
this instance, with reference to the point now in dis-
cussion, Is, in fact, the case of all the native princes
of India between whom and yourselves treaties of a
similar character exist. If in this instance the right
of adoption is denied, if in this instance the right of
heirs general to succeed is repudiated, why, of course,
it must be denied and repudiated in every other in-
stance. You had better at once proclaim the fact—
you had better at once inform all the native princes
of India who are bound to you by treaty,
and let them know the worst, and not suf-
fer them to live and die under a delusion.
Let them have an opportunity of understanding what
their actual rights are, of knowing them,in order that
they may be enabled, while living, to make some pro-
vision for their families and dependents, who, under
this species of construction, must be consigned to
misery, wretchedness, and degradation. Sir, it ap-
pears to me that the policy you are now pursuing, or
rather which it appears is threatened to be pursued,
is illiberal, selfish, and sordid; that it is a policy
which is fraught with the greatest possible danger;
teeming with apprehension, fear, and alarm—you ap-
pear to me as though you were treading on volcanic
ground. The fire seems to me smouldering beneath
you. It is a policy which has been repudiated by
some of the ablest and most distinguished statesmen
whom India has produced—men who thoroughly un-
derstand the relations which subsisted between the
native states of India and the East India Company,
and who well know what course of policy ought to be
pursued as the best calculated to promote the welfare
of both parties. Now, let me call your attention to
what is said by Sir John Malcolm on the

policy to be pursued towards native states -:---
" 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 political
calamities in a political point of view that could arise
to our empire, the whole of India becoming subject to
our direct rule. India ever has and ever will abound
in bold and ambitions men, and our danger from
them will increase in proportion as our system shall
destroy the princes and chiefs about whom many of
the elements we have most to fear are now in repose."
Mr. Elphinstone, than whom I need perhaps quote no
higher authority on such subjects as these, says—" It
appears to me to be our interest as well as our duty
to use every means to preserve the allied Govern-
ments • it is also our interest to keep up the number
of independent powers ; their territories afford a re-
fuge to all those whom habits of war, intrigue, or
depredation make them incapable of remaining quiet
in ours. If the existence of independent powers give
occasional employment to our armies, it is far from
being a disadvantage." Sir, the high authority of the
Duke of Wellington is not wanting on this point. I
observe in a letter from his Grace (then Sir Arthur
Wellesley) to Sir Thomas Munro, there is this
passage—the illustrious Duke says :
,

" ♦RTEUR WELLESLEY TO SIR J MUNRO.

" Aug. 20, 1800.

" In my opinion the extension of our territory and
influence has been greater than our messy Enid's, we

have added to the number and description of—eerie—
r , Mies, by depriving of employment those who heretofore
found it in the service of Tippoo and of the Nizam
Wherever we spread ourselves, particularly if we ag-
grandize ourselves at the expense of the Mahrattas, we
increase. this evil. We throw out of employment
and of means of existence, all wSe have hitherto ma-
naged 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 exten-
sion of our territory our means of supporting our go-
vernment and of defending ourselves are proportionably
decreased. Upon all questions of increase of territory
these Considerations have much weight with me, and lam
in general inclined to decide that we have enough; as
much, at least, if not more than we can defend."

