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

Sttlq, LONDOV,

The DEPUTT-CHAIRMAN--I rise to second the
motion. It is quite impossible for the Court of Di-
rectors to listen to this motion without surrendering
their own proper functions. The subject is at this
moment on the table of the Court of Directors ; when
they have passed an opinion on it, then of course it
may be taken up by the Court of Proprietors.
Mr. Sergeant GAzELEE wished to know whether it
was the intention of the Chairman to adjourn the
Special Court only, or the special and quarterly
General Court together P
The CHAIRMAN replied, that the effect of his
amendment, if carried, would be to postpone the
quarterly General Court till the next quarterly
meeting.
Mr. Sergeant GAZRLEE thought that was the most
extraordinary proceeding he had ever heard of in
his life.
The CHAIRMAN maintained that it was according
to custom and precedent, and when a motion for
adjournment was carried it put an end to all further
business.

Mr. Lawns rose to a point of order. He had sent
a question to the Chairman, which the Chairman
bad refused to put. Mr. Lewin was here inter-
rupted by
Mr. FIELDER, who stated that the only question
before the Court was the question of adjournment.—
(Cries of " Order, order.")
Mr. CLARKE said there was an anxiety on the part
of several proprietors to bring forward motions of
which they had given notice ; an adjournment had
been moved upon the resol'ation of the special Court,
the effect of which !..;nendment was to get rid of all
other business, Every proprietor had a right to
stand tire and ask the reason of such a course being
Pu:sued.
The CIiAIRMAN assured the Court that it was not
by his wish that such a course bad been taken. The
Cnurt had been made special upon a requisition. of
nine proprietors, and from
the nature of the resolu-
tion
submitted, he (the Chairman) had felt it his duty
to move an amendment of adjournment; that of course,
if carried, would preclude the transaction of any other
business. If the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Lewis) would
withdraw his resolution, other questions might be
taken into consideration. So far as he (the Chair-
man) was concerned, he was sorry that the matter had
assumed the shape it bad done.
Mr. Lxwirt again rose to speak to the question of
adjournment, but was called to order by
Mr. SALOMONS, who objected to that Hon. Pro-
prietor's introducing, upon a motion of adjournment,
a sort of zigzag debate. He (Mr. Salomons) had
the same right to bring on bis motion as the Hon.
Proprietor, but he had not attempted to do so after
the Chairman had moved the question of adjourn.
ment. If they tolerated such a course the Court
would become the laughing stock not alone of the
country, but of the whole world. However incon-
venient, inconsistent, and in some instances unjust the
rule regarding motions for adjournment might be, it
would never do to allow another subject to be intro-
duced upon a motion for adjournment. As a pro-
prietor desirous of seeing order maintained in that
Court, he (Mr. Salomons) deprecated and protested
against such proceedings.
Mr. Lewin doubted the correctness of the opinion
cf the Chairman. He wished to know whether the
making any Court special was to have the effect of get-
ting rid of all other business ? It appeared to him (Mr.
(Lewin) to be a manceuvre to get rid of the other
business.

Mr. Sergeant GAZELU suggested that perhaps the
standing counsel of the Court had better be asked the
question as to the legitimacy of the course proposed
to be taken.

