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

might, for instance," confine the right succession to the
heir male of the body, with a reservation to themselve
case of failure, or they might extend it to those who*
had no right by birth, and who formed an intermediate
class, being neither subjects nor sovereigns. They
might, as in the case of Colaba and Seindials, apply the
principle of limitation to the heir male, or, as
in the sovereignty of Oita!), restrict the suc-
cession to legitimate children, excluding all
offspring, They might extend the sue.
cession also if they thought proper to " heirs and suc-
cessors," meaning thereby heirs and successors generally.
Well, then, did they agree with the Governor-General
that the state of Sattara was an independent sovereignty?
The first paragraph of the Governor-General's minute
stated " The death cf his Highness Shreement Maharej,
the sovereign of Severe, has rendered it necessary fur
the British Gorernment to determine the important
question whether the state of Sattara shall be continued
as an independent sovereignty, or whether it ►hall be
he' I to have lapsed to the paramount state,
and shall henceforth form an integral portion
of the British Empire in India." Here was an
express recognition of the Raja of Sattara as an inde-
pendent sore-eien. Now thuse was only one other
point on this subject to which he would cull their at-
tention. Wt a., he would ask, was the distinctive mark
laid down by writers on international law, to distinguish
as independent sovereignty? It was this—" When :Le
ministers of two poa ers, which are of equal rank,
sign a treaty, it is usual to make two originals, or a
double instrument; each nominates his own sose-eign
first in the copy which le keeps and signs first, in order
that there may be no prejudice to their claims
f rank when this is contested." Now this
di:tinctive mark was to be found in their
treaty with the Raja of Sattara.; Article 2 ran
thus:—" This treaty, consisting of eleven articles, being
this day settled and concluded at Staten/. by Captain
James Grant and Wittul Punt Furnavese, Captain Grant
has delivered to his Highness Maharaja Pertaub Sheen
a copy of the same in English, Mahratta, and Persian,
under the seal and signature cf the said Captain James
Grant and his Highness Maharaja Pettsub Sheen, has
delivered to the said Captai❑ James Grant another
copy, also in English, Mahratta, and Persian, bearing
his Highness's seal mid signature." This was a proof
that the Raja) of Sattara was a sovereign in the ordi-
nary sense a the term, and was equal in status and rank
to the British Government. It was, then, with a pctfect
knowledge of the subject that Sir James Carnac, when
a proposal was made to him to bring the first Raja to
trial, said that by doing so he would " be accused of de-
grading a sovereign from his acknowledged rank, and
offering violence to his feelings and dignity, and of
assuming a right of superiority to which we hare no
claim." Ile would allude to one other circumstance as
another proof of the shameful ignorance with which this
important subject had been decided. The Governor-
General said, "It was under the clause of that treaty
(the treaty of 1818) that the present Raja was
eallei into existence by an exercise of th• powers
and generosity of the British Government. All the
ordinary rights therefore, possessed by a sove-
reign over a subordinate and long-constituted state,
must, from the ♦ery nature of the case, have been
stronger in this case than in any other. I can find no-
thing whatever in the terms of the treaty which would
justify the assumption that it was intended to curtail
those rights, or to confer larger powers in respect of
adoption on the part of the Baja of Sattara than are en-
joyed by an old-established state." That was written in
perfect ignorance of all that had been done by his pre-
deceasers. If he had looked at the proceedings of
his predecessors he would have have found that
the Raja of Sattara put forth exactly the
ame claim which had been admitted on no less than six-
teen different occasions by all their Governments in
India for some years past. He (Mr. Sullivan) would
have to ask the Court to agree to another resolution,
which was to the following effect:—
" That the rights of succession of inferior chiefs who
held their possessions by grants from former Govern-
ments, to whose rights the British Government has
succeeded, must be determined by the terms of such
grants."

the absolute necessity of such a security would be ap-
parent, because when they could prove that a prince was
not a sovereign in the ordinary sense of the term, they
csually claimed the right to deal with him as if no right
existed. Now, what had teen the practice with regard
to the intermediate class, who, as Sir Charles Metcalfe
had stated, were neither subjects nor sovereigns; but who
must be: dealt with exactly according to the terms on
which they held their respective possessions? What was
the nature of their engagements with these chiefs, and
what what was their practice under these engagements?
He would take, first, the Sunnud granted by them in
1811 to the Raja of Chickorce, ono of the ancient here-
ditary chiefs of Bundlecund. By that Sunnud they
made over " the lsnds and villages enumerated in the
subjoined schedule to the said Raja and his heirs, with
all their rights and usages, except for payment of re-
venue to the British Government in perpetuity, so long
as the said Raja and his heirs and successors shall ob-
serve and remain faithful to the second article of the
Ikranamah, the obligation of allegiance ." Here;was a chief,
not a sovereign in any sense of the term, but ono owing
them allegiance, to whom they bad granted lands in per-
petuity. When he died did we pretend to say that the term
" heirs and successors" in the grant meant natural heirs?
No such thing; he adopted a son to the prejudice of tho
collateral heirs, and that adopted son was recognised as
his successor by the British Government. Now, how-
ever, they raw the new doctrine promulgated, that if a
ch'e, let him be whom he may, should happen net to ba
a sovereign in the mangled sense of the tam), then that
they had a right to re zJ upon his possessions. lie would
now only trouble them with another resolution, which
n as as follows:

