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

TURDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1851.

A Quarterly General Court of Directors and Pro-
prietors of the East India Company was held on Wed-
nesday, at the Company's House, Leadeneall• street.
James Shepherd, Esq., Chairman of the Court of Di-
rectors, presided.
The minutes of the last quarterly Court having
been read and confirmed,
Tne CHAIRMAN announced that certain papers, in-
cluding correspondence between the Government of
Bombay and the Government of India, relative to the
annexation of Sattara, ordered by the House of Com-
mons to be printed, were now laid upon the table.
The Hon. Chairman also informed the Court that a
Bill was about to be laid before Parliament, for the
purpose of awarding compensation, to the amount of
10,0001., to James Silk Buckingham, Esq., for losses
sustained by him in consequence of the acts of the
company.
Colonel DicKENsoN then brought forward the
motion of which he bad given notice, as follows :
" No. 1. That collectorate abstracts of the undermen-
tioned items in Statement No. 7 of the Parliamentary
Accounts for the year ending 1848 of the Annual Ter-
ritorial Revenues and Disbursements of the Bombay
Presidency, indicating such portions thereof as will and
may lapse to the East India Company, explanatory also
of their last year's increase, collectively amounting to
rs. 33,37,971, be laid before the Court of Proprietors.
Allowances and assignments payable out of
the revenues in accordance with treaties or
other engagements, including those of the
ex-Paishwa and his Minister Rs. 16,31,561
Allowances to village officers and enamdars 93,31,642
" No. 2. That a statement of the undermentioned item
contained in the same account, indicating such portions
threof as are of a general more than a local charge, be
also laid before the Court of Proprietors, viz.—
Charges for civil and political establishments,
including contingent charges ... . Rs. 35,83,565."
He thought it was most important that these accounts
should be placed in such a state as would be more
conducive to the character of the company. He re-
ferred particularly to the revenue and expenditure of
the Presidency of Bombay, and observed that although
the expenditure had considerably increased during
the last ten years, the revenue had also increased in a
still greater proportion, and would have been ade-
quate to afford a surplus but for the charges with re-
gard to the army in Affghanistan, in which Bombay
had been most unfairly dealt with. The Hon. Pro-
prietor entered into a variety of details connected
with the accounts of the presidency, for the purpose
of showing that it would be much more satisfactory
to the public if the items of expenditure were more
fully stated. He trusted the directors would have
no objection to supply the information required, and
if an improved system was adopted he had no doubt
the deficit now shown in the accounts would dis-
appear.
Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the motion. He had fre-
quently heard Bombay taunted with its deficit, but
nothing was more easy than by a particular arrange-
ment of the accounts to show that a deficit existed in
any particular presidency. The expenditure on ac-
count of the army could not fairly be charged to any
one presidency, but to the revenue of the Company
generally. He had seen accounts laid before Parlia-
ment so cooked and so spiced that it was impossible to
understand them, and hoped they would so be arranged
that it would be known what sum should be fairly
charged to each presidency.
The Cematenerz said, with a view of meeting the
motion of the Hon. and Gallant Member, he had given
directions to have abstracts of these accounts prepared
and laid upon the table. The Hon. Proprietor wished,
further, that some different system should be adopted
with regard to the accounts, in order that they might
ascertain what sum should be fairly apportioned to each
presidency. It was clear that the expenses of the
army and navy were for the benefit of the government
of India generally, and could not be distinguished or di-
vided among the several presidencies; and independently
of that, they were obliged to prepare the accounts in
the form prescribed by the House of Common. It
appeared to him that the system suggested by the
Hon. Gentleman would not be by any means an im-
proved one. As regarded the particular items the
Hon. Proprietor moved for, these abstracts would give
not only the items but the names of the parties. He
had no objection to the motion, but he could not con-
sent to have the accounts in future divided between
the different presidencies, as it would be utterly im-
possible to do so with anything like accuracy.
Colonel SYKES was glad the motion had been agreed.
to, and he was satisfied of this, that the more the ac-
counts of the company were sifted, the more satisfac-
tory and accurate they would be found. He hoped
that in the course of the next year there would be a
large surplus to be appropriated to valuable purposes.
Colonel DICKENSON then moved, pursuant to notice :
" No. 3. That publicity will be given in the customary
newspapers of all notices of motion submitted by any
member of this Court in the week following that in
which they are presented, as wail as on the third day
previous to the meeting of the next quarterly Court of
Proprietors for the consideration and disposal of all such
motions."
Mr. LEwIN seconded the motion, and as the object
of all the proceedings in that Court was to give pub-
licity, he did not think that there could be any objec-
tion to it.
The CHAIRMAN observed that there was a private
room in which any gentleman who felt interested in
the subject could at any time see what was the busi-
ness to be brought forward. There was also a notice
given in all the daily papers three days before the
meeting, and he did not think it advisable to incur
any additional expense. He hoped the motion would
not be pressed.
After some conversation the motion was withdrawn,
on the understanding that the motions when given
should be read in open court.
Mr. LEWIN then brought forward a motion for the
production of papers relative to the removal of a
translator from a Government office in Madras. He
admitted the right of the Company to remove him,
but he complained that aspersions had been cast upon
the character of the individual which had the effect of
depriving him of all means of obtaining a livelihood,
without any investigation having taken place. The
poor man was left totally without remedy, as the
Company refused to prove the aspersions cast upon
him in a court of law, by appealing against the juris-
diction of the court. He thought the individual, who
had received the highest testimonials as to his charac-
ter and conduct, was entitled to an investigation;
and that was all he asked for.
Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the motion.
The CHAIRMAN observed that the case had been
twice brought before the Court on previous occasions.
In the first instance it could not obtain a seconder ,
and on the second occasion the explanation was given
in the fullest and most satisfactory manner. He
hoped, therefore, the Court would not assent to the
motion.
The motion was then put and negatived.