The CHAIRMAN said the fault was not his. He
was prepared with a perfect answer to every one of
the subsequent motions in the paper. The Chair-
man (with great warmth) appealed to the Court
whether they thought the motion of an adjournment
was a ":manceuvre ' of the Court of Directors to get
rid of other business ? (Hear.)
Mr. FIELDER said that the requisition of the nine
proprietors had tied the hands of the directors.
Mr. LEWIN could assure the meeting that the sup-
pression of the other business was entirely against
the wish of those who had made the Court special.
Mr. CLARKE would offer a few remarks on the
question of adjournment. It had been said that the
bringing forward the resolution of the Hon. Proprie-
tor (Mr. Lewis) interfered with the executive of the
Court, who were then considering the subject. If
they had perfected their arrangements, the
decision would have been given, and there
would not have been the slightest reason for
a special Court to consider the question. If the
Court of Directors had decided upon that very im-
portant question—important because it involved the
character of their government for good faith—there
was an end of the whole question, in the same way
as by a motion for adjournment ; but, with submis-
sion to the Chairman, he (Mr. Clarke) contended
that it was not necessary, in order to prevent any
discussion upon the main question, to have recourse
to a motion for adjournment. It was not acting with
much deference towards the opinion of a great many
proprietors who took great interest in the Sattara
question to endeavour to prevent them having a full
discussion of the case. The question had long occu-
pied the time of the Court, he (Mr. Clarke) thought
too long; but much sympathy had not been shown
to the friends of the Raja, who had come there, as it
were, for the last time, upon the last branch of the
subject—the division or the Sattara territory. He
hoped and trusted that the proprietors would rise
and speak their sentiments upon the subject, in order
that the public might know the grounds upon
which that meeting had taken place. As to
the word "manoeuvre," it was an improper
term, hnd no doubt had escaped unwittingly
from, the Hon. Proprietor. He deplored the bringing
gentlemen there upon other questions, at great per-
Fainal inconvenience, and then not allowing the busi-
.snees to proceed. He (Mr. Clarke) for one opposed
the question of adjournment.
A Paoramoa suggested that the difficulty might
be got over by the withdrawal of Mr. Lewis's mo-
tion, and also of the amendment, which would allow
the other business to be disposed of.
Mr. Lewis stated that he was anxious that the
proprietors should be put in possession of the views
of the friends of the Raja of Sattara; but when the
proprietors had had an opportunity of so doing he
should not object to the withdrawal of the resolution.
Mr. FIELDER denied the competency of the mover
to withdraw his resolution, except by consent of the
whole Court.
The CHAIRMAN stated, that if the resolution were
withdrawn he would have no objection to withdraw
the amendment, and allow the business to proceed.
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE felt great surprise at what
he confessed he frequently had great difficulty in
ravelling out—the practice of the India House. By
their Act of Parliament the proprietors were to have
four different meetings in the year, but by adopting
the course the Chairman had followed that day they
would reduce them to three. It was also a new doe •
trine to him (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee), that by fixing
a special Court for the day for which previous notice
had been given of the general Court—by fixing that
day, in preference to all others, for the special Court
might have been appointed for the yesterday, the
morrow, or any other day—they could, by simply
moving an amendment of adjournment, get rid of the
whole business of the general Court as well as the
special Court. If the directors had the power of
adopting such a course as that, they would be making
the proprietary body more ridiculous and absurd in
their powers than they had hitherto been.—(Cheers.)
lie (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) denied that they had the
power of acting thus legally and properly. The very
id ea was monstrous. He was afraid that in his mode
of putting the question he might have made a mis-
take, and rendered himself apparently apparently ridiculous,
when he inquired whether
was the Chairman's in-
tention, by the motion for adjournment, to bundle
them all, general and special,
toge-
ther ?—(Laughter.)
I.lrS7eant Foe his (Vr of the room
Gaze-
lee's) own part, he wished that
It was
their
standing counsel, had been present.
that he should attend these courts, especir right
when
questions of such momentous imposeancea
to their
constitution, rotten as it was, were under considera-
tion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FIELDER—" Rotten constitution l" Mr. Chair.
man, " Rotten constitution I"
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE denied that the Chairman
possessed any such power, even by their constitution,
rotten as it was.
The CHAIRMAN said he did not understand such
expressions. The question would be determined by
the proprietors. If it were the sense of the proprietors
that there should be no such adjournment, but that
they should proceed at once to the other business,
they could do so.
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE thought that the Chairman
surely should allow him to speak. For his (Mr. Ser-
geant Gazelee's) own part, he confessed he thought
it not one of the least objections to the mode of pro-
ceeding adopted at Courts of Proprietors, that the
chairman, who ought to be impartial and decide fairly
between the parties, should himself be the individual
to bring forward a motion or amendment. With all due
respect, therefore, he would say to Mr. Fielder, and also
to the Chairman, that he believed the Chairman to be
honest in his intentions, but like most other people, he
had his bias, for when any man proposed a motion he
war, apt to b-come enamoured of that motion, and
would do his best to have it passed. He could not
help feeling a bias towards his own motion. That
bias was proved by the very interruption he (Mr.
Sergeant Gazelee) had met with that day, which
showed that the Chairman could not help feeling for
his own motion, and not for that of his opponent. He
(Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) again denied the power of
the Chairman to adjourn the general Court; he might
get rid of the special Court by that means, but not
the general Court. Why there was the directors' own
notice staring them in the face ! Why ;was not
their standing counsel present, to say that it

was by his advice that course had been
taken ? They were justified neither by law nor
honesty in the proceeding ; nor was it treating the
Court with respect. He (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) was
aware that the Chairman was conscious that he had a

