The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-19 00:00:00

.1

- -
•
3.‘ , • ••• ""'z' , •
N° 17 962.] •
. , LONDON, FRIDAY .
.74,••
1 •

PARTNER WANTED.—Any Gentleman of
business habits, and who can command from 10,6001. to
15,0001., m,ay find an eligible investment in a very old established,
safe, and very valuable manufacturing and lucrative business.
Principals only, or their Solicitors, may apply to Messrs. Jenkin-
son, Swecting, and Jeskinson, 29, Lombard-street.

1/ANSELL, HORNE, and Co., Wholesale
Tea and Coffee-dealers. No. 2, Bucklersbury, Clicapside,
Invite the attention of families, hotel-keepers, and other large con-
sumers, to the peculiar system of their establishment, which is to
supply them on the same terms as the trade, at the lowest whole-
sale price. Price list and samples forwarded tree. A single pound
and upwards sent free within live miles of town. Six pounds and
upwards forwarded free to any part of England.—Address Mansell,
Home, and Co., 2, Bucklersbnry, Cheapside.

ABSOLUTE SALE OF SHAWLS: AND
MANTLES.
TURNER and COMPANY,
27 and 28, CRAWFORD-STREET, 27, 28,
'BAKER -STREET,
Will offer for SALE,• on Monday next, the Stock of HENRY
ROBERTS, of Ludgate-bill, Shawl and Mantle Warehouseman, d
Halt the Price charged by any Shawl House in London. viz.,
Bareze Scarfs, every colour, !ram 85. lid. to las. Paisley
Long Shawls, and Square Lyeas Cashmere's, Printed Cashmeres, &c.,
at Ruinous Prices. Mantles in Watered Silks, Glace Satins. Gro-
Royale, &c., at Prices from U. lid. :to One Guinea. Really worth
three times the money.
Ouszavz.—TUßNEß and COMPANY,
27 and 28, CRAWFORD-STREET, 27. 28,
PURCHASERS or BANKRUPT STOCKS.

ARGYLE SUBSC ON ROOMS:, Greet
Windmill-street, St. James's.
Musical Director and Conductor, M. LAITRENT, jun.
This ACADEMT, for Tuition and Practice of DANCING, is
NOW OPEN for the Season. • Teaching by Professors Calkins;
Money, and Franconi. .
For Terms of Private Tuition apply at the office.—Terms of Sub-
scription, for morning and evening practice :—Sli menthe, 5L 55.;
one month, 11. is.; one evening, li. Subscribers' tickets not
transferable.
The Academy will open for evening practice at a Quarter to Eight
o'clock, and terminate at Half-past Eleven precisely.

74HE ROYAL
_POLYTECHNIC

INSTITUTION.
LECTURES on MUSIC by Sir HENRY R. BISHOP resumed,
with an increased number of VOCALISTS for the Illustrations on
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, at Eight, and on Tuesday, Thw s-
day, and Saturday, at Three Bachhoffner's Second
Lecture on the Philosophy of Scientific Recreation with Optical
Effects, daily at Two, and on Tuesday and Thursday Evenings at
a quarter-past Nine.—Lecture by J. 11. Pepper, Esq., on the
Chemistry of Hydrogen, with special reference to its application for
conveying by Balloons Pyrotechnic and other Signals to Sir John
Franklin, on Monday, Wetindsday, and Friday, at. Three, and on
Tuesday and Thursday Evenings, at Eight.—Dissolving Views,
illustrating the Arctic Regions and Ceylon ; also Views of London in
the Sixteenth Century, and as it now is.—Diver and Diving-
bell, &c., &c.
Admission, is.—Schools, Half-price.
Analyses and Chemical Experiments conducted in the Laboratory,
under the direction of J.-H. Pepper, Esq.

THE SOVEREIGN PRINCES

OF I N DIA.

MEETING AT THE EAST INDIA

HOUSE.