TERRITORY OF SATTARA,
PROVISION FORSETD HE
RAJAS FAMILIES OF
DECEA.
in rising to bring forward the mo-
eal to your justice,
said—Mr. Chair-
man, I am about to
given notice,
Swu
which
AhNe,
had
justice, on behalf of the family of
and simply to your
the deceased neje of Sattara, who, from want of that
Justice, have been reduced to a state of comparative
destitution and distress. I wish to ask you, Sir, to
restore to them that which I think I shall be able to
prove you had no more right to deprive them of than
you have to put your hand into my pocket and
carry away all the money it contains.—(Hear, hear.)
As I may here say
a preliminary observation,
that with regard to native princes in India who are
despotic sovereigns, and have uncontrolled dominion,
it is not the usual practice to make a distinction be-
tween public and private money ; but whatever may
have been the general practice, it has no reference
he
to
the case of the Raja of Sattara, because, from t
first constitution of that State in 1819, under an
arrangement made by Captain Grant, the then Resi-
dent, whose advice, you will remember, the Raja was
by treaty bound to follow, a distinction was made be-
tween private and public money, between the money
of the state and the Raja's even purse.
An arrangement was entered into by which
a sum of 3,12,000 rupees was allowed annually for
the private expenses of the Raja and his family.
This sum formed his private purse, and was kept in
a separate treasury, under a separate treasurer, and
under the control of the Raja himself. This arrange-
merit was made by Captain Grant, under the follow-
ing instruction of the Bth April, 1818 :
n The personal expenses of the Raja and his family
ought for the present to be about three lass of rupees
per annum. The employment of this ought to be left to
his Highness, with no other check than may be neces-
sary to prevent his exceeding the amount allowed him."
Here you see care was taken on the first constitution
of the Sattara territory to make a distinction between
the private expenses of the Raja, and the public
money of the State ; you see caution given that the
private expenditure of the Raja should not encroach
on the public expenses of the State. Now, Sir, the
arrangement made by Captain Grant was commu-
nicated to Sir James Carnac, the Governor of Bombay,
by Lieutenant Ovens on the 28th of September 1839 :
" It appears that when affairs here were in Captain
Grant's hands a stun of 3,12,000 rupees annually was
allowed for the private expenses of the Raja and his
family, and at that time also 2,00,000 were given to
build the new palace in the town; and afterwards, when
the management of the country was made over to the
ex. Raja, 4,00,000 rupees was the annual sum allowed for
this purpose, and 1,00,000 more were annually set aside
for extraordinary State expenses."
Now the Raja, Pertaub Singh, being a good mana-
ger of his resources, accumulated during the 20 years
he was on the throne of Setters property to the
amount or extent of 25 or 26 lacs of rupees. Now,
when the Governor of Bombay deposed the Raja of

The Marchioness of Lansdowne was soatewh ,at better yes.
t4rdaY UlorniDg. Her Ladyship is at Dowoocl Park, Wilts.

S Atara, in September, 1839, he made two distinct
promises to him—that in the event of his peaceful
submission to the British Government, a liberal ul-
-1 ewance should be made to support himself and fa-
mily, and that all bona fide private property should be
restored to him :
" You will be careful to provide in the most ( ffsctual
manner for the personal comfort and convenience of the
Raja and his family, and to require the Sattara Govern-
ment to furnish everything that may be necessary for
their accommodation. He is in fact to be regarded and
treated as an object of sympathy and not of punishment.
You will inform him that he will be permitted to reside
within the Honourable Company's territories, at such
place as may be selected by the Right Honourable the
Governor-General of India, and that an allowance will
be assigned from the Sattara revenues for the support
and respectability of himself and those members of his
family who naiy choose to ace ,rispany him. Further,
that all property belonging to him, bona fide private and
not appertaining to the State, will on his peaceable sub-
mission not be interfered with."
Now, here is a bargain between two parties—the
Reja, on his peaceable submission to the British Go-
vernment, was to have his private property restored.
The Raja did make that peaceable submission, but
his private property was not restored. What, then,
were the reasons suggested for this breach of a most
solemn engagement ? They were two—first, of all,
it was said there was no private property, that all the
property was the property of the State. This, Sir,
was the dictum of the Court of Directors, for in a
letter to the Bombay government, they say—
" We think that his claim to the treasure and jewels
in the palace, as private property distinct from the pro-
perty of the State, was untenable; such a distinction not
being ordinarily recognised in native states."
This decision of the Court of Directors, you per-
ceive, is in the very face of the declaration, avowal,
and admission made by Sir James Carnac, that the
Raja had private property, and that that property
ought to be restored to him. It is, moreover, in the
face of the admission of Appa Sahib Maharaj, the
individual who had the strongest possible interest in
proving that there was no private property ; for if
there was no private property, the whole property
would devolve on him as the successor of his brother.
In the 11th paragraph of the Resident's letter, which
I have just quoted from, the writer says—
" The whole of this property is claimed by the ex-
Raja, but Appa Sahib Maharaj (his successor) main-
tains that about 5 or 6 lacs of the money is State pro-
perty and private property belonging to him, as also
about 2 lacs worth of jewels, and that the remainder
only belongs to the ex-Raja and the ladies of his
family."
Here, Sir, we have the express admission of the
validity of the ex-Raja's claims by the party who
had the strongest possible interest in contesting them.
He admits, beyond all doubt, that about 2 lacs of
hard cash and 6 lacs worth of jewels was the private
property of the Raja. Now I have shown that on
the 13th of August, 1839, Sir James Carnac made a
distinct avowal that the Raja was possessed of private
property. On the 11th of November, three months
afterwards, he repeated the same opinion. However,
it is very true that Sir James Carnac turned round
on himself, and declared on the 21st of November that
the Reja had no property. He said on that oc-
casion—
" The lion. the Governor deems it only necessary to
state it to be his opinion that the whole of the claims
therein advanced by the ex-Raja of Sattara should be
declared inadmissible; that the property which he claims
shall be considered as appertaining to the State, and as
such be made over to the present Raja."
Now, was this extraordinary revolution in the
opinions of Sir James Carnac produced by any fresh
facts that had come to his knowledge in the interval
between the 30th of August, 1839, when he an-
nounced that the Raja had private property, and that
it should be surrendered to him, and the 21st of No-
vember, 1839, when he denied that the Raja had any
private property, and stated that all his property
would be confiscated to the British Government ?
