The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-01 00:00:00

means of defraying the funeral expenses, and the
President of the Eoard of Control, in answer to a
question which I put to him stated, that 50,000 rupees
had been offered for that purpose, and had been re-
fused, because not accompanied by a pledge to con-
tinue to the family the ten thousand rupees, monthly
allowance, made to the late Raja.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE—He would not give a
receipt.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON—Such, I under-
take to say, are not the real facts of the case. The
money, I admit, was offered and declined ; but
not for the reason stated, but because
the agent would not take a receipt in the name of
the adopted son, who was tha only person entitled to
receive or to acknowledge the proffered sum. lam
also informed that other moneys have been declined
for the same reason. I can scarcely suppose the Right
Hon. Gentleman to be so ill-informed respecting the
laws and usages of the Hindoos, as not to know that
neither the Ranee nor the Minister could receive the
money, except in the name and by the authority of
the son; or that he can fail to be aware of the fact
that the youth who has been adopted stands in pre-
cisely the same position as a son born of the
body of the late Raja. Sir, I see no reason why
800 persons should be left without the means of sub-
sistence, because those upon whom they depend re-
fuse to violate the immemorial and universal custom of
their own country.—(Hear.) If I have been rightly
informed, the sum of 2 500 rupees, monthly, has been
offered to the Raja's widow for the maintenance of her
establishment. This, if it be the case, cannot be re-
ceived, except on behalf of her son, and in his name ;
and if it could, it would be utterly insufficient for the
support of the family and their 800 dependents. But,
Sir, why is this course of treatment adopted,
while the company are accountable before
man and before God for the whole of
the private property of which I have been speaking,
and are at this moment in possession of the territory
and revenues of Satter' ?—(Hear.) It may be said
that the Raja had no rights, or that having died, his
rights have died with him. But, Sir, the pledge that he
should enjoy the possession of his private property,
was given before his deposal—it was part and parcel
of the measure decided upon—his private property
was guaranteed in the very document that described
him as a guilty man, and directed that he should be
dethroned, and there is not a lawyer, either in this
country or in India, who would dispute the Raja's
right to adopt a son as his heir to the personal
property of which he died possessed, or to which he
might be declared legally entitled. We ask, therefore—
and we have reason, and justice, and the solemn
pledge of a British governor, and all law human and
divine on our side—that the property taken from
the father at the time of his deposal be accounted for to
his son and heir.—(Hear.) We ask, too, that, pending
the question of succession to the raj, the living and legal
representative of the late Raja shall enjoy the stipend
assigned to his father. To what purpose more just
and lawful can the revenues of Sattara be applied?
But we ask more, and we think we do not ask too
much. We ask that the adopted son of the late Raja
be:placed on the guddee, and succeed to the sovereignty
of his father, according to the treaty of 1819, by
which the territory of Sattara, as an independent
sovereignty, was ceded to Pertaub Shean, his " heirs
and successors in perpetuity." What says one of the
highest authorities on this subject, the late Chairman
of the Court of Directors, Mr. Tucker :
"Admitting that the Raja was guilty of an infrac-
tion of the treaty, it does not follow that it was such
as to cause his blood to be attainted. If the Raja
should have no legitimate issue, it was competent to
him to adopt, and his heir might be perfectly inno-
cent, and be justly entitled to the inheritance under
the treaty."
And again he says :
" The Government of Bombay seem to anticipate
that the principality may escheat at no distant period
to our Government by the demise of Appa Sahib ;
but the principality is hereditary, and should the
R aja leave no issue or natural heirs, he may adopt,
and adoption with a Hindoo is not only a right but a
duty. I have the highest authority for stating, that
even in the case of a fief or dependency, a legal
adoption cannot be barred by the Government or
Lord paramount."
These opinions I know to be those of gentlemen
profoundly versed in questions relating to adop-
tion amongst the Hindoos. Let me quote one other
passage, taken from the petition presented by the
Hon. Member for Montrose the other night, and
signed by a number of respectable and influential
East India proprietors. They say by their petition,
" That the raj (kingdom) of Sattara having re-
cently become vacant by the death of Appa Sahib, the
late Raja, they have heard with the greatest surprise
and concern that the assumed guilt of the Raja Per-
taub Shean is advanced as a pretext against the ad-
mission of the claims of the rightful heir under the
treaty of September, 1819. But they trust and
humbly pray that such member of the Raja's family
ee fills the character of heir' in the terms and ac-
cording to the true meaning of the treaty, may be re-
cognised and admitted as his successor, and that this
House will not permit the violation of that treaty, by
sanctioning any act, in contravention of the rights of
such ' heir,' secured and guaranteed as those rights
are by the faith of the British nation."
Sir, I must now beg permission to trespass upon the
attention of the House for a few moments, while I
attempt to show, as I believe I shall he able to do,
that the dethronement of the Raja was a direct and
flagrant violation of statute law, made and provided
in such cases ; and that the whole of the proceedings
of the Indian authorities are null and void, when tried
by that law. By the 38d Geo. 111., chap. 52. sec.
43, it is enacted, " that forasmuch as to pursue
schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in
India are measures repugnant to the wish, the
honour, and the policy of this nation, it shall
not be lawful, either for the Governor-General
of India, or for the governor of any presidency, to
make or issue any order for commencing hostilities,
or levying war, or to negotiate or conclude any
treaty with any Indian prince or state (except in
cases of sudden emergency, or imminent danger,
when it shall appear dangerous to postpone
such hostilities or treaty), unless in pursuance
of express orders from the Governor-General in
Council, or from the Secret Committee, by the
authority of the Board of Control." Had Sir James
Carnac the " express orders," which by this Act he
was required to possess, before he was competent to
commence hostilities, or conclude a treaty ? He had
nothing of the kind. He was sent out expressly to
assure the Raja of the friendly feelings of the home
authorities, and to treat him with the favour and re-
spect shown to him in former years, before the con-
spiracy against him commenced. There may be those
in this House who are ignorant of the view taken of
the proceedings against the Raja by the Supreme Go-
vernment of India, after the whole of the evidence
had been laid before them, and I will therefore
read a brief extract from one of the last dispatches on
the subject, addressed from Calcutta to the Govern-
ment of Bombay, and leave Hon. Gentlemen to judge
whether it points to the dethronement of the Raja
and the seizure and confiscation of his private peo-
perty :—" His Lordship in Council would close the
proceedings, apprising the Raja that, although several
suspicious circumstances regarding his Highness had
been elicited during the progress of this inquiry, yet
the British Government is unwilling, without the
clearest proof of guilt, to condemn any of its allies,
especially one who has been so pre-eminently the ob-
ject of his favour and generosity; that farther
investigation is deemed inexpedient with reference
to the general inconvenience it creates ; and that the
Right Hon. the Governor in Council is therefore
pleased to close the inquiry, with the expression of
his hope that the Raja will so conduct himself for