majority present to support him, and as long as the
Court was constituted as it was—so long as there was
the influence of patronage to be exercised by the
directors, it would always be so.--(" Oh, oh l" from
Mr. Fielder.) He (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) thought
people ought to speak out upon such subjects. It
was in consequence of the mealy-mouthedness of the
roprietors that that Court had become what it was.
From time to time they were met with the argument,
"We are now considering the matter. Trust to us,
and it will all be right." Why the directors held
their seats by the election of the proprietors, although
it was true that election, which the Act of Parlia-
ment had made annual, the directors themselves had
made permanent ; what right, therefore, had they to
turn their powers against those by whom they were
appointed ? Why were the directors to be permitted
to stifle discussion in that Court ? He (Mr. Sergeant
Gazelee) did not want the directors to do wrong,
although they very often did so, and it woutd be a
splendid exception if they did right.—(Laughter.)
He knew how the thing had been managed just as
well as though he had been behind the scenes.
When they came to the discussion upon the Charter
of that company in the House of Commons, it would
be a very proper objection to its renewal to allege
that when proprietors brought forward motions they
were met by counter-motions from the chairman, and
called to order if they ventured to call the constitu-

tion of the company rotten, the chairman and deputy-
chairman being at the time the dispensers of all the
patronage of India. The Honourable Proprietor
who spoke second had put the Sattara question upon
its proper footing; they had made a treaty, and
these were the plain words of the treaty by which
they were bound. He (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) had
come there unbiassed to listen to the case, unprepared

to vote one way or the other. lie bad,
when he felt it his duty, opposed the course
taken by the advocates of the Raja, and was prepared
to do so again when he believed them wrong ; but he
had been convinced by the arguments in favour of
the resolution, and had it gone to a vote he would have

supported it. ' The directors said they had the matter

under consideration, and a little pressure, a little light

from without, would do them good; for without that

he was sure the question would never come before the
Court. On one Court day they were told by the
directors, " Oh, we have got the case under consider-
ation ;" and the next time they were told, " Oh, we
have decided and settled it." The Raja's case fur-
nished an example of the disinclination of bodies of
men, when they had deposed an individual. in error,
to retract the false step they had taken. The present
time, with the directors, was like that when
Members of Parliament were about coming before
their constituents. They had not often such oppor-
tunities. For his own part, he should like to see the
directors on the hustings, in order that he might ca-
techise them a little.—(Laughter.) At present there
was no opportunity of asking them questions. Surely,
if they wished to decide righteously upon the Sat-
tara case, they ought to be anxious to get all the in-
formation they could upon the subject. It appeared
that there was at the present time an adopted heir
and a collateral heir to the Sattara throne, and the