He had no new facts or information of any kind, and
he proceeded precisely on the same simple fact which
he was in possession of in August, 1839, viz., that a
privy purse was set aside for the Raja, out of which
he managed to accumulate the property in question.
It might be said that Sir James Carnac
was absolutely unqualified to make the promise which
he did on the 30th of August; but, supposing a pro-
mise of that kind was made on his own responsibility
and authority, to have broken it would have been an
act in the highest degree indecorous. I find that in
November the aid of a superior authority was called
in, and that the claim of the Raja for a private purse
was submitted to the Governor-General in Council.
But was it submitted with any data which could
enable the Governor-General to form an opinion
on the merits of the case ? Did he acquaint
the Governor-General with the fact that from the
first constitution of the Raja's private purse a positive
promise and pledge was given to him that his
private property should be restored? Not a jot
of anything of the kind. The Governor-General
acquiesced in the opinion of Sir James Carnac in abso-
lute ignorance of all the evidence ; but when the Raja,
seven months afterwards, made an appeal to that de-
cision, the Governor-General ordered the Governor
of Bombay to institute an inquiry into the claims of
the Raja :
" I am directed to request that the three memo-
randums put in by the Raja may reoeivo the attention
of the Governor in Council with reference to the several
demands, claims, and requests therein set forth."
When was any inquiry made to carry out the
positive orders of the Governor-General ? None
whatever, and the only result was an assertion that
the claims were unreasonable. Did the dictum of
Sir James Carnac pass unquestioned at the time ?
Sir 11. Maddock says—and 1 beg to call your par-
ticular attention to this passage, as it has been
quoted by a gentleman of high authority on such
questions :
"The distinction between the public and private pro-
perty of princes of India is much too indefinite to have
admitted of me fairly concluding that all this money,
upwards of 7 lass of rupees, and much of the other pro-
perty made over to the present Raja, was of the nature
of State property. The cash balance was clearly nothing
more than the aggregate amount of what the Raja had
saved out of his yearly income, instead of devoting it,
as he might have done, to objects either of public utility
or private gratification. In case of his death ho might
have bequeathed this money to any other person as well
as his heir and successor."
Now, if a person uninformed of the facts of the
case thought it dubious whether all this private pro-
perty was not the Raja's, what would have been his
opinion if he had been made acquainted with the
whole circumstances, that there had always been a
distinction between public and private property at
Sattara, and moreover, that a solemn pledge had
been given by Sir James Carnac to make over the
private property to the Raja ?—a promise which was
reiterated three several times, and in distinct and se-
perate documents. Colonel Carpenter says—
" It is very true that Lieutenant-Colonel Ovans sti-
pulated at the time of the Raja's deposition for a dimi-
nution of his pension to the extent of 1,000 rupees per
mensem on the demise of the elder Ranee, although the
Raje strongly objected to the arrangement; but it is
equally true that the same officer at the same time passed
his solemn pledge in writing, now in the possession of
his Highness, to hold sacred to the Raja's use the whole
of his private property, which in violation of this assu-
rance was subsequently made over to his brother,
whereas if the property had been surrendered to the
Raja, the contemplated decrease of his pension would
have been a matter of minor importance, instead of the
very reverse under existing circumstances."
—(Hear.) These are the facts ; and I ask again, if
Sir IL Maddock had been apprised of all of them,
would he not have given an unqualified opinion that
the whole property was the bona fide property of the
Raja? I will now refer to the decision of the Court
of Directors, that such a distinction between public
and private property is not ordinarily recognised in
native states. With regard to this decision, I will
observe that the Court has completely annulled it,
because we all recollect that during those long
debates on the annexation of the Sattara territory
it was admitted that the adoption of a son without
the consent of the superior power was perfectly valid
as far as regarded the private property of Appa Sahib.
I find the Commissioner appointed by the British
Government to take an inventory of Apoa Sahib's
private property stated that it arose from accumula-
tions out of his private purse, and amounted to 26
lacs of rupees. Now, Sir, you will recollect that
when Sir James Carnac made a positive promise to
I'ertaub Sing that his property should he restored to
him, he was labouring under some apprehensions, for
he writes on the 20th August, 1839 :
"Although under my present information I do not
apprehend that the Raja will openly resist, still, in order
to place at your disposal a force sufficient to overcome
all opposition, I have, according to your suggestion, di-
rected that the troops noted in the margin should imme-
diately march to Sattara, as a reinforcement to those al-
ready under your command.
a yea will therefore defer carrying into effect my
present i
It intruc
totions untilobse thery ae
how anxiou rrival ot this relindesire
force-
ment. s needless
to avoid collision and bloodshed, but should this unhap-
pily become unavoidable, you will be pleased to adopt
very precaution in your power to prevent injury to the
peaceable end welledisrptoosfe
tdh,eatnrdootpos. "guard against all
irregularities on the part
When that promise was made in August there was
this apprehension—then the property was the pro-
perty of the Raja, and was to be restored to him, but
on the 91st November the Raja peaceably submitted
possessed May,
himself and then he had no private property. What
does Mr. Willoughby say with regard to the
8,
" It may be admitted_
Icll:istrasys
:brought in by,
theAppßaa
3Saaohfilsi
e
right to adopt, but this can only affect the succession of
ettarlan
private property."
Again, on the 15th Dec., 1849, lee observes :
"It is proposed to consider the whole of this pro-
perty as the private property of the Baja. On this I
would remark that, strictly speaking, a very large por-
tion is undoubtedly the property of the State."
Here is an unequivocal admission, on the part of Mr.
