The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-06 00:00:00

INCOME.

Excise.• • •
Stamps • . ••
Taxes
Property Tax • • • • • •••
Post-office .. • • •
Crown Lands .• .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .
Miscellaneous • • • • • • • • .• • . • •••••
Imprest and other Moneys ..........
Produce of Sale of old Naval Stores3,Sce
Repayments of ..idTances ......

To Cash, being the flrst Instal-
ment of Loan of 8,000,0001. ......

4,519,119
3,305,524
1,869,464
2,075,001
1,036,517
215,000

7,461
88,632

137,944

13,254,666

5,510,632

4,44T,832
3,455,229
1,557,640
2,034,133
!'88,401
136,000
10,000
9,227
88,805
79,795
86,813

12,923,875

1t,165,29S

12,923,875

proprietors had been told from the other side of the
bar that one decision upon the case was enough,
however just the claims of the case might be; but he
(Mr. Hume) denied the assertion. Both the prin-
cipals in the family of Sevajee were then no
more; and the question then was, whether the
agreement entered into with their successors was to
take effect ? Would the company or not follow out
the article which stated that the dominions should be
ceded to the Raja and his heirs in perpetuity. If they
would do that, then they would act honestly ; but if
they refused to do so they would violate the most
sacred principles of justice, and because they had the
power assumed to themselves the right of doing a
wrongful act. He (Mr. Hume) appealed to the
former proceedings which had taken place. He could
not express his own views better than he had done
then. To use a common phrase, he thought the
case lay in a nut-shell. 'Whatever the sum was,
whether it was 100,0001. or 200,0001. a year, which
was the value of the territory, he (Mr. Hume)
maintained that they would be acting unjustly if by
deciding in their own case they appropriated that
money to themselves. He (Mr. Hume) therefore
asked them to act justly, and demanded of them,
being judges in their own cause, to adjudicate libe-
rally ; and, as they had the power and right to be
merciful, to consider what effect a contrary decision
would have upon their character and interests in
India.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WEEDING said that he had listened with much
attention to the observations of the preceding speakers,
but in no one sense could he agree with them. 'With
regard to the jurisprudence of the question, that
might safely be left to the company's legal advisers in
England or India ; but with regard to the moral
point, he would take leave to state his own views.
The obligations to Pertaub Shean were promised upon
certain conditions ; he had violated those conditions,
and had consequently forfeited all title to the advan-
tages of his agreement with the company. The Raja
engaged "for himself, his heirs and successors,'
not to violate that treaty, but he had done so, and
thereby forfeited all his right. But it was said, he
had adopted a successor. A successor to what ? To
a sovereignty which no longer belonged to him. If
he (Mr. Weeding) were not unwilling to occupy the
time of the Court, he might have shown that as no
jagheerdar could adopt without the permission of the
lord paramount, so neither could the Raja. He (Mr.
Weeding) could show by the very treaty that the
Raja was as much a feudatory as the j agheerdars.
He was bound to come with his troops to assist the
British. Did not that show a feudal condition with
regard to the British ? Was there no other party be-
sides the Raja to be taken into consideration ?
Were the people of India to be left out of conside-
ration ? The Honourable Gentleman who had
:Token (Mr. Hume), and the Honourable Gentleman
Dear (Mr. G. Thompson), were both advocates of
popular rights. Would they say that the people of
India under British government were not better off
than under their own native princes ? Look at the
Nabob of Onde, the Nizam, and others, and what
had been the condition of their countries ? The
introduction of the British Government into India,
without any breach of public faith, was a duty.
The people of England would not allow the
East India Company, in his (Mr. Weed-
ing's) opinion, to depart from that principle
Under the English Government, by the introduction
of English law, civilization, and science, the popula-
tion of that country would have a better chance of
improvement in all matters of science, morality, and
religion. That could only be done by degrees, and
those degrees they would be enabled to attain by
assuming the government of the country.
Mr. LEWIS then rose and said, that when the news
of the death of the late Raja Pertaub Shean arrived
in
tt ihoantt that
upon
period
eorcountry a
Sahara
heaatrt
rawirvaaes
dqount
question,
ofiut
en
r,tinhboi
yns ea
tai
admitting
iot
tallituh
gao
gu
igtt
the
e-t
rige
st of his hdieesamthbo
sonldo to succeed to the musnud
on
emboldened
fnedAtpo think so
paSahib;
because
e
He
(Mr.
(
L
re-
collected that in the year 1840, when the question
first came before the public, Mr. Tucker put forth his
plea before the public; and if there was any justice
in that plea in 1840, there was no reason why it
should not be carried out in 1547. He (Mr. Lewis),
therefore, felt confident that Mr. Tucker would, when
chairman, have used his influence in carrying out his
own proposition. When that event was followed, as
it shortly afterwards was, by the death of Appa
Sahib, it appeared that there was but one
honest course for the Government to have pur-
sued, and that was to adopt the person whom
Raja Pertaub Shean had recognised ;
not theu t
becausea he had been adopted by Pertaub Shean,
b lte
because he was under the treaty really and actu-
ally the heir entitled to succeed. He had a double
claim ; first, as the adopted heir and child of Pertaub
Shean, and, secondly, as the heir under the treaty, not
only of Pertaub Shean, but of Appa Sahib. It was
under the impression that that course would have
been adopted that he (Mr. Lewis), with others,
waited upon the President of the Board of Control,
by whom they were received with all courtesy, and
from which meeting they left with the impression
that justice would be done in the case. But when
the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Sullivan) at the next court
put a question to the present Chairman whether any
dispatch had been sent to India or any communication
had been made to the President of the Board of
Control—

tioTnhheadCiar
DI; RIMe As e
Hdenied
t hthat
o jNalred.Sullivan's
ofcontrol. clue;
Mr. Lewis had a strong impression upon h
memory that it had ; they were, therefore, at issue
upon that point. At all events it was understood
that nothing had been done or was intended to be
done until a dispatch had been sent out, in order to li
obtain information from the Government of India.
The CHAIRMAN assented to the correctness of that
statement.
Mr. LEWIS—When they considered the nature of
the case, that it put an end to all the misfortune
which had taken place—when they considered
the treaty, and with whom it had taken
place, it was high time, in his (Mr.
Lewis's) judgment, having regard to the honour
of an integral part of the British empire, that the di-
rectors should come forward and put the proprietors
into possession of their view of the case. What was
the duty of the Executive of that Court when the
news of the death of the late Raja, Appa Sahib,
reached this country ? Was it not—especially when
various statements had been made by papers known
to be in the employ of the Government—intimating
that a resumption of the territories of Sattara was
about to take place, and recommending such a mea-
sure—was it not the duty of the Bri-
tish Government to have come forward
immediately, and to have undeceived the people of
India and of England upon that subject ? By the
Government not taking that course, by their hanging
back, and postponing the question, and remaining
altogether silent upon it, what was the inference that
would be drawn from their conduct ? He (Mr. Lewis)
shoulA not have been addressing the Court at that
moment if any statement had been made by the
directors upon the subject. Was there any doubt
upo a the construction of the treaty ? He would
ven Lure to affirm that the meaning of the treaty
ent ,ered into between the two powers was clear
an. I definite, and that there could be no
do übt whatever, or any objection at which human In-
ge nuilty could by possibility cavil, or any pretext
uPov which human rapacity could justify itself in
wre sting. from a sovereign his territories. The East
India Ctre,oany had made themselves judges in their
w—
o
4 case,tod their was no help for their opponents