The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

LONDON,

private property of Appa Sahib arose preci=ely from
the same source as I have mentioned. I say, there-
fore, with all deferexwe .to the Court of Directors,
that they hive cut away the ground under their feet
by their own admissions. In the case of Pertaub
Sing, they decided that their was no distinction be-
tween private property and the property of the State ;
and in the case of Appa Sahib, that there was such
a distinction. Now, another reason assigned for the
non-fulfilment of the solemn engagements entered
into with the Raja was, that the British Government
had given an allowance to the Raja, in lieu of all
demands on the Sattara State.—(" Hear, hear," by
the Chairman.) lam glad, Sir, to hear the ground
on which you proceed. It is true such an arrange-
ment was made, for on the 21st of November, 1839,
we find Mr. Willoughby writing as follows:
" Subject to the confirmation of the Governor-Ge-
neral of India, it has been resolved that one lac and
20 000 rupee.; per annum should he granted to the ex-
Raja and his family in full satisfaction of all demands
against the Sattara State "
Now, let me call your attention to the terms of Sir
J. Carnac's promise :--
...

" You will' inform him that art annual allowance will
be assigned from the Sattera revenue tor the sup-
port and respectability cf hims,lf and those
members of hi. Igroily- who in ty claim to accvinpany
him. Further, that all property belonging to Min bond
fide private, and not belonging to the State, will on his
peaceable submission not be interfered with."

Here we have two distinct engagements, as distinct
and as clear as can be, that he is to have a separate
provision calculated to maintain himself and family in
respectability, and, above all, to have his private pro-
perty restored to him. Well, the British Govern-
ment gave him an allowance, confiscated all
his private property, and then cried quits. But
was that allowance sufficient to maintain
him and his family in respectability—in such respect-
ability as he was likely to assume from the language
used to him ? Let me, Sir, on that head, refer you to
the opinion of an officer who was for six years in
charge of all the Raja's affairs :
" After a most minute and laborious investigation into
the actual state of the Raja's affairs, that no reductions,
however extensive they may be, would enable him to
subsist with anything like comfort upon so small an al-
lowance as 10,000 rupees per mensem, and if an adequate
pension be not settled upon him, and his private pro-
perty restored, or some equivalent, his position in Be-
naves can hardly fail to be ono continued scene of poverty
and degradation, involved as he is at this moment in
debt, destitute of articles essential to the comfort of any
native of rank, chiefly arising from the detention of his
private property, and without the means of making ar-
rangements for his future abode, his present residence
requiring heavy disbursements to render the premises at
all 6t for the accommodation of himself and his family,
even if they can be made so under any circumstances."
Now, Sir, in proof of this assertion, Captain Carpenter
submitted an estimate in detail, showing that the Raja's
expenses amounted to 24,500 rupees a month, or to
double his allowance, and this estimate the Governor-
General pronounced to be "moderate and generally
admissible." We, who are brought up in a school
which teaches us that when two parties enter into a
bargain it can only be rendered void by the consent
of both parties, can only coma to one conclusion upon
the matter. There is not the slightest pretence for
saying that the Raja was ever made acquainted with
the alteration in the arrangement respecting his pri-
vate property. It is very true that the British Go-
vernment told him that his allowance was in lieu of
all demands against the Sattara State, i. e. that
he could claim no higher allowance for the
State ; but his claim for his private property
was an entirely different thing. The value of the
property claimed by the Raja was 26 lacs of rupees,
and suppose it to have been reduced to 20 lacs of
rupees, the interest upon that at 5 per cent. would
have given to his family a permanent income of a lac,
or ten thousand pounds a year ; and, of course, at 10
per cent. an income to double that amount would fall
into their hands. Now, what do you ? The Raja
died five years after the grant, you pocketed about 20
lacs by the bargain, and then told his family
to go about their business ; and this is the way in
which the East India Company fulfils its engage-
ments with Ilindoo Princes.—(Hear, hear.) Now
these are the two reasons assigned for the non-fulfil-
ment of a solemn engagement with the Raja, viz.,
that he had no private property, and that the allow-
ance given by the British Government was in lieu of
all demands. But there was another reason assigned
for not doing justice to his family, viz., that the father
died rich—

" Meanwhile it had become known that the ex-Raja,
had left property to a large amount, at once invalidating
the plea of poverty on which the grant of 50,000 rupees
for his private expenses had been made."