Willoughby, that he has no doubt whatever that the

private property of Appa Sahib arose precisely from
the same source as I have mentioned. I say, there-
fore, with all deference to the Court of Directors,
that they have 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 rupees per annum should be 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 an annual allowance will
be assigned from the Sattara revenue for tho sup-
port and respectability of himself and those
members of his family who may claim to accompany
him. Further, that all property belonging to him bond
tide private, and not belonging to the State, will on his
peaceable submission not bo 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 peemensem, and if an adequate
pension be not settled upon him, and his private pro-
perty restored, or some equivalent, his position in Be-
nares can hardly fail to be one continued scone 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 front 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 fit 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 come 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 bands. Now, what do you ? The Baja
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 Hindoo 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 largo 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 bonii fide property
of the Raja, which he had accumulated. He died,
either rich or poor in two ways—he must have carried
riches away with him, or lie must have accumu-
lated riches during his exile in Benares. That he
took nothing away with him except some triflinglor-
naments is admitted by Colonel Ovans, for the mo-
ment he 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 ha was in such a state of destitution that he
had no money to purchase a change of clothes for his
family. What was his condition five years after-
wards ? The same officer reported_
"That, although the 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
subsisa,upon his income; for notwithstanding he had dis-
posed of jewels, plate, and other valuables to the extent of
about 30,000 rupees (3,0000, his debts to the Marwar-
rees of his camp, and to some of the principal men
among his followers who have from 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 55,900 or 62,000 rupees
This, Sir, is the history of thi(5,500/. or 6,0001.)"
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 Raja, 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 R,e;Ja.
In what other cha-
racter could he have written ? He was Raja 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 Maharaj, 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 reishwa, 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, how stands the facts of the
case ? You made him a solemn promise that 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 and the Sattara territory ?
The net revenue of Sattara is 14 lac, or 140,0001.;
the interest on the private property of Pertaub Singh,
,0001., making a total of
at 5 per cent., only 10
150,0001. Deduct from this the allowance to
Pertaub Singh's daughter, 1,2001., and to
his widow and son 2,4001., 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
i
a great act of ejustice 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. a
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

restored to his family, I have framed two motions, one
upon the hypothesis that it has been restored, the
other upon the supposition that it has not :
" Ist. Thai the Court of Directors be requested to take
such steps as they may consider necessary to restore to
the family of the deceased Raja of Semen, Pertaub
Sing, that was bond Jide his private property, when he
WSW deposed, in redemption of the pledge which was
given to that Sovereign on the 28th September, 1839,
by the then Governor of Bombay, Sir James Carnac,
on behalf of the East India Company.
"2d. And that the Court of Directors be further
directed to take such steps as may be necessary to re-
store to the family of the deceased Raja of Sattara, Appa
Sahib, the private property of which that Sovereign
died possessed, according to the schedules furnished to
the Bombay Government by their Commissioners, on
the 7th November, 1849, the validity of the adoption of
a son by Appa Sahib, having been formally recognised
in respect to the private property of the Raja."
Mr. LEWIN had great pleasure in seconding the
motion of his Hon. Friend, agreeing as he did with
all that had fallen from him. Having read all the
papers he was perfectly satisfied that this was a
case of great injustice, but there was a
distinction between this case and the one which he
had the honour to bring before the Court. In that
case there had been no inquiry whatever, whereas
in this case the fullest inquiry had taken place.
There was another observation he wished to make,
which was that this case referred to private property.
Now, had the Raja, without any compromise of his
power, filed a suit in the court under whose
jurisdiction it now falls, it might have been
met on its merits, or objected to on the
ground of jurisdiction, which would have given the
Raja an instant right of appeal to the Privy Council.
Had that course been followed, all these lengthy pro-
ceedings attendant upon the inquiry might have
been avoided, while, at this moment the ex-
Raja or his family might now have been
receiving justice at the hands of the
Privy Council. He, however, allowed that the coun-
try had instituted the fullest inquiry into this case,
but what he complained of was the injustice which
characterized the results of that inquiry. A promise
had been solemnly made to the Raja and wilfully
broken ; and he believed six or seven of the best di-
rectors concurred with him in thinking that great in-
justice had been done to the ex-Rajah and his family.
The CHAIRMAN said it was not his intention to
follow his Hon. Friend through the statement he had
made, because he entertained a great hope that before
he sat down he should be able to convince the Court,
and he trusted his Hon. Friend himself, that it was
injudicious and quite unnecessary to re-agitate this
question again.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had
gone over the same ground which he introduced on
former occasions with reference to that branch of the
question which related to Sir James Carnac, and he
should therefore dismiss this part of his Hon. Friend's
speech in a few words.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt
Sir James Comae did promise in the manner his
Honourable Friend had stated, but when the ques-
tion came to be considered in Council it was thought
to be impolitic to adopt the plan of Sir
James Curiae. It was considered better to fix the
annual allowance of the ex-Raja of Sattara, and not to
establish a precedent for drawing a distinction between
public and private property of native princes. Under
these circumstances an allowance of 10,000 rupees a
month was made to the ex-Raja, which he (the Chair-
man) could not bring himself to think with his Hon.