whole thing certainly seemed to be a question of jus-
tice against power. The case lay in a nutshell ; he
would say so with great respect to the
Chairman, who ought to have gone deeper
into the matter than himself. The present was
a good and convenient time to repair their error.
The question was, whether might should overcome
right; for his (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee's) own part he
thought the case of the Raja was right, and therefore
he supported it. It was an important question for the
proprietors to consider whether, whenever they pro-
posed any motion, they were to be met by the motion
of adjournment of the Chairman and Deputy-Chair-
man, and sent away like a pack of schoolboys.—
(Hear and laughter.) He (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee)
hoped the Court would meet the motion for adjourn-
ment with a flat denial.—(Cheers.)
Mr. Wsisprsesi thought that if the Hon. Gentleman
who had just spoken had looked calmly at the ques-
tion he would have spared himself many of those re-
marks which he had made. The motion for adjourn-,
ment did not preclude the gentlemen present from
entering largely into the question which had been
brought before the Court by the Hon. Proprietor,
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Sergeant Gazelee was, therefore,
wrong in saying that the Court had been pre-
cluded by the course adopted from hearing
and judging of what would otherwise have
been brought forward. He (Mr. Weeding)
agreed with the position of the Chairman, that the
question had been already decided by the Court some
time ago, when the Court refused to sanction it ; the
present was, therefore, an attempt to come indirectly
to the same conclusion. It was very true that there
had been an adoption by the Prince who had been
deposed, and also by Appa Sahib. He agreed with
the Hon. Gentleman that the ques.ion lay in a nutshell,
depending entirely upon the fair consideration
of the treaty and upon the law and customs of India.
For himself; he did not sacrifice, nor call upon the
gentlemen about him to sacrifice, any of his rights as
a proprietor, by leaving the question to be decided by
the Court of Directors. They had before them the
judgments of men better versed in the affairs of India
than the Court of Proprietors were, and were, there-
fore, in a position to come to a sounder conclusion.
Fcr his own part, he would say that it would be for
the interest of the people of India that the Company's
sway should extend over ;those principlalties ; that
security, peace, and prosperity werejmore likely to be
obtained for the mass of the people of that country,
and their progress in civilization would be better
secured by the extension of the British arms and the
administration of British justice; and therefore, he
(Mr. Weeding), hoped that if the directors could dO
it, without violating justice, they would assume the
sovereignty of Sattara. He thought they could not have
better judges than those in whose hands the question
stood at present, in whom he reposed entire con-
fidence. The Chairman had done what he ought to
have done in moving the question of adjournment,
and leaving the argument till another time, leaving
the Honourable Gentlemen to enlighten one another ;
for nothing had been done to prevent the Honourable
Gentleman below him, or any one else, from hearing
everything that could be said upon the question.
Mr. FIELDER thought that if any blame attached
with reference to the proceedings of the C ourt that
day, it did not attach to the Court of Directors, but
to the nine gentlemen who had made that Court spe-
cial ; for, by so doing, that had excluded other
business; whereas, if they had_ made the Court
" special and general," theyiwould have allowed other
business to have been transacted. What Mr. Lewis
had said was all very true, supposing the Raja
of Sattara had been an independent Prince,
but he (Mr. Fielder) denied that he was
an independent Prince. With regard to the word
" heirs," that Prince might have heirs to his private
property, but not to the rajaship of Sattara, which
was a very different thing. With regard to the word
" successors," it did not mean any one allied by blood,
but actually in possession, whether by might or right
it was the same thing. The whole of the rajaship had
fallen into the hands of the East India Company,
to whom it belonged, and they could do with it as
they thought right. He thought that the Court would
do wisely in leaving the question at present in the
hands of the directors, more especially when the
Chairman had pledged himself that they would give
it their most serious consideration.
General BRIGGS then rose, and said—Sir, I had not
proposed to speak on this question at this moment,
but as it has been met by a motion for adjournment
I shall say a few words upon the character of the
treaty formed with the Raja of Sattara. Rims been
said that the Raja of Sattara is not an independent
Prince. It is distinctly stated in Mr. Elphinstone's
report to the Governor-Genoral, that he proposed to
give an independent sovereignty to the Raja of
Sattara, and used the expression restoring him to
his rights." The treaty was made and ratified more
than a year afterwards, when Sattara was taken,
the Raja being still in the Peshwa's hands, by
General, afterwards Sir Lionel, Smith. A proclama-
tionTs was thereupon issued in the name of the
"'tie, of Sattara, as the sovereign of the country.
recognisedcinte ash y a
Ilifrow.rtetsrtny treaty was formed with him, therefore,
you treatedSsoirveLreioignnel
prince,Smith basy
tohrednerajoaf
of Sattara.
with him
an independent sovereign that
make the treaty. an aTbassador plenipotentiary to
ceived from him in every instance. You re-
s
that the Raja, but the ambas-
with you; it was
Grant, not Minister,
wi Wittul Punt, treated
by his Minisatnerd, Wb;ittuclaPptaunint,
sador of the Raja
his name, on the
.reaty was made—
in the name
one hand,
of the British Government,
" This treaty, consisting of eleven earticles,the other:
day settled and concluded at Sattara, lie this
James Grant and Wittul Punt Furnasveesye, Captain
Grant has delivered to his Highness, peitaub"ateaat,
Maharaja, a copy of the same in English, Mahratta,
and Persian, under the seal and signature of the said
Captain James Grant ; and his Highness, Maharaja
Pertaub Shean has delivered to the said
Captain
James Grant a copy also in English, Mahratta, and
Persian, bearing his Highness's seal and signature;
and the aforesaid Captain James Grant has engaged
to procure and deliver to his highness, without delay,
a copy of the same, duly ratified by his Excellency
the most Noble Francis, Marquis of Hastings, K.G.,
one of his Britannic Majesty's Most Honourable
Privy Council, Governor-General in Council, ap-
pointed by the Honourable Company to direct and
control all their affairs in the East Indies, Com-
mander-in-Chief of his Majesty's and the Honourable
Company's Forces, &c., on the receipt of which by
his said Highness, this said treaty shall be deemed
complete and binding on the. Honourable East India