Now, Sir, I mean to say, whether the man died
rich or poor, that did not in the slightest de-
gree exonerate the British Government from fulfilling
a solemn engagement to restore the bonei fide property
of the Raja, which he had accumulated. lie died,
either rich or poor in two ways—he must have carried
riches away with him, or he must have accumu-
lated riches during his exile in Bewares. Tnat he
took nothing away with him except seine trifling or-
naments is admitted by Colonel Ovans, for the mo-
ment be left he put his property under lock and key:—
" As regards the property claimed as private by the
Raja, the whole of this property was placed in deposit
by me, and under orders conveyed over as State
property to the reigning Raja."
Now, I have just quoted an extract from Captain
Carpenter's letter to show, that when he arrived at
Benares he was in such a state of destitution that he
had no money to purchase a change of clothes for his
family. W hat was his condition five years after-
wards ? The same officer reported—
" That, although th© Raja, has evinced a degree of
prudence and economy rarely witnessed in any other
native prince; all his efforts had failed to enable him to
subsist upon his income; for notwithstanding he had dis-
posed of jewels, plate, and other valuables to the extent of
about 30,000 rupees (3,0001.), his debts to the Marwar-
rees of his camp, and to some of the principal men
among his followers who have frees time to time as-
sisted him with such small sums as their limited means
command, amount in the aggregate, independent of the
increase set forth in the preceding paragraph, to not
less than 55,000 or 60,000 rupees 0,500/. or 6,00010"
This, Sir, is the history of this unfortunate man up
to a period of within a year and a half of his death.
Therefore it is proved beyond
all question that the
reason assigned by the Raja for not fulfilling the en-
gagement with his family,
was of itself futile and
insufficient. Now it was stipulated that the follow-
ing allowance should be made
to the Raja and his
family :—The Baja, 7,000 rupees a month ; the
Ranee, 1,000 ; the second Ranee, 800 ; and the
daughter, 500. The Governor• General professed
that he wished to treat the family
with the utmost
liberality and justice, but when the Ranee ap-
plied, on the death of her
husband, for the
whole sum paid to him, the
proposal was
rejected.—(Hear, hear.) All the Governor-General
did was to give her that which he knew it was im-
possible to take away from her, viz., the 800 rupees a
month, which, after much ado, he consented to in-
crease from 800 to 1,200 rupees, about an addition of
401., making the whole allowance to the family 2,500
rupees a month, or 25,000 rupees
a year. But this
small additional allowance was not given until the
Governor-General had demanded from the Ranee a
promise to surrender the rights of her infant son.
Now it is made a matter of charge against this
woman, and 1 find it repeated very
often in the
course of the papers, that this young man
wrote in the character of Raja. In what other cha-
racter could he have written ? lie was Baja by in-
heritance, and could not take any
other title. The
Governor-General, when calling him by his name, is
obliged to designate him as Shao Maharej, and the
Court, in fact, have authorised him to sign himself
as the youth adopted by the ex-Raja.
Allow me now
to say that this is a totally novel course of proceeding
by the Government. We have taken territories
sometimes by conquest, sometimes by treaty, but on
no other occasion have we called on a man to
renounce his family. (Hear, hear.) I need
scarcely say that the Emperor of Delhi was
received and recognized as the Emperor of Delhi, so
was the Peisbwa, and the whole
of the Rajas in
India, without one single exception, who had the
title of sovereign Prince. Therefore the Governor-
General has attempted to extract a pledge from a
native boy to surrender his rights, but in my
judgment he was wrong, and I think the Ranee
was totally incompetent to surrender the rights of
her son, because he was an infant. Even if the
boy had given his consent, he did so under
duress, and it could not stand in any court of
equity. Well, then, bow stands the facts of the
case ? You made him a solemn promise tbat if he
conducted himself peaceably you would make a
liberal provision for himself and family, and that
his private property would be restored to him. He
did conduct himself peaceably. You did not return
him his private property, neither did you make a
liberal provision for himself during his life, and that
provision you have so reduced since his death as to
leave his family, considering their rank and
birth, in penury. How then stands the
account between you end the Sattara territory ?
The net revenue of Sattara is 14 lac., or 140,0001.;
the interest on the private property of Pertaub Singh,
at 5 per cent., only l 0,000/ , making a total of
150,0001. Deduct from this the allowance to
Pertaub Singh's daughter, 1,2001., and to
his widow and son 2,4001 e which amount
to 3,6001, there will remain a balance of
146,0001. On these facts I will make no further
comment, believing that I have proved beyond all
question and cavil that you have committed
a great act of injustice in not fulfilling the
solemn and binding engagement which you
entered into with the Raja not only with
respect to his private property, but also as to the
allowance for the support of himself and family. I
therefore leave the case in your hands, trusting that
you will pronounce a verdict in accordance with evi-
dence now before the Court.—(Hear.) Not knowing
whether the private property of Appa Sahib has been