A special general Court cf the Directors of the East
India Company was held on Wedwesday at thelndia House,
Leadenhall-tt:eet, at twelve o'clock, at the desire of nine
proprietors of East India stock, as expressed in the fol-
lowing letter:—

" London, March 27, 1850.
" To the Chairman and Directors of the East India Compan3
"honourable Sirs,
"We, the undersigned Proprietors of East India Stock, duly quail-
lied by law, request that you will convene a Special General Court
of Proprietors at year earliest convenience, in order to take into Om,
sideration the papers respecting the succession, by adoption, of

Sovereign Princes in India.
"We have the honour to be,
" Honourable Sirs,
" Your obedient Servants,
(Signed)
P SULLIVAN.
" JOSEPH HUME.
• "JOHN BRIGGS.
"JAS. STE IVA_RT FORBES.
" THOMAS DICKINSON.
. "IV. H. STEPHENS.
" SAMUEL GOODFELLOW.
' " CHAS. FORBES.
" M. LEWIN."
•

Precisely at twelve o'clock, the Chairman, JOHN
SHEPHERD, Esq., and a body of directors, entered the.
large room, and the 'Secretary having read the minutes
of the preceding Court,
• The CitmantAN+called upon Mr. Sullivan.
Mr: SULLIVAN rose and said, ho had to crave the
kind indulgence of 'the Conit whilst be proceeded to ac-
quit himself of the task which he-bad undertaken on this,
occasion. The Court came it, a vote in May-last, by
which it virtually asserted its right to, confiscate to its
own benefit the territories of any native prince of India
whom it should have pronounced to have died without
heirs. Now, the object which he had in calling the
Court together this day was to show that if they had
been in possession of the papers which he held in his

hand, they never would have come to that vote; butt, on
the contrary, by means of the information supplied by
those papers, they would have come to a contrary
resolution; and, if any proof were wanting of the crimi-
nal negligence with which that most important subject
was decided, a subject involving the dearest rights
and interests of no less than 300 chiefs and
princes of India, that proof would be found in the
tact, that that decision was come to in criminal igno-
rance of the important documents which be held in his
hand, that is, in the absence of the only evidence that
would bare enabled them to arrive at a just decision
on the subject. He said criminal igeorance,
for his own experience of the mode of conducting
public business in India enabled him to say