the future as to avoid the predicament (no less
painful to the British Government than to his High-
ness) in which he has been recently placed." Here,
then, is the deliberate judgment of the Supreme
Government, ignorant at the time, altogether, that
the Resident at Sattara had in his possession the in-

dubitable and conclusive proof that the very evidence
upon which this judgment was pronounced was a mass
of perjury, and that the Raja of Sattara was as innocent
Ms the Governor-General of India of the crimes laid

to his charge.—(Hear.) After the dispatch already
cited, we have one addressed to the authorities at the
India House, expressing the Governor-General's pain
at the proceedings of the Bombay Government, and
stating that he bad ordered those proceedings to be
brought to a close. In perfect sympathy with the
Governmentti of India, we find the Court of Directors
hag dispatch, dated the 22d of January, 1839
at a
Vie,evide be it remembered, when the whole of the
In* vies before them, save the proofs of the
Raja's innocence,
and of the plot to destroy him, which
were in the secret keeping of Colonel Ovans, in which
dispatch, fey (the
directors) say, that it is their
" decide
d opinion that it would not only be a waste
of time, but seriously detrimental to the character of
their Government, to
on any further in-
quiry into the mattepro.':
alOonefearrYtoef two things was want-
ing to make the de
express command from the the Raja a legal act, an
and declared hostility on theme
partauotlfaorities, or open
James Carnac had no authority from theo Raja. Sir
Raja had never been charged even with anything
and the
worse than a secret design to injure the British
vernment. The deposal of the R.
--ie, therefore, Goa-
in direct contravention of the Imperial statutes f this
realm, realm, and a violation of the unrepealed provisions of
the charter, granted in 1793. It will be equally a
violation of the charter and the law of the land,
should the local Government in India place
any other Prince on the throne, or make any
disposition of the Sattara territory, without the
express command of the home authorities.—(Hear.)
Sir, I have before, when discussing this question,
ignc9nsiderable stress, and I think properly so,
atw the fact that the intercepted correspondence he-
eall the Raja and his most confidential agents and
blends) for three years previous to the dethronement,