Company, and on his Highness the Raja Pertaub
Sheen, and the copy now delivered to his
said Highness shall be now returned."
That treaty, made on the 25th September, 1819, was
ratified by the Governor-General in council on the
29th of November of the same year. In the first
article of that treaty it is stated that "the British
Government agrees to cede in perpetual sovereignty
to the Raja of Sattara, his heirs and successors, the
districts specified in the amended schedule." ow,
my Honourable Friend who moved this motion has
adverted to the words in that article in the original.
The word " heirs," as he stated .truly " forzund,"
signifying son, " warris," signifying heir direct or
collateral, and "koyan mookam,' signifying a
representative. I pledge myself as an Oriental
scholar that the word "koyan mookam" signifies
representative. It is a word constantly made use of
when a father during his life-time delegates to his
son or to a minister the full power which he himself
possessed, such delegate or representative is called
"koyan mookam." It may also be applied to heirs
adopted by Hindoos, and, therefore, the literal trans-
lation of that article would have been lineal

descendants, collateral descendants, and adopted
children. That ought to have been the translation of
the words, which are here rendered " heirs and suc-
cessors." But it is not necessary to dispute the
English translation, because the word " successors"
embraces all. This " koyam mookam" signifies very,
much the same as our English expression "execu-
tors,' administrators, and assigns ;" or—as it is sug-

gested to me—locum. tenens.
Mr. FULDEZ—Is there any heirship in " execu-
tors, administrators, and assigns ?"
General BAD:las—Now, with regard to this ques-
tion, of course it never could have been contemplated
that when a perpetual sovereignty was granted, like
that of Sattara, in the course of a few years, at a
time when there was a legal heir living and an
adopted child also, that the British Government
should resume the territory. What is the meaning
of "perpetual sovereignty ?" Why it was in-
tended that the territory guaranteed by law to him
(the Raja restored to his sovereign power) should
be secured to him and his heirs for ever. It

never was contemplated that the country
should be resumed. It was to remain, I say, as a
perpetual sovereignty. With respect to the question
before us now, the ex-Raja of Sattara adopted, accord-
ing to the Hindoo law and practice, with the cogni-
zance of the British Government, the nearest relative
pf his family. I say "the nearest relative of his
family." I hold in my hand, sir, a pedigree, which I
find I bane brought with me from India, obtained by
me from the records of the house of Setters, while
resident at the Court. And here it will be seen that
Babji was the common ancestor; that he had two sons
Vittoji and Maloji. From the son Maloji came
Shaliji, and one of his sons, Sivaji, was the first Raja
of Sattara, while another son, Venkoji, became Raja
of Tanjore. Subsequently, the second son of
Swaji became Raja of Colapoor. There were three
"independent. Sovereigns arose from the line of Maloji;
Maloji had, as I have stated, a brother named Vittoji.
Vittoji had eight children; the eldest child died
without issue ; from the second son, Keloji, there
was in the fourth:degree a child adopted by the house
of Sattara, who was entitled Shahu 11., the father of
the two brothers who afterwards filled the throne.
The Rajas of Tanjore have been in the habit of
adopting children from the lines of Mumbaji and
Trimbacji, the sixth and seventh sons of Vittoji,
while the Rajas of Colapoor have adopted from
another son of Vittoji. The descendants of the house
of Maloji, therefore, have for many generations
been in the habit of adopting children from the line
Vittoji, the younger brother of Maloji, from whom
came the houses of Sattara, Tanjore, and
Colapoor. The late Raja of Sattara, Per-
taub Sheen, who was dethroned, and his
brother, Appa Sahib, who was subse
quently enthroned by the British Government,
died without direct issue. But there was a collateral
heir, Trimbucji, who was the grand-nephew of the
late Raja, a lineal descendant, through the male line,
of Vittaji, the brother of the ancestors of the first
Raja of Sattara. He is, therefore, the nearest sur-
viving heir to that family. If you will allow me, I
will deliver in this pedigree to the Court.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN intimated that the Hon.
Proprietor might do so if he pleased.
General BRloris—l will put it in as part of my
speech if you please.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN—I must tell you, how-
ever, the custom is, that, although received, it cannot
be recorded.