Friend was at all insufficient, more especially as at
the time that allowance was arranged Government
still considered the unfortunate Raja had placed him-
self in a position that ought to have deprived him of all
claim upon their liberality. He was accordingly
allowed 12,0001. a year. He admitted that
there was an apparent inconsistency about
the matter, but it was considered politic,
and it was distinctly understood at the time that the
Sattara district should be resumed by the East India
Company. It then became nothing but a mere ques-
tion of pounds, shillings, and pence, and of course in
disposing of it Government adhered to the strict letter
of the law with respect to public and private property,
as they had done on former occasions, and though, in
the =fortunate circumstances in which the ex-Raja
was placed, it would not have been wise to entrust
him with a large sum of money, it was yet impossible
for the Government to have adopted a more liberal
course than they did, and therefore if there was any in-
consistency it was to be attributed to the liberality of the
Government.—(Hear, hear.) And independently of
all this the Court should remember that subsequently
to that arrangement the Government increased the
allowance to the Ranee of the ex-Raja from 800
mixes per month to 2,500. His Honourable Friend,
hovever, said that was not a great deal, but he really
could not agree with him there, but, moreover than
that, the Government had agreed to pay her all the
arrears accruing since the death of her husband,
assounting to nearly a lac of rupees, or 10,0001.—
(Hear, hear.) The Ranee herself had expressed
extreme satisfaction at this arrangement, and had
thrown herself completely on the consideration of the
Governor-General. She had written to say
that it was her intention to recall her agent from this
country, and that if any re-agitation of this question
were opened it would be entirely without her con-
sont.—(Hear, hear.) He pledged his honour for the
tnith of this, and with that fact before them he would
age his Hon. Friend, whether it was decent or at all
paper in him to continue agitating this question
merely for the purpose, as it were, of keeping up an
angy feeling between the family of the ex-Raja and
the Court of Directors. He was, under the circum-
stances he had stated, surprised to see that no later
than last night a Member of the House of Commons
agait brought this question before the Legislature,
but iortunately that motion met with little encourage-
ment and it fell to the ground. He thought it was
a fortunate thing for this lady that she at last made
up her mind to follow the advice of prudent counsel,
instead of those who wished probably to keep the
quast.on alive under the pretence of being the friends
of the ex-Rajah. (Hear, hear.) He was of
opinicn that the worst of friends native
princes could have were those parties in this
coentry who were constantly striving to
30V the seeds of distrust and discord between them
any the Government of India.—(Hear.) The Court
of Directors could have but one object in view in
this case, and that was that justice should be done
to all parties, including of course the family of the
ex-3,aja, and he hoped after what he had stated to-
day, and after the expressed wish of the Ranee her-
self that her cause should be left in the hands of the
Governor-General, he did hope an end would be put
to this agitation, and, therefore, he trusted
the court would not support the motion of his Hon.
Friend.—(llear, hear.)
C.neral BRIGGS said it was only yesterday that he
head this motion was to be brought forward to-day,
and having been resident agent at Sattara, with
some knowledge of the real state of the case, and the
facts bearing upon it, he felt it his duty to offer a
few )bservations to the Court on the present occasion.
—(Hear, hear.) The grant or allowance which had
been made to the ex-Raja in its exteut or liberality
he apprehended was not the question before the
Court.—(Hear, hear.) What they had to con-
sider wee the abstract question whether there
was any private property left by the ex-Raja when
in Satan when he was removed, and whether it was
promised that that property should be restored ?
(Hear, hear.) Now, he would describe what was
the nature of that private 'property. Colonel Ovens
had slated that in the time of Captain Grant that
3 lace 12,000 rupees were annually set aside for the
private purse of the Raja, and when he (the Gallant
General) succeeded Captain Grant as the resident
agent at Sattara it was arranged that the amount
should be increased to four lace for the Raja's private
purse, and one lac for contingencies ; and up to the
year 1839, the date of the ex-Raja's removal, the
private treasury was so kept.—(Hear.) In the
year 1823 there was a dearth, and the revenues
of the Raja fell short to the extant of about
a lac and a half. The Raja was desirous of
meeting the deficit by a reduction of expenses,
and a general reduction of the salaries received
by all the public officers. He (the Gallant Ge-
neral), however, urged upon him the expediency
of drawing upon his private treasure for a loan
instead, and repaying it out of future revenues,
hut the ex-Raja would not listen to this proposal.
Ile said, " No, I will not; it has been granted to
me by the Government for my private expenses for
that purpose, and lam bound to keep it. A certain
sum is set aside every year for contingencies, and
as it is impossible to tell what may be our future
fate (I trust it will not happen in my time) but
something may happen to my posterity, and there-
fore I keep this as a private fund to secure my family
against the contingencies of the future." That was
whet the Raja then thought and said, and in deducting
10 per cent. from the salary of every public servant,
he also caused the same to be deducted from the
privy purse. It was clear, therefore, that this private
purse was a distinct thing from the revenue of the
State; the ex-Raja, it was also clear, considered
it to be his private property, and it was stated that
at the time he was removed the private pro-
perty amounted to 26 lees of rupees (200,0001.).
had these 26 lace of rupees been invested in the. Com-
pany's funds, it would have been necessary tor the
East India Company to have instituted a case in a
court of justice before the treasure could have been
taken out.—(Hear, hear.) It had been stated by
the llon. Chairman that the 120,000 rupees allowed
to the Raja in his exile was mad_e reference
'
to the private property ; but he found tha on
30th of August, 1839, Sir James Carnac pro-
mised that it should be restored, and he also pro-
mised that a certain sum should be awarded to the
ex-Raja out of the revenues of the Sattara state.
Now, it was necessary to consider what that revenue
was when Sir James Carnac made that promise and
recommendation. Well, then, Sir James Carnac, writ-
ing to the Governor-General, on the 12th of Sept.,
recommended that a sum equal to one lac, or 125,000
rupees, per annum, should be made available out of

the revenue of the Sattara state for the support of was not fulfilled to the very letter, but he was bound
the ex-Raja's family, and his 'private property to couple that admission with the fact that the opinion
restored to him.—(Hear, hear.) The Court would of Sir James Carnet, was overruled in Council, as
see that the actually allotted sum of a lac and 20,000 well as by the Governor-General of India, and
rupees to the Raja was 5,000 rupees less than Sir that this allowance of one lac and 20,000 rupees was
James Carnac had previously proposed, exclusive of made with a due reference to the private property.
his private property.—(Plear.) It appeared to him, Notwithstanding what had fallen from General
therefore, perfectly clear that on every principle of Briggs there could be no question about it, that after
common justice and good faith this private property, Sir James Carnac wrote the letter, which the Gallant
whatever it might amount to, belonged exclusively General referred to, Sir J. Carnac must have altered
to the ex-Raja, and as the Raja bad legally adopted a his opinion when he came to consider the matter in
son, that son succeeded to the private property, and to Council. Still he conceded to his Hon. Friend who
withhold it from him would be a violation of a sacred had made this motion, and who appeared to have made
agreement.—(Hear, hear.) It had nothing to do a deep impression upon the Court by his speech, that
with what was ultimately granted, which was evi- it was still to be regretted that what was at first pro-
dently intended by Sir James Carnac to be granted mised was not fulfilled, but he did not feel himself on
independent of the private property, and the Govern- that account bound to put himself in opposition to all
ment had, therefore, no right to detain it.—(Hear.) parties long after the question was supposed to have
Mr. LEWIN said the Chairman's speech had given been completely set at rest, because it was utterly
this case a new complexion, and he claimed to speak impossible to attain the end he might have in view
again upon the question. by pursuing such an improper mode of proceeding.