that whenever a subject of importance was
under discussion before the Council cf India the first
step was for the secretary to prepare a collection of all
the papers bearing upon the subject, so that those who
had to decide upon it might do so with the fullest infor
mation before them. This most important subject
ft as brought under the notice of the Supreme
Government in May, 1848, who did not de-
cide upon it until August, 1848, an interval
which would have enabled them to ransack_
records and documents for every scrap of infor-
mation bearing upon the subject; but, instead of that
being done, the matter was treated by the Supreme
Government at Bombay, and also by the .Court of Direc-
tors, as if it were entirely new, and as if there were no
precedents to guide them to a decision. Now, it ap-_
peered by the papers which he held in his hand that
the question was agitated before the Council of India no
less man sixteen times between the years 1826 and 1846,
and in fifteen instances was decided in the teeth of the
vote which was passed in May 1848. The Government
of India professed to have a right to assume the territories
of native princes by virtue of certain prerogatives which
they say had descended to them from the Mogul Emperors.
By virtue of those prerogatives they had already seized
the •principalittes of the native sovereigns of Coloba,
Sattata, and Mandevee, and they threatened, as
occasion might offer, to extinguish all., the
others, including the Mogul himself, from whom
they pretended to have derived their prerogatives. It
was in order to meet those monstrous pretensions that
he had framed the resolutions he was about to move ;
and he felt the fullest confidence that those of the di-
rectors who looked to the legitimate consequences of
those monstrous pretentious would concur with him in
forwarding those resolutions. Let the Court see what
those legitimate consequences were. If they had one
prerogative of the Mogul Emperor they had all his pre-
rogatives; if they might seize a man's possessions by
virtue of the Mogul Emperor's prerogatives, they might
also cut off a man's bead, or do any other act of des-
potic tyranny which the Mogul Emperors themselves'
sometimes did. But whence-ditrttre M-o-gul Eniperom
derive those prerogatives ? Those perogatives were in-
herent in the Mogul Emperors, as despotic sovereigns,
whose will was their law. But was it necessary in the
19th century for him to remind the Court of Directors
that they were not despotic sovereigns? Bad they not
denuded themselves of every vestige of despotic power.?
What was the object of all their treaties solemnly en-
tered into with the native princes of India? It was to
strip themselves of all those prerogatives, and to define
and-fix that which was before fluctuating and uncertain.
Now take, for example, their treaty with the Raja of
Colaba, which was one of the native states which they
bad already swept away. What was the preamble to
that treaty? The preamble ran thus—
" W here's by the conquest of the territories of Bajee
Rae, the late Yeishwah, and the complete extinction of
his power, the rights possessed by his Government are
now transferred to the East India Company; and whereas
it is desirable to fix the future relations that are to sub-
sist between the said Rajah and the East India Com-
Nowyn."
, here were certain arbitrary and undefined preroga-
tives which had descended from the Peishwah to the
East India Comi any, which they immediately stripped
themselves of, and proceeded to define and fix the
future relations of the Company with the Raja of Co-
labs in the most minute way. Now, let him call the
attention of the Court to the 21st article of their
treaty with the Raja of Catch. It was as
follows:—" It being contrary to the religious
principles of the people of Catch that cows,
bullocks, and peacocks should be killed, the
Honourable Company agrees not to permit these animals
to be killed." Again, in their treaty with the Raja of
Setters, the British Government reserved to itself the
right of cutting timber:—" The British Government
also reserves to itself the right of cutting timber on
the western side of the Ghauts." Here there
was no room for prerogative, everything was fixed and
defined by treaty, even to the right of killing peacocks
and cutting timber. He could not doubt, therefore, that
they would join with him on those grounds in the reso-
lutions which he had to submit to their consideration,
the first of which was as follows:—" That the British
Government has no rights, and can claim the
exercise of no prerogatives, over the Sovereign
States of India beyond what belong to it
under the general law of nations, excepting
such as clearly flow from the stipulations of its treaties
with those sovereigns."—(Cheers.) Now, he thought
he had completely established the fact that the British
Government had no such rights and no such prerogatives
as they presumed to exercise; but, on the contrary,that
they had voluntarily stripped themselves of such rights
and prerogatives, and that they could not go one jot be-
yond their treaties Now, the next resolution as to those
states which he had to propose, was the following:—
" That those states have independent rights of succession,
which are regulated by local usage, and that the British
Government cannot justly subvert or interfere with such
rights, with any view to its own aggrandizement."—
(Hear, bear.) Now, it would be his business to prove,
from the papers which were now before the Court for
the first time, that those sovereigns had those independ-
ent rights of succession; and, that he might de it with
the more perspicuity, he should take the papers , in
the order of their dates, beginning with the
year 1826, when the first succession in the family of
Scindiah occurred. Dowlut Rao Scindiab, the sovereign
of the state of Gwalior, having fallen into a dangerous
state of health, the Government of India, in urging him
to name or adopt a successor, took care to guard against
any misapprehension of their motives by an unquatified
declaration that " nothing could be farther from the wish
and intention of the British Government than to exer-
cise, now or hereafter, any intervention in the internal
administration of his country—that it did not pretend
to any right to control or regulate the succession to the
state of Gwalior—that its sole motive iu offering advice
on the subject was the interest which it
took in the maintenance of the general tran-
quillity " " that Scindiah, as the absolute and
despotic ruler of the country, must be con-
sidered to possess the undoubted right of determining
the succession,"—and that it was prepared to recognise
any selection that might be "made by the general voice,
or by a majority of the chiefs and principal persons of
the country, according to usage, whether the letter of
the written law was adhered to or not." Scindiah
having failed to nominate a successor, his widow upon
his death assumed the reins of government, was recog-
nised by the Government of India as regent, and this
recognition was extended to a son, whom she soon after-
wards adopted. He then came to the Kotah succession:
In 1825 the Raja of Kotah applied to the
Government of India to recognise as his successor
a son whom he had adopted in 1821. Before granting
the recognition, that Government thought it advisable
to ascertain whether the adopted son was, by Hindoo
law, the legal heir ; there being a brother of the
reigning prince alive, whose pretensions as heir by
blood might, it was thought, have clashed with those of
the heir by adoption. In submitting this question for
the decision of a tribunal of Pundits, the'Government of
India declared, that " The Prince of Kotah must
be considered to possess the right, iu common with
all other Hindoos, of adopting a son and successor, in
conformity with the rules of the Shasters, unless prece-
dent and state usage can be pleaded, which distinctly
bar the exercise of that right in the instance under