Mr. FIELDER—If we were to admit this pedigree
to be good, just, and proper, that does not entitle this
youth to the rajaship.
General BRIGGS—I can only state that that pedi-
gree was obtained by me _ when I was acting as
your ambassador at the court of Sattara. It was
procured from the records of the house of Sattara
twenty years ago, and it is not likely, therefore, that
under such circumstances it should be false.
Mr. Lewis—My Hon. Friend putslit in for the use
of the Court, if they like to look at it.
General BRIGGS—I maintain, therefore, the right
of this nearest heir to the succession to the sove-
reignty of Sattara. But, sir, there is another more
important question before us—an infringement upon
the custom, as I venture to say it is, in the sentiment
maintained on the other side, that the Princes of
India have no right to adopt children without asking
the sanction of the Governor-General. I do say,
sir, that that is a most dangerous principle to set
forth. The Government of Gualiar is now wielded
by the third successive adopted heir of the
house of Suidia. The Raja of Tangore is
as adopted heir. The Raja of Sattara,
the father of the two late Rajas of Sattara,
was himself, as you have heard, an adopted
heir—(almost al. the Hindoo sovereigns of India
are adopted children); and are you now going
to assume the principle that the adopted
children of Hindoos shall not succeed to the rights
and property of those adopting them ? The Govern-
ment of British India, it appears, now assumes to be
lord paramount of India. Sir, I deny the fact.—
(Hear.) Its power is paramount, but that does not
constitute a lord paramount. The Government of
India did not confer sovereignty on the princes of the
house of Sattara, which you are now seeking to
put an end to. It is almost the oldest dynasty in
India, established before our time. I say, sir, you
did not create a new sovereign in the Raja of Sattara
in 1819. You restored him to his power and his
possessions, it is true, as Mr. Elphinstone stated,
but established no new sovereignty. Now, sir,
while touching upon this question of adoption, I will
state to the Court the convenience of the principle as
applicable to India. The Hindoo land and personal
property is, by law, equally divisible amongst the sons
of the person dying, and, by the same law, it would
be equally divided on the death of the individual
amongst all collateral heirs, but to prevent this divi
sion, and, in fact, the extinction of the integrity of
an estate, a person is permitted to adopt out of the
collateral heirs one person to inherit the whole pro-
perty. Not only is he permitted to do so during his
lifetime, but his widow is bound to do so after his
death, because a young man in the prime of life may
be suddenly cut off by accident or otherwise, without
having adopted an heir; and in such case, or in any
case, as I have stated, the widow is required to adopt,
in order to prevent the estate being frittered away
amongst collateral relations, or subjected to ruin in
legal litigation. And a very convenient thing
this custom of adoption is. But, sir, if you
are to do away with the right of adoption with
respect to the princes of India, the next question will
be, whether the estates which you have conferred on
officers or other individuals for services, should be
allowed to pass by adoption or not. Sir, you are
here treading on most delicate ground. Your power
in India has been obtained through the instrumenta-
lity of your native armies; it has been maintained by
the general opinion of your justice throughout the
country, aided by the attachment of that army.
Let the fidelity of that army be once shaken,
and your power is gone. Sir, these are not
times to trifle with the constitutional rights of
nations. Who would have dreamed, on the 22d of
last February, that Louis Philippe would be where
he is now ?—(Cries of " Question.") Sir, it is the
question—it is a great question of principle; for I
maintain that if you are to do away with the consti-
tutional rights of individuals to adopt, you will shake
the integrity and faith of the people of India; you
will influence that opinion which has hitherto
maintained you in your position, and that feeling will
thrill through your native army, and you will find
some day, as Lord Metcalfe has more than once pre-
dicted, " We shall rise some morning and hear of a
conflagration throughout the whole of India, such as
a few Europeans among millions cannot extinguish."
What has Lord Hastings said with respect to that
army, and the rights of property ? He said it was
-quite time that you should do something to settle the
question of the land tenure. " Your army," he tells
you, "is derived from the peasantry of the country,
who have rights, and if those rights are infringed
rtheirnaenahii
inneltivyanei tdnebegydr inbt
oysyu.
upon, you can no longer have any dependence on
'r' Y
in
ntnhreo empire
w
native
m aei
grll k
mh
itynnw sir, that we must
look on this great engine of ours, that has gained and
. lonolf,
ihais:nulhrtaws erns,
not
trffoebpceetaeendn
troops alone. You have now an army of
2500,000 native
and
it
tis on the
soldiers in India
of
tthoosesutpropops
support
3,..
you' You
o
that that arm mofayrely on it, sir, if
infringe the institutions
the
people of India,
that you stand or fall.
are a
fringement you make
part of and represent the population. Every in-
y
will
sympathise with them. They
viduals must and will
it may be their sons, o
come home
i
affectouconstitutional rights of indi-
, more or less, the army ;
h . r ft
h aveb
but
nee at all p
all
as sing
events
around us in Europe, andhow
it must indirectly m
relations. What awful events o them o
little
er upon
expected.
otherziy