Ths CHAIRMAN said this could not be permitted. Now, with regard to the statement of the Honourable
Mr. LEWIN said the allowance to the Ranee was Gentleman that the Ranee was in a state of destitution,
quite a new subject, and he ought to be heard. how could that be possible when his Honourable
Mr. WEEDON wished to say a word or two on this Friend had himself admitted that she had
subject. He thought the proceedings of to-day showed eight hundred rupees a month pin money,
the inconvenience of making motions without previous which, at the death of the ex-Raja,
notice, because he apprehended that had it been known was increased ? His Hon. Friend therefore was not
that this matter would be discussed, there would cer- justified in saying she had been left to starve, seeing
tainly have been a larger attendance of proprietors.— that there were ample funds at her disposal if she
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the question itself he had only thought proper to avail herself of them.
had always believed in the guilt of the ex-Raja, and, The agitation of the Sattara question had acted most
under those circumstances, he thought his aridly prejudicially upon the native Princes of India, be-
had been treated with the utmost liberality.—(Hear, cause it had led them to look upon the authority of
hear.) With respect to the agreement of Sir James the Government with suspicion, and to question its
Carnac, he begged to remind the Lion. Mover of this honour. He did not wish to re-open the question,
proposition that the Governor-General's opinion was but he felt bound to state that one portion of the let-
the one upon which they should act. Now it was ter of the Ranee represented that she had been ad-
the opinion of the Governor-General that the ex-Raja vised by parties in England, some of whom were
was not entitled to the private property, and he should highly influential, to re-agitate the question,
therefore concur with the Chairman in voting against but if she listened to that advice she might
the motion. be assured that it would not succeed, and if it
Mr.SuLmvAN reminded the Honourable Proprietor really were true that parties in this country did
who last addressed the Court that he had no oppor• write letters to mislead these unhappy people, he
tunity of giving a notice of motion, because it was hoped they would consider well the course they were
only within the last few days that the fact had come adopting, and how far it might prejudice the interest
to his knowledge that the family of the ex-Raja were of those whom they were anxious to befriend.
actually at this moment without a single rupee. A PROPRIETOR suggested that the letter of the
That was his reason for bringing forward this Ranee had better be read.
question to-day. No allowance had been made The CHAIRMAN said the letter he had been quoting
to the Ranee or her son since the death was from Colonel Stuart, at Benares, who stated, in
of the ex-Raja. Up to this moment the Gover- conclusion, " I wish to add that the Ranee continues
nor-General had done absolutely nothing for the ex- her anxiety in wishing to obey the ordinance of
Raja's family. He had promised to give the ;Ranee the Government. She has placed in my possession
an increase in her allowance, but it was so insignifi- all the correspondence she had received from her ad-
cant that it was hardly worth having. She was visers in England. Some of these letters are from
already entitled to 800 rupees a month, and now it influential parties, who promise her accommodation
was to be increased to 1,200, if the Ranee would re- and every success, if she will only continue to agitate."
nounce her rights or those of her son ; but, as far as In one of her letters the Ranee says, " I have issued
his information went, the Governor-General had not, the necessary orders to withdraw my agent in Lon-
up to this moment, paid the family a single shilling. don, and I have begged of my friends not to continue
He, however, could readily make allowance for the any further agitation in my behalf. If they continue
lion. Chairman, and he would separate him in his to agitate after this it will not be with my autho-
official capacity from what he was when he formerly rity.' After that expression of opinion on the part
spoke upon this subject as simply Mr. Sheppard, the of the Ranee he need say no more, but simply leave
director. Then the Hon. Gentleman was a warm it for the Court to negative the proposition.
and uncompromising supporter of the claims of the Mr. SULLIVAN, before that was done, wished to
ex-Raja, and, for the information of the Court, he ask the Chairman if, as a member of this
would read the opinion which he expressed some Court, when the Governor-General made to the
time ago with regard to this very case : Renee a proposal in the highest degree unjust, he
" The Raja was to be treated as an object of sympathy, was bound to take no notice of it, or to be precluded
not of punishment. He received also the pledge of the from giving that advice to the party about to be injured
Governor that his private property should not be inter- if he thought tit to do so ? He was now doing nothing
fered with; can any usage or precedent justify the breach more than following in the footsteps of the Hon.
of this promise? Chairman himself. His opinions remained unchanged,
" I would now request particular attention to the Re- they were what they always had been, namely,
that
sideut of Sattara's letter of the 28th September, 1539, the directors had acted in defiance of all equity and
which states that there were about seven lacs of rupees .
ustice, and why should he surrender them now, at
(70,0001.) in hard cash, and about seven or eight lacs J
worth of jewels (70,0001. or 80,0001.), and other vain- the moment of all when the injured parties were
ables in the palace. In the 11th par. of this letter he sunk in the deepest distress ? This case of
says, " The whole of this property is claimed by the cruelty and injustice could be explained in a very few
ex-Raja, bat Appa Sahib Maharaj (his successor) words. The Government had taken nearly fifteen
maintains that about five or six lacs of the money lacs of rupees from these parties, and given them in
(50,000/. or 60,000!.) is State property, and private lieu thereof 25,000 rupees.
property belonging to him, and also about two lacs The motion was then put and negatived.
(20,0000 worth of jewels, and that the remainder only Mr. LEWIN moved a resolution to the effect that
belongs to the ex-Raja and the ladies of his family. the native sepoys should be entitled to the same pri-
" Here we have the express admission of the validity
vileges as the European soldiers in India—namely,
of the Ex-Raja's claims, from the party most interested
that they should have a copy of the record and pro-
in opposing them. He who was to be the possessor of
ceedings before courts-martial.
all the property that could be designated State property,
reluctantly admits that the remainder, amounting to The motion not having been seconded, fell to the
about two lace of hard cash, and six lace worth of jewels ground.
belong to the ex-Raja and the ladies of his family. The Court then adjourned.