consideration." Now there was eh instance of On-
slave assertion by the Government sof India—
that llindoo princes had, by law, a right to adopt
not merely an heir to their private property (as
asserted in, the case of Sattara), but a suc-
cessor to their sovereignties. It was said that
the ohj« ct of the reference to legal authority
was to ascertain whether the plan of providing, for the
succession "would consist with those rules and prin-
ciples of law which are binding alike upon all Hindoos,
whether prince or peasant." The Pandits having pro
flounced 'the udoption to be valid, the Government of
India, in communicating to the father the recognition of
his adopted son as heir to the principality of Kotah,
took particular care to explain to the Raja that the delay
which bad occurred in snaking it arose entirely frotis a
desire to 'satisfy itself that the adoption was strictly
legal. The head of the Seindials state was an absolute
and despotic monarch. What, -then, was- the status
of the Raja of Kotuh? The first article of the treaty
of Kotah said there shall be perpetual .friendehip,
alliance, and unity of interest betweea the -British
Government on the one hand, and Mahe Rao
Omed Sing Behander and his heirs and successors
ml the other. Again, article 4 said the- Maha
Rao and his heirs and successors will always
act in subordinate co-operation with the British Govern-
ment, and acknowledge its supremacy, and will not
henceforth, have any connexion with the chiefs and
states with.which the state of Kotah has been heretofore
connected; and article 7 said the tritiuti hirotofore
paid by the principality of Kotah to the' Mahratta chiefs
(for instance, the Peishwah,Scindia,Holkar;and Power)
shall be paid at Delhi to , the. British .Government fur
,ever, according to the separate schedule. annexed.
There they had princes acknowledging in terms the su-
premacy of the British Government, tsnd in
.token of
their dependence pt.iying tribuie to,that Government. It
was a notable fact, is connexion with this instance of the
adoption of Kotah, that the %abject of this adoption was
tint son of a man who had fallen whOn fightingssn gainit
the British Government, but that Government wisely and
charitably determined in this, as in other instances, that
the sins of the father were not to be-visited on the child,
and the son was recognised as the presumptive heir of
the territory of Kotah. So rooted in Ilindoo law was this
right of adoption, that Sir Charles Metcalfe on that
occasion expressed a serious doubt whether it could be
set aside by the subsequent birth of a male heir. The
next case of succession by adoption in the order of time
was that of the Raja of Dutteeah in 1833. In that year
the reigning Raja applied to the British Government for
the recognition as his successor of a foundling whom be
had adopted in 1830; and the British agent, in forward-
ing that application, said that the 'Raja, with other
princes of his class, had a right to adopt whom they
pleased, or to be succeded by their illegitimate offspring;
and that as the treaty entered into between the British
Government and the Raja confirmed the latter in his
principality, his right to nominate a successor could not
be disputed. In this reasoning the Government of India
acquiesced, and, although the succession of the adopted
son was opposed by a collateral heir, it *as recognised
by the British Government upon the death of
the Raja, in 1840. He (Mr. Sullivan) found
his strength failing him, and therefore be
should just pass over eight or nine other instances which
told precisely the same tale. There was the Dhar suc-
cession in 1834, where the widow of the Baja, who had
died without adopting a successor, adopted a son, who
was immediately placed on the Gadee,(throne), and his
succession recognised by the British Government. There
was next the first Bolkar succession in the same year,
on'which the British Resident, in reporting the death of
Alulhar Rao Holkar, the reigning prince, observed that
a son had been adopted just before he expired; that it
did not appear, liowever, that the adoption bad been
assented to, or even known to the Maharaja,
previous to his death, but that as it was a
measure in which the two principal surviving
members of his family concurred, he (the Resident) was
not aware of any objection to its recognition by the
British Government. In announcing their recognition
that Government took care to explain that they did so
because the adoption appeared to be the spontaneous and
unopposed act of the Holkar Government, in which the
people of that state seemingly acquiesced; but that the
British Government were not bound by the act of recogs
nition to support the adoption should it prove to be
illegal, or subversive of the rights of any other party, or
contrary to the wishes of the majority of the chiefs and
followers of the Holkar state; that it was inconsistent
with the general policy of the British Government to inter-
fere with the internal administration of its allied states,
and far from its desire that British influence should be
exerted to maintain the adoption, if opposed to the ge-
neral voice of the country; that in the event of Hurree
Holkar, the next heir by blood, succt ding in setting. aside.
the adoption, and establishing his own ascendancy, the
British Government would, in conformity with these
principles, recognise him as Sovereign of the . Holkar
state. That contingency occurred ; the adopted son,
Martund Rao, was placed on the throne, but was fors
cibly ousted by the heir by blood, Hurree Rao, who was
placed on the throne, and recognised by the British Go-
vernment in 1834. Again, in 1837, in transmitting en
application made by the Raja of Oorcha fur the formal
recognition as his successor of aeonwhom he had enopted
some years before, Lord (then Sir Charles)lilletettife,the