Honourable Friend the mover of _ this motion has

spoken of the catastrophe in Caubul, in consequence
brought on by unrighteous proceedings in our agn
gression upon the Affghans, and forcing upon the
nation a twice-expelled tyrant. Some idea of the
disastrous result of that proceeding may be formed,
when I remind you, that of that army of 5,000 or
6,000 soldiers, and several thousand followers,
amounting together to 10,000 souls, only one
individual out of that host escaped without
being wounded, killed, or made prisoner.
There is not another such instance in history, modern
or ancient, sacred or profane. There is no example
of a whole army being annihilated, with the excep-
tion of one single individual, Dr. Bridon. That was
the case then. I oppose, therefore, this adjournment.
I think the directors should be obliged to us for
warning them and affording them the benefit of the
experience of those who, like me, have been so long in
that country, and which enables me to speak with
some degree of confidence upon such a question. The
Honourable Chairman smiles, he is certainly my se-
nior by some years; but still it is something like
forty-seven years since I went to India, thirty-three
of which I spent in the country, and, therefore, I
must have had some experience amongst the people.
Before I sit down, sir, I will just quote from the in-
structions to his assistants, which were given
by my poor lamented friend and diplomatic
master, Sir John Malcolm. In speaking
of the institution of India, he observes--,-
" Nothing can keep you right on all these points but
constant efforts to add to your knowledge, and accus-
toming your minds (as I have before urged you)
to dwell upon the character of the British power in
India, and that of the empire over which it is esta-
blished. The latter comprehending numerous tribes
and nations, with all their various institutions and
governments, may truly, though metaphorically,- be
viewed as a vast and ancient fabric, neither without
shape nor beauty, but of which many parts are in a
dilapidated state, and all more or less soiled or
decayed ; still it is a whole, and connected in its
parts, the foundations are deep laid, and to the very
summit arch rests upon arch. We are now its pos-
sessors, and if we desire to preserve while we improve
it, we must make ourselves completely masters of the
frame of the structure to its ininutest ornaments and
defects. Nor must we remove the smallest stone till
another is ready suited to fill the vacant niche, other-
wise we may inadvertently bring a ruin upon our
own heads and those of others, on that spot where
we too eagerly sought to erect a monument of
glory." Well, what a monument of glory is this
you are now going to erect? To seize upon a small
territory yielding a surplus revenue of forty thousand
pounds a year, which will hardly pay your European
establishment in collecting it. This is the monument
of glory you are going to raise 1 A monument of
glory, which if erected upon the principle of not
allowing the native princes to adopt, or permitting
collateral heirs to succeed, will sooner or later bring
upon our own heads the very destruction which has
been predicted by my friend Sir John Malcolm.
Colonel Dicsir4sois then rose and said, Mr. Chair-
man, the innocence or guilt of the late ex-Raja of
Sattara, the competency of himself or of his brother, the
late Raja, to adopt an heir to the Sovereignty with-
out the previous consent of the British Government,
are not, in my humble opinion, the topics which we
are called upon to discuss ; but as the question before
the Court is one, in the decision of which, the honour
of our Indian Government is not less deeply involved,
I conceive it due to this Court and to all native
states so circumstanced as that of Setters, that the
Hon. Chairman, or one of his colleagues, should he
requested to make known to us the grounds on which
it is contended, that the sovereignty of the late
Raja Appa Sahib lapses to the British Govern-
ment. The question to be considered is not the
expediency or otherwise of such annexation, founded
on political or financial considerations ; it is one
founded on good faith and the plain interpretation of
existing treaties; and to justify such sequestration of
a nation's rights, it becomes the bounden duty of the
Indian Government to satisfy the public that a mea-
sure so rarely if ever resorted to, and so opposed to
the feelings and interests of all classes of the Sattara
State, is in accordance with the spirit and provisions
of the existing treaty ; and if there be any doubts on
this all essential point, these might be easily and
effectually cleared up by a reference to the eminent
statesman, in accordance with whose suggestions the
sovereignty of Sattara was recognised and remodelled,
and in conformity with whose benignant views the
treaty of 1819 was framed; should, however, the Indian
authorities be unwilling to give the Sattara state the
benefit of an appeal to so impartial and enlightened
an umpire, it is of importance to bear in mind that
in the treaty which was also drawn up by Mr.
Elphinstone about the same time with the contiguous
state of Colobah, Article 4th expressly provides for
the right of the British Government to confer inves-
titure on the chief on any vacancy of the musnud ;