There can be no question, indeed, but that the treasure
and jewels found in the palace were the fruits of the
economical management of the Raja's resources. Unlike
the generality of the native princes, he had governed his
people with prudence and moderation, and restrained his
own expenses within the limits of his income. Stripped
of his Raj and hie property, he is now the degraded
pensioner of that brother, who assisted in his overthrow.
Such is likely to be the climax of the unhappy Raja's
fate: a prince who had been fur many years, and up
to a very late period, the deserving object of the
Court's and the Government's highest favour and ad-
miration. His refusal to acknowledge himself guilty
of treachery, and to sign the conditions prescribed by
the Government, could not possibly justify the confis-
cation of his property. To me it appears that the con-
fiscation and transfer of his property to the present
Raja is an additional penalty inflicted on this unfortu-
nate prince, not warranted by any considerations whatever.
If I lamented the extreme measure of his deposal, more
deeply do I lament this aggravated severity. Since I
have had the honour of a seat in the direction, it has
been the usual practice of the Court to exhibit their
power principally by acts of clemency and kindness to
the natives of India. Would that this feeling had pre-
dominated in the case of the helpless and unfortunate
Raja of Sattara! His degradation, however, seems to
be now consummated; and connected as lam with the
Court, there is left to me but one consolatory reflexion,
viz., that of being able to disavow any share in its pre-
sent proceeding."
Now those were the opinions of the Hon. Chairman
when he was a simply a director. In the speech which
that lion. Gentleman had just made not a single fact
which had been brought forward in support of the
motion was disputed, or a single argument contro-
verted. It merely announced that the Government
of India had come to a particular conclusion in the
matter, but not a scrap of paper to show how
Sir James Carnac thought fit, in November, to
change the opinion which he had expressed in the
previous August, when ho made the promise to the
ex-Raja. It was only stated that so-and-so was done
upon the dictum of Sir James Carnac, and there
the matter was to rest, without the statement
being supported by a single tittle of docu-
mentary, or, indeed, any other evidence.
The chairman had announced to the Court that in his
opinion the final allowance made to the ex-Raja was
amply sufficient to provide for his own wants and
those of his Ranee and family, but it was not denied
that the Government had confiscated property be-
longing to the ex-Raja, valued at 26 lacks, and yet
they had only given the family, what? Why no more
than one lac and 20,000 rupees ! And this was what
was called a liberal allowance ! This was what they
called justice! They allowed the right of the ex-
Raja to adoption, but they refused to let his adopted
son inherit his private property ! What a monstrous
act of injustice ! Nor had the chairman attempted
to prove that the facts he Lad brought
before the Court were at all unfounded, though he
certainly did say something about the Ranee ; but,
nevertheless, he repeated that the woman was in a
state of starvation and distress, and he pledged him-
self for the truth of the statement, that the Governor-
General refused in the first instance to make the
slightest addition to her allowance until she had sur-
rendered the rights of her son. Up to this moment
the Governor-General had paid her nothing, and
what she might have done while suffering from the
pangs of her distress, he could not possibly say.
Her destitution and her desire to preserve her
own life might have induced her to make
almost any sacrifice. The Hon. Chairman had lec-
tured them as to their past and present conduct. He
said it would be much better to leave the matter
alone, to let it remain untouched ; but the chairman
should have remembered, when he gave that advice,
that he had been the first to begin this agitation. It
began long before be (Mr. Sullivan) returned from
India. Ten years ago he felt with the chairman
that injustice had been done in this case, and the only
difference between him and the chairman was this,
that the chairman had abandoned the good caue!ernhoo
doubt having excellent reasons for doing so-- while
had clung to it. The injustice or the rightthinothhits
case was not denied, but it
was
but g if
inexpedient to admit
the chairman thought? when ent re-
to these die
turned to India there would be
lan
the
leltanatdnt latter
re"s agent
took up this ques-
cussions, he was mistaken, for
tion as one of principle, and he should stick to it.
The Court of Directors had un awfully confiscated
the face of—all law, equity, and
private property in
justice, though they had admitted' that they had made
some sort of arrangement or other, but that would
for him. He wanted to know what had be-
not
do
e of the 14 lace of rupees which was the private
property of Appa Sahib, and which they had deprived
him of. They said they had made the Ranee an al-
lowance instead of it, but fur his part he still thought
they were bound in justice to make a restitution of
the property.—(hear.)
The CHAIRMAN said he felt called upon to add a
few words after what had fallen from the Honourable
Proprietor in reply. Ile quite admitted that his
opinion had been favourable to the claim of the Raja,
but he had no right to continue to maintain opinions
when they had been r,-peatedly overruled by the ma-
jority of the proprietors and directors. Had be fol-
lowed a different course, and continued on every dif-
ferent occasion that presented itself to force his opi-
nion upon the Court, he would have gone beyond his
duty. Ile had a perfect right' to adhere to his own
fixed opinions, but he had no right to persist in ad•
vocating them, against the wish of the majority, to
the end of his life ; but the Honourable Proprietor
seems to entertain a different notion, and if they were
to act according to his rule, why there would be no
end to this agitation. Be freely acknowledged, that
he regretted much that Sir James Cara= 3:promise

HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.

To-night Music re-asserts her high place among the grates
and splendours of a London season. Her sceptre is placed,
for the first time, in the fair hand of Mdlle. Caroline Duprez,
the promise of whose young fame, if but half fulfilled, en-
sures a career worthy of the name which she inherits, and
to the noble art to which she has devoted her surprising
talents. We would not indulge in anticipatory criticism ;
but, from what we have witnessed of Mdlle. Duprez's powers,
we dare assure the expectant world, that in this ease rumour
has not said a word too much.
Of the new ballet, in which Amelia Ferraris is to bring
back her marvels of grace and power, we find the following
elegant and fascinating description issued, we presume, by
authority. We know not if we are trespassing on copy-
right, but we are sure our readers will thank us for the risk
we run in producing the argument in extenso:—
". The Isle of the Loves' is to be found in a charming
region, of which no one is quite ignorant, and which few
natures are so severe as not to delight in—whether they own
it or not. It is that land of delicious impossibility which the
de icate and airy spirit of Watteau loved to inhabit in
dreams, and which his fertile pencil filled in waking moments
with rich colour and graceful forms.
