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

[p.„. SD.
DECEMBERS 22, 1843.
- ..-.-••,....RAMCE11./12.

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

THREATENED ANNEXATION OF THE SAT-
. TARA. TERRITORY BY THE EAST INDIA
COMPANY.
The usual quarterly General Court, which was ad-
yerti,,e.l to be held on Wednesflay last, was on this
0:c:1,..n made f pecial by the directors, in conic-
qu€ cce, of a requi,ition signed by nine proprietors.
The Ciwitaila stated that the Court had been
nude special in consequence of the following requisi •
don, which was read :
" London, December 7, 1848.
" To the Chairman and Directors of the East India
Company.
" Honourable Sirs,—We, the undersigned, Pro-
prietors of E ist 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) " JA. SULLIVAN.
RTHUR J. LEWIS.
M. LEWIN.
THOS. FOX.
CHAS. FORBES.
JOHN I'OYNDER.
J. W. GRAHAM.
JOSEPH lIUME.
JAMES STEWART FORBES.
RESOLUTIONS.
" That tha East India Company having, by the first
article of • the treaty contracted with Maharaja
Pertaub Sing on the 25th September, 1819, ceded
till territory of, Sattara to the Raja of Sattara, his
heirs and successors, in perptual 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 grass 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 put 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.'

" JAMES C. MELVILL, Secretary."
THE RAJASHIP OF SATTARA.
Mr. LEWIS then rose, and addressed the Court as
:ollows :—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 sincerLly, 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 eloquence, 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 b 3 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 co itravention 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
Apra 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?discretion, did
forfeit all the rights which were secured to him by
the original treaty. I say, lir, I admit that hypo-
thetically, and for the sake of the argument, but only
hypothetically, for 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 Shean, 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 subject of dispute between
the British 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 Shean, 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 Nab-
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 son's direct lineal
issue ; the word " Warris" means heirs general; and
the word "Keyam Mookam," as I understand, refers to
a person who is substituted for another—a successor. .
e see, then, by referring to the Mahratta treaty,
that the phrase made use of in he 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, what 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 address 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 hand we
have the Honourable Monntstuart Elphinstone acting
as the representative of the British Government, a
loon deeply conversant with all liindoo usages, cus-
toms, and laws, who perfectly well knew that the
law of adoption formed part of the law of inheritance
of the Iliadooa. 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
18 1 was entered.int?,
and dated the 25th of October, 9, and which
contained in the Sattara Papers—l find that he state
isl
that "Sahoo Raja was, on his death, in 1777
(he s
here speaking of the lineage of t.he Sattara
family), succeeded by Sahoo, Ins 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 conveyed and given. If the
British Government intended to exclude the right of
adoption, was it not their duty, was it riot 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 Vattel's
work, from the chapter on the interpretation of
treaties :—" If be who could and ought to have
explained himself clearly and fully has not
done it, it is the worse for him ; he
Iserdwi
:hots° n the
cannot be allowed to introduce subsequent
common.
restrictions . which. he has not expressed
This niaxttn
sppefert:suiounnet.
principles of honesty, for if it wa re otherwise, if it
had
prcivoinlevgeeyse,daftnenr(-1
wards to turn round and say, I did not mean that,'
ievreen to competent
another
any()
or I want to exclude this, that, or the other,' the
faith of treaties would be at once at an end, and

diplomacy would become mere mockery and chicanery,
and he would he the ablest diplomatist who carried
on the affairs of his state with the greatest peesible
duplicity." Sir, it, is objected by some who do not
doubt that the terms of the treaty of 1819 are come
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 jagheerdari 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
hat
the the
adoption right of
were adoption,inval
so) in his own country, and his own province. But.
sir, if it were admitted that the treaty of 1819 did
nmoitt t includeed tfn it
consequencetvead-
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 distinction 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 (ass 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
Edon to the Raja with the Sovereignty of the Sattara
state." Now, I ask, in what right as next in succes-
sion ? Nof as lineal descendant, but as heir general,
collateral under the treaty, for Appa Sahib was not
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 Carnac 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 Sheen, but as deriving title col-
laterally and under one person, who was the common
ancestor of bath Princes. Sir Robert Grant takes
the same view and puts the same construction upon
the treaty, and in nether stronger terms, rather more,
if I may use the expression, pointedly and practically.
In a minute of Sir Robert Grant, contained in the
Sattara Papers, at page 68, and in the thirteenth
paragraph, you have these words. I will, however,
first read the lest sentence of the antecedent para-
graph. It is not unworthy of your eolce.
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 seekaor caeate 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 references
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
his brother or his cousin, who, after 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 Sheen.
Again, in another passage in the 9th paragraph of
his minute, dated 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 tile family." We ha"e, 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 Coult 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 adopted another construc-
tion, which they found more convenient ? Sir, it
appears to me that the case of the Raja of Setters 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
and ever w
our direct rule. India ever has • ill abound
in bold and ambitious men, and our danger from
them will increase in proportion as our system shall
destroy the princes and chiefsabout t
whom many o
the elements we have most to fear are now in repose.
Mr. Eiphinstone, 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 duly
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 hake says :
ARTHUR. WELLESLEY TO SIR T. MUNRO

" Aug. 20, 1800.
" In my opinion the extension of our ten.' tory and
influence has been greater than our means Besides, w•e