Governor of Agra, reasserted the inherent right of Hindoo
princes to adopt successors. He said on that occasion,
4* The question resolved itself into whether chiefs and
princes, not having heirs of the body, have a right to
adopt a successor to the exclusion of collateral heirs, or
to the supposed reversionary rights of the paramount
power, and whether the British Government is bound to
acknowledge the adoption. There is a wide difference
in the disposal of the question between soverein princes
and jageerdars—between those in possession of heredi-
tary sovereignties in their own right, and those who
hold grants of land or public revenue by life-grant from
a sovereign or paramount power. Those who are sove-
reign princes in their own right, and of the Hindoo re-
ligion, have, by Hindoo law, a right to adopt to the
exclusion of collateral heirs, or of the supposed rever-
sionary right of the paramount power; the latter, in fact,
in such cases having no real existence, except in the
case of absolute want of heirs, and even then the
right was only assumed by virtue of power, for it would
probably be more consistent with right, were the people
of the state so situated left to elect a sovereign for them-
selves. In the case, therefore, of Hindoo sovereign
princes, I should say, that in failure of heirs male of the
body, they have a right to adopt to the exclusion of
collateral heirs, and that the British Government is
bound to acknowledge the adoption, provided that it be
regular, and not in violation of Hindoo law." In
this assertion by Lord Metcalfe—of the unqualified right
of Hindoo princes to adopt a successor in failure of heirs
of their own body—the Government of Lord Auckland
entirely concurred; and having expressed an opinion,
ise
a the question,
Rajs h
that on the right of the Raja of Oorcha to adopt a
ad the
placed
suc-
cessor
it was impossibletora
adop-
tion was recognised, although
in peril all his rights and his claims upon the British
Government, by the aid and encouragement, which he
was supposed to have given to the Jageerdar of
Chirgong when in rebellion against the British
Government, that Government having in this
instance,, as in the case of the father of the
adopted son of the Raja of Kends, determined that
the son should not be punished for the sins of the father.
The next instance of adoption was that of the Rawul
of BaLlSWarra. The Rawul of Banswarra having died in
1838 s without wale heirs and without having adopted a
successor, the nearest heir by blood, Bhahadur Sing,
was elected with the consent and approbation of the
leading chiefs of the principality to fill the vacant
Ghadee (throne), who proceeded forthwith to adopt,'as
his successor, a boy 'named Luchmun Sing. Both the
election of Blashadur. Sing as immediate successor, and
the adoption of Luchmun Sing as eventual successor,
were promptly recogniEed by the British Government,
as was the actual succession of the latter when Inaba-
dur Sing died in 1844. Now that election was made in
conformity with the rule laid down by Lord Metcalfe, that
when there was a failure of heirs it was more consistent
with right that the people should elect a sovereign than-
that the British Government should take possession of
the sovereignty as an escheat by the failure of all heirs.
The next was the cases of the Doongerpore succession.
In that instance the titular of DoongQiPote having died
in 1846, without issue or other lineal descendant, it be-
came a question whether the principality should be con-
tinued under the rule of the Raja of Purtabghtsr Dulput
Sing, who had been adopted as his eventual successor
by the titular Raja, Jsswunt Sing, or whether a new
adoption should be made for the Doongerpore succes-
sion; and as the latter measure was found to be most in
accordance with the feelings of the people it was carried
into effect, and provision at the same time made that in
the event of the son so adopted dying during his
minority Dulput Sing should make a second adoption.
In this instance the titular Raja of Doongerpore, who
had been deposed and set aside for incapacity and mis-
conduct for twenty years before his death, was not on
that account deprived of his right of adoption; so far
from it, that he was permitted to make an adoption,
with reservation of the rights of his own issue, should he
have any. That .was a third instance in which a son was
held harmless for the sins of his father. Then there was
the instance of the second Gwalior succession. In that
case the Government of Lord Auckland, when informa-
tion was received in 1836 that the throne was again
likely to become vacant by the threatened death of Jun-
kojes Scindiah, expressed their readiness, in the event
of his Highness dying without issue of his , hocv
y or by
adoption, to acknowledge the right of his widow to adopt
a son, and to recognise her as regent during the child's
minority, should such an arrangement be consonant with
the general wish. In 1841 or 1842 there was
a change in the Governor-General, and Lord Ellenbo-
rough came into power. Those instructions in the case
of the second Gwalior succession were confirmed by the
Government of Lord Ellenborough, but the Resident
was at the sometime cautioned not to declare the pur-
port of those instructions, or to take any step which
might compel the British Government to adhere to them
The-Governor-General was asked if he had any inten-
tion to modify the regulations of the Government, but
he wrote thus to the Resident:—" The Governor-
General concludes that you have not made known to
any of the ministers or chiefs at the Court of Gwalior
the line of conduct which, ander your present instruc-
tions, you would pursue in the event of the demise of
Scindiah, without male issue or any adoptionhaving taken
place, and his Lordship directs that you reserve yourself
upon that, and take,no step which ought compel an ad-