" It is the land where the primitive sweetness of pastoral
coquetry is married to the refined brilliancy of the gayest of
courts ; and where, from under the trellised blushes of the
rose, or through the cool leaves which shadow the purple
promise of the vine, the archest and most mischievous of
cupids peer out on every side and laugh at the fantastic
beauty of the combination.
" In such a scene is it that our true history undertakes to
record the issue of one chapter more in the eternal strife be-
tween Authority, which rashly undertakes to put down Love,
and Love, which yields to no authority.
" A governor of this isle, more absolute than wise;and more
ardent than successful, stung by his own disappointment,
resolved that no vassal should be happier than his lord. So he
condemned the land to be for ever deprived of love, and enacted
a separate life for its youths and maidens. But love re-
belling against the despot, soon won back his subjects, sub-
dued the isle, and triumphed over the absurd attempt to
crush his power.

" TABLEAU I.
" La Lot lIIPOSSIBLE.—FIeurette, the Star of the Isle,
though but the daughter of a simple fisherman, has
The gift which nature keeps for maids
Who boast no other dowers,
To be as beautiful as aught
Within this world of ours.'
Loved by many, she has loved but one, Colin, who lingers
beneath her casement. Poor Blaise, the ancient beau of the
village—the most ambitious of her unsuccessful adorers—
also awaits her appearance, full of pretension, finery, and
failure. At last the toilette, with the assistance of cousin
Angoletta, is completed. The bride comes forth. Friends
and neighbours pour in, headed by old Gregoire, the bride's
father. The plighted pair receive the paternal blessing ; all
is going well ; but over the sky which Love had made so
bright, a sudden cloud is brought by authority. There is a
noisy and imposing entrance on the scene, a train of official
High Mightiuesses heralds the approach of that High Might-
iness the Governor.
" Unhappily this great potentate is in his exalted place as
subject to the real ruling power of the land as Fleurette
and her chosen one in their humble sphere. Colin bas little
patience with the warm attentions of the governor to the
bride, by which this fact is betrayed. The governor has
still less with the rough demonstrations of his vassal's jea-
lousy. He abates his wrath in consideration of Colin and
Fleurette's admirable dancing, as proved in the charming
Pas (Le Jeu de la Rose); but the touching grace of Fleu-
rette only increases the princely passion. The courtiers are
commanded to carry off the bride to the castle. The vil-
lagers resist this outrage, put the High Mightinesses to
flight, and, triumphant for the moment, return with the spoils
of the conquered ; among which the hat of the Grand Master
of the Ceremonies, and the cane of the Lord Sigh Perfumer
are conspicuous. The triumph is short, Authority soon re-
turns with added strength and new terrors. This terrible
edict is announced, by proclamation, that there shall be no
more love in the island ; that men and women sh
opposite quarters—north and south; that the leastall dwell in
infrac-
tion of this law shall be a hanging matter.
" And these tyrannical enactments the guards forthwith
remorselessly carry out by a repeal of all matrimonial unions,
and the enforcement of a general act of separation.
" TABLEAU EL..= LA PAYSANNE • LA COME,' OU
JADLS ET AUJOURDHUL7
" Here we find artless beauty and native grace in contrast
with all that is most elaborate and studied in its finery. The
Fayure palace and its courtesies, however, have little charm for
otte. Her melancholy demeanour gives evidenceof one
continued offence against the law forbidding her to lovi; and
when at last, tired of witnessing the stiff performances of the
court, she dashes out into all her own wild brilliancy of dance,
the conquered Governor confesses the power of beauty and
the weakness of legislation—kneels to the fair enemy of his
peace, but kneels in vain, and is with difficulty raised by his
attendants from a position, which, with a rashness ill-suited
to his age and dignity, he had
taken up without duly consi-
dering how he was to get out of it again.
"TABLEAU 'LES •MOUBS VESGE
ci This beautiful scene is Love's favourite haunt, that tem-
ple his chosen shrine. The sweet sounds which fill the air
herald his approach-- and see where the Irresistable One glides
like a meteor to the earth ! Fleurette, drawn hither by some
potent spell, does not long resist his fascinations, nor, when
her companions find her reclining.in the arms of her strange
partner, are they slow to own the influeneeof a power, which,
like her, they cannot defy. The deity is benevolent, and at
his command a barque glides to shore, freighted with loves
for all. Like a swarm of golden bees, the cupids glitter
among the village maidens, and cluster rounddenee the group,
utort
Full of joy, and love, and mischief, they
gather ; but jealous and angry eyes are on the scene, Blaise,
the rejected, bold though not successful, invades the favoured
court. Repulsed by Loves arrows, he returns with the vil-
lagers in force, and the mortals strive once more to win back
the prize so strangely snatched away ; but love, fettered by
mortal clay, kat slight chance against its free etheral essence,
and the maidens are borne triumphantly off.
" TABLEAU iv. PIEGE LT LA CHASSE AUX Al4Ouns.'
"Here love, with his fie-ces, has reached the very centre
and stronghold of his realm. In this delicious garden, rich
with bright fruits and gay with sunny flowers, everything
owns his spell and aids his power.
‘, In every direction bright colours tempt the eve, soft in-
fluences sway the heart, and gentle sports invite the grace-
ful idleness of beauty. The village maidens find it the true
elysium. Yet even here jealousy does not fear to continue
its attack on love. The mortal lovers penetrate the garden
—the maidens escape - but they may be won back. The
great object with the jealous adorers is to catch and secure
their airy rivals. The astuter rustics laugh at the awkward
efforts of Blaise, who think that loves, like little birds, may
be caught by chaff. Some among them have been blessed
with wit enough, to: construct from boughs and flowers a
more effectual snare, and soon the poor loves, intent on
their village charmers, flutter in a sad captivity. The
captors disappear, bent on bringing all the world to be