I quote the above from Mr. Gleig's life of Sir T. Munro.
To these I would add the authority of Mr. Edmun-
stone, a distinguished servant of the Company, whose
opinion upon one branch of this case the majority of
the Court of Directors has implicitly followed, and,
therefore, I conclude his views will have great weight
with them. Mr. Edmunstone says—" Our dealings
with native states has a tendency to create a ru cesq y
for that gradual aggrandizement to which the annals
of the world refer the dovrnfal of every mighty em-
pire." Sir, there is one more authority which appears
to me a very appropriate one to those I have ad.iueed.
Lord Minto, in speaking on the subject of taking pes-
session of Travancore, which was then in CCM templation,
says—" I feel at the tame time a strong repugnance,
upon grounds more general than those alreadystated, to
assume the government of Travancore either as a tem-
porary or a permanent measure, so radical a change
in the nature of our relation to that country, and so
total a revolution in its own political state and con-
stitution, must be deemed by that people, and by
every other native Government, equivalent to a con-
quest, as it would in truth be. It would be classed
amongst those events which have created, and still
justify the jealousy so prevalent in Asia, of the views
with which we form our alliances, and would
be especially regarded as a new example of
the consequences to be apprehended from a
subsidiary engagement with the British Government."
Sir, these, I conceive, are great and important au-
thorities, which certainly ought to have considerable
influence upon the Court in coming to a decision in
this case—authorities, I will venture to say, which
ought to have much greater influence on the Court
than those anonymous letters which we see published
from time to time in the public newspapers—those
editorial articles, " leading articles" as they are called,
which issue from time to time--(Hear, hear)—and
the arrogance, flippancy, and assumption of which
clearly show from what tainted source they proceed,
and with what views they are written.
Mr. FIELDER—Which of those do you mean?
Mr. LEWIS—Sir, you may affix it to whom you
please.
Why, sir, should the grasping and aggran-
dising policy be any longer pursued ? The sound-
ness of the opinions to which I have adverted,
and which are opposed to such a policy,
has been verified by the experience of the
last few years. It was in contravention of
that policy that we invaded Affaghanistan, and
what were the fruits of our invasion ? Defeat, dis-
aster, and unexampled suffering.—(Hear, hear.) The
Chairman may smile, but I think he will not deny
that was the melancholy result. It was in contra-
vention of that policy that we marched our armies in
Sinde, took its capital, expelled its Princes, and
desolated its country. What are the fruits of that
invasion ? I believe, sir, I speak the truth when I
say nothing but our finances loaded with debt--a
debt constantly increasing—an unceasing drain upon
our revenue, and, as far as we know, likely to continue
for years to come. And what has been the further
result of acting in contravention of that policy ? This
last invasion of Sinde has led, as might have been
expected, to other evils. It has brought us in
collision with the Seikh nation. It is true, that
they were the aggressors in this case, but
it is equally true that your taking passes-
sion of Sinde, your assuming the attitude you did
there, necessarily led them to be apprehensive and
put them on their own defence. These are the fruits
of that aggressive and selfish policy which would
occupy every piece of ground in India, and rest satis-
fied with nothing short of universat dominion. Why
should this policy, I repeat, be any longer persevered
in ? Why should it be applied is the case of Sattara,
a peaceful state in alliance with us at this moment ?
What is there with reference to the Sattara state that
can justify the application of that policy ? There is
not a single circumstance to justify its alienation.
You can adduce none. As far as the treaty is con-
cerned that establishes the right of the heirs general
to succeed. There can be no question on that
head. As far as this is a question of right
there is nothing which can justify the
invasion or occupation of the territories of Sattara.
Can it be said that the inhabitants of that country,
have appeared in arms against ua, or assumed an atti-
tude of annoyance and defied our authority? Cer-
tainly not ; they have not the power to do so. Is it
that the country is misgoverned, and that anarchy
and misrule prevail there, and you are afraid that the
contagion will spread to your oo n provinces and taint
them ? Certainly not. From the commencement
the administration of Pertaub Sheen has been the
subject of universal commendation by the East India
Company and the British Government; the adminis-
tration also of Apra Sahib has met with the same
commendation. From time to tme we have had his
praises sounded in this Court by my friends Mr,
Fielder and Mr. Weeding. We have been told,
and no doubt it is true, and of course
I join in the commendation, that the in-
human practice of Suttees was put dowr,
that the transit duties were abolished, that commerce
was left free and unfettered, that bridges were made,
roads constructed, schools and asylums introduced,
and every other improvement which civilization can,
boast of. There is nothing, therefore, on the ground.
of the misgovernment of the country that can justify
your invasion of those territories. What is it then ?
Do the people themselves wish any change ? have
they petitioned you to introduce your rule there ?
No, they are attached to their native institutions ;
they are attached to their country; they are attached
to their laws and to their Sovereign. All they ask is,
that you should leave them alone in the enjoyment of
the blessings they now possess under their own sys-
tem. They do not wish to be interfered with in any
way. I ask, then, what pretext is there—what shadow
of a shade of a pretext is there, that you should
interfere in the concerns of the Sattara
state, or threaten to take possession of its
territories ? Sir, this course of conduct appears to me
to be one wholly unworthy the British Government
and of a Christian nation. They are weak, they
are, comparatively speaking, defenceless ; we are, on
the other band, powerful, I had almost said we are
omnipotent. What is the conduct we should pursue
towards our weaker allies ? What should that weak-
ness beget in us ? A spirit of moderation, kindness,
and regard. If they err, we should forgive them.
If any questions of dispute arise between us depend-
ing on the doubtful constructions of treaties, we can
aflbrd that the construction shall be given in their
favour. We should seek to do them good, watch
every opportunity to do them good, and endeavour to
introduce into their respective countries all those
advantages which we derive from a higher and
more enlightened state of civilization. Sir,
there is only one mode by which you will
attach the natives of India to your Government, and
that is, by pursuing a policy which is calculated to
conciliate their affections. lam quite satisfied that it
is upon this foundation alone that the stability of our
empire in India must
eddeotpnpeetinorden.s.n_llncttlliniensawru,nhpionenanriihnesn
we
before groundsth that
Court
rsth
forall initsova
The Hon. Maacoaat LawlN, in seconding the re-
solution, said,—Sir, I rise to second the resolution,
and in doing so it is notm my intention to detain the
moreChaovuertinforrisingis than a minute.
The chief object I
toco
complain of this court being made
special, as it would appear to me, for the purpose of
overwhelming all other business. In the case which
the Honourable Gentleman has brought forward there
are three points with regard to the terms of the treaty,
with regard to which it is impossible that any one
can entertain a doubt. With regard to the words
" heirs general," it is impossible to doubt that it ap-
plies to the person who now claims. With regard to
the adoption, it is impossible to doubt that by the
treaty the late Raja had the right of adoption, and
that he has adopted a son who, by the Hindoo law, is
required to be a near relation. if this state is annexed
to the British Governuent, of course to say that any-
thing like justice is done by its annexation, is to
assert that which no man in his senses will dare to say.
The CHAIRMAN then said—lt is not my intention
to reply to the statements and arguments advanced
as regards this case ; when the proper time arrives I
shall be ready to express my opinion in regard to the
appropriation of the Satara territory ; but, in fact, I
am nut prepared for it now, and therefore shall not
say a word in answer to the lion. Proprietor. I may
state that the general question is sub judice. All
the documents are before the directors, Sabo will duly
consider them, I am sure, with every attentita to
what is right and proper. I know they will act in
consistency with the expressed opinion of this Court,
that it is better to leave the matter at present in the
hands of the executive whom the proprietors have no-
minated. All, therefore, I have to say is, that it will
be in the recollection of the Court of Proprietors that,
no longer ago than two or three months, a motion was
made in substance precisely the same as this now be-
fore the Court of Proprietors. Under these circum-
stances, I am quite sure that I shall have the support
of the Court in adopting the same course which was
then taken—moving the adjournment of the Court.
That is the course which was pursued on that occa-
sion, and certainly should again be followed, now the
matter is under the consideration of the Court of
Directors. I therefore move that this Court du now
Amis.