" That justice requires that all cases of dispute he-
te e'en the British Government and the sovereigns and
chiefs of India who are t o wt ak to resist injustice by
war, or the persona c aiming to be heirs to such sove-
reigns, relative to the meaning of treaties and engage-
ments into which they have mutually entered, stn old
be decided on a full and impartial consideration of all
:he circumstances by a tribunal qualified to investigate
the facts and prieciples involved in the matters a• i,sue."
That resolution r aturally grew aut of the othere, for if
a sovereign prince had a right of succession which ho
wished to establish, it follows d, as a matter of course, that
there should be some tribunal to which they might
appeal in case that right was infringed. They were all
perfectly well aware that they could not touch a single
rupee or a particle c f peoperty belonging to a antject in
India without the due precess t f law; and why should
they, in the face of selemratreaties and engagements, take
forcible possession of principalities, territories, and
sover eigntica, and afterwards maintain that the owners
of them should have no opportunity for redress? Ac-
cording to the principle they now acted upon, they had
only to strike a pen through a treaty and say it meant
so and so, and immediately proceed to take possession.
They would perhaps allow him to give a f w instances
in which they had summarily entered upon a state or
principality. After the war of Seringaratatu and
the fall of Tippoo Seib, his territories became
divisible betweea the two belligerent parties—
the Nizim and the British Government. They made a
partition treaty, by which they engaged to take certain
portions on their own account, and to give the remainder
to the descendant ef the ancient Raja. It was arranged
that the descendant should have the aid of a subsidiary
force from the British Government, for which he was to
pay annually seven lacs of pagodas, and there was a
provision in the treaty to the erre( t that in the event of
the Governor-General seeing any reason to be-
liev) that the funds for the payment of this
subsidiary force should fail, he should be at
liberty to take possession of a certain portion
of his territory. The Raja remained in undisturbed
possession until 1531, when the British Government
assumed teat the resources for that payment were
going to fail, or they thought or wished they had such
information, and tLey at once took possession e f the
whole of the territory. The second instance to a hich
lie would refer was the treaty with the Nabob of Surat,
by which it was agreed that the civil and military go-
vernment of hie territory should for ever be vested in
the East India Company, on the condition that a cer-
tain payment was made annually to the Nabob. He
found a passage in the diary of Mr. Duncar, tne
then Governor of Bombay, on this subject, which
stated that he had intimated to the Nabob teat the se-
curity given to him by the East India Company for the
punctual rao went of this money to himself and his heirs
and successors was greater than any ho had yet had.
But what was the result? The Nabob died; the Go-
vernmeet took possession of all his territory, and even
refused to continue the pension to his daughter. The
third case which he had to bring to their notice was that
of the treaty which was concluded with the Raja of
Colabo. The Government relinquished all right
to the state to the Raja, but they re-
served to themselves the power to nominate
who among his heirs should be his successor, when
he should be adopted, a collateral or a legitimate heir,
and they also reserved to themselves the right to appoint
a successor, in the event of his having no lineal deeaco
g
-
derits, or adopted heirs. The Raja died,
Go-
vernment construed the treaty as meaning; that
have appointed a successor, and, as he had fandhte should
the
to do
so, they at once seized upon the territory Colabo.ofrsucha
Was there an example anywhere to be
theirfoundhale ally,
.n
proceeding ? Why, in the case
Greece, who stood in much the same° relationus totime n
as
the Raja did to the East India Company
his death, the public had lately
anYel at
'd ble t
apprehension respecting the reprisalsobuerenGunowTheeirrcnchmo
bneasnid,
Government;
akbeu n
place at the instigation of
the correspondence which had
it turned out, from
that it
was
just been published, ° only after
negotiationt to obtain our rights
twenty years' dut • to
that we had felt it our_ t ) turn round and
give the Government of th . state a slap in the face.
But the East lodic Company had not so much as inti-
mated to those independent sovereigns to whom he had
alluded
it
te intentions
Secretlya e r t
oB
curseeing
them, powerless,as
ht in their hearts for the commission of so gross
wohnalty tthoesi ru
b imn
an injustice.—(Bear.) Gteat importance had leen at-
ht they
thought,
hadeti
g
tached to what was called the paramount power, but
what did it mean ? It could not be denied they were
the must powerful state in India, by conquest after
conquest; but Bonaparte, whose power a few years
ago aus so omnipotent, did not crush petty
states as they had done. The Government oldie United
Suites of America was a most powerful one iu America,
but it claimed no such privilege as that which tl e East
India Company had arrogated to themselves. The Hon.
Gentleman concluded by expressing a hope that the re-
solution& which be had read would receive the sanction
of the Court, observing that it was the solemn duty of
allied Powers, in cases where any doubt arose as to the
meaning of a treaty, to give the benefit of the doubt to
the weaker power.—(Cheers.)
The resolution having been read,
Colonel Dtcleftesoet said—l have great pleasure in
rising to second the motion cf my Hon. Friend Mr.
Sullivan, and to express the grateful 801110 which I shall