the omission of which, or of anything of a like im-
port, in the treaties of 1819 and 1839, is perhaps the
' strongest evidence that can be adduced to justify a
valid fact, that the Sattara state is exempted from all
interference of the British Government as regards
succession, unless that takes place in a manner at
variance with the first article of the treaty of 1819,
which in failure of lineal, provides most unequivocally,
in my opinion, for collateral descent.
Mr. CLARKE said, that although he had spoken
upon the question of adjournment, he would say a
word or two upon the resolution before the Court, as
he understood discussion was permitted upon it. It
was quite clear that the desire of the Court was, that
the treaty made with the Raja of Sattara in 1819, and
that subsequently made with his brother, should be
effectually carried out. All the gentlemen who had
spoken on either side had professed no other object
than that. If there was a doubt about the construction
of the treaty, let them refer the question to Mr.
Mountstuart Elphinstone, who understood all its
bearings, if that gentleman were still alive ; he (Mr.
Clarke) hoped that, as Mr. Elphinstone was the
framer of the treaty, and must well know its spirit
and character, that the directors would, therefore, put
themselves in communication with him, and get his
opinion upon the question. All that was wanted,
both by
the Hon. Proprietors and the Court of Di-
rectors, was to establish the character of the
Company for good faith throughout India.
They must have moral influence to maintain their
footing in that country, and as that was the c oncur-
rent object avowed by all parties, his (Mr. Clarke's)
conviction was, that they should obtain the opinion of
the gentleman who framed the treaty.
Mr. FIELDER—To explain it thirty years after it
was first framed I
Mr. LEWIS most readily concurred in the
views expressed by Mr. Clarke with regard
to the motion he (Mr. Lewis) had made, he admitted
that the Chairman had, of course, a right, as he had
done on former occasions, to move an amendment of
adjournment thereupon ; but he denied that they
could do so upon the ground alleged, namely, that it
was the same motion which had been made before.
When the question was before the Court on the
previous occasion, the Chairman himself stated that
the directors were then waiting for information from
India, and when that information had been received
it would be communicated to the proprietors. The
motion for ajournment, in his opinion, was not cour-
teous to the Court of Proprietors; if motions intro-
duced there were to be treated in that manner, their
proceedings would become a subject of perfect mock-
ery and ridicule. He must enter his protest against
the effect of the adjournment. It appeared to him
perfectly clear that they had ne right to get rid of the
General Court along with the Special Court, for by
the Act of Parliament they were obliged to hold
four general quarterly Courts for the dispatch of
`business. He thought that the opinion of their legal
adviser ought to be taken upon the subject.—(Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN said that the Hon. Proprietor must
have forgotten the debate which took place in July,
when the resolution which was submitted to the Court
was that the Company having entered into a treaty
with Pertaub Sheen, the Raja of Sattara, on
the 25th of September, 1819, and ceded the
territory to him, his heirs and successors,
they could not take possession of the territory with-
out a breach of good faith. In substance, therefore,
he thought the present motion was precisely the same.
He had only to say, that he thought it was not right
that there should be a discussion, until the Court of
Directors had come to some decision upon the sub-
ject. He was quite sure it would receive every at-
tention, and would be discussed at great length
by the Court of Directors. It was well
known that there was considerable difference
of opinion on the subject, but they were all anxious
not to dispose of the subject without coming to a
proper decision. The adjournment of the Court, if it
were adjourned, would be the act of the proprietors
;hemselves and not that of the directors.
The resolution was then put and negatived.
Mr. Lewis then demanded a division.
The Court then divided, when the numbers were—
For the adjournment 45
Against it
The Court then adjourned.

THE DIAMOND AND Tin PEARL.-..-The contrast
in the characters and fortunes of two sisters is the sub-
ject of this novel, which is capitally well written. Old
" Squire Pro" is a capital sketch, and the progress of
his clever son to eminence through all the obstructions
that beset the aspiring commoner in England has more
of Mrs. Gore's better spirit than anything in the book.
The mere writing is always pointed and clever, and
there is also plenty of mirth in the amusing faits Itt
female pretenders, from sanctimonious Duchesses to
Mrs. Euphrasia Primwells ; and in whimsical descrip-
tions. of high life, from " the little crowing thing in the
nursery entitled to a coronet on its pap-boat," to the
condescending great lady in the country dance, "trying
to look joyous and Great British while undergoing the
familiarities of hands across." In short, there is plenty
to amuse the novel reader in Mrs. Gore's " Diamond
and Pearl."—Examiner.