The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-29 00:00:00

ties of the community would be seriously endan-
gered. But so long as the dictates of honour and
integrity are respected in the Legislature--so long as
everything in any degree savouring of tyranny and
oppression be sternly and firmly repressed—so long
will the chosen representatives of the people be
rewarded by the respect and admiration of their
respective constituencies—so long will they maintain
the high position they have attained, u the first
deliberative assembly in the civilized world.
The parties now claiming justice at their hands,
now appealing from the partial and prejudiced de-
cisions of the Board of Directors, are, however, no
mean or helpless body, whose entreaties could be
despised or rejected with impunity. They are the so-
vereign chiefs and princes of India, wielding de-
spotic authority within their own dominions—power-
ful for good or evil, and capable of being useful allies
or formidable enemies. Individually they would be in-
capable of resisting the British force, and separated and
divided by mutual suspicions would fall easy victims;
but if once their fears are excited for their common
safety, if once united by a sense of general danger
from the unjustifiable aggressions and grasping policy
of the Anglo-Indian Government, a combined and
determined opposition may be organized that would
imperil the very existence of our Oriental dominions,
and which, under the most favourable circumstances,
must occasion sanguinary and expensive wars, more
injurious to British interests than any territorial ag-
grandizement or increased revenue could possibly
compensate.
This appeal to the ultimate tribunal has not been
made until every other resource had been exhausted.
Repeated remonstrances have already been addressed
to the Court of Directors and to the Proprietors of
East India Stock by some who have rendered the
most important services to the Company, and who
have acquired large fortunes and great experience
during prolonged residences in Hindostan. For
the last few years, since the erroneous and
mistaken line of policy now complained of was first
entered upon, Mr. R. SULLITAN and many efficient
and distinguished coadjutors have let slip no oppor-
tunity of exposing the " career of harshness, selfish-
ness, and injustice which has shaken the confidence
of every principality throughout India in British
probity and honour," and of endeavouring "to ar-
rest the progress of encroachment upon the hereditary
and indefeasible rights of the tributary and dependent
states, with which we have formed alliances ;" but
in vain. The magnates of Leadenhall-street have
opposed a stubborn and pertinacious resistance to
every attempt to awaken them to a sense of equity.
They have endeavoured to meet the powerful cases
to which their attention was directed with sneers and
ridicule, and have passed by, as utterly unworthy of
notice, arguments which they were incapable of an-
swering or rebutting. In this most injudicious
course they have, we regret to say, been sanctioned
and supported by a majority of the proprietors, who
flippantly decided, on questions of the nature and
merits whereof they were wholly ignorant. In this
manner were the claims of the cruelly-persecuted and
deeply-injured PERTAIIH Sagan, and of his youthful
heir and successor, the de jure Raja of SATTARA,
slighted and set at nought, and the usurpation of
his dominions by his affectionate friends and
faithfal allies, the Honourable Company, sanctioned
and confirmed. In this manner have 'resolutions
been passed by which the Company "virtually as-
serted its right to confiscate for its own benefit the
territories of any native prince of India whom it
should have pronounced to have died without heirs."
They have thus directly invaded one of the most
sacred customs and highly cherished privileges of
the Hindoo law. They have refused to recognise the
"right of adoption," which was never controverted
until within the last few years, and to claim the old
feudal rights of lords paramount over independent so-
vereigns, with whom they have entered into solemn
treaties to succeed to the sovereign inheritance on
the failure of direct heirs of the blood. The treaties
are thus openly violated and set at nought, or, what is
almost tantamount thereto, the more powerful party
claim to interpret the' disputed clauses, and to take
part as prosecutors and judges in their own cases.
It is, as we have said, but recently that this mon-
strous doctrine has been promulgated. The entire
tide of precedents had formerly flowed the other way.
But in 1848 the subject was again brought under the
notice of the supreme Government at Bombay, who
dealt with the matter as if it were entirely new,
overlooking all former decisions on similar points.
This extraordinary judgment was approved by the
directors, and subsequently confirmed by the Court
of Proprietors, specially convened for the purpose. It
has naturally excited the deepest and most painful
sensations in the minds of the native powers,
who are equally astounded and enraged at the
audacity and injustice of these iniquitous pretensions.
They had previously seen similar questions mooted,
but in fifteen out of sixteen cases that had occurred
between the years 1126 and 1846, the decision had
been in accordance with equity, and diametrically
opposed to the:more recent assumption, which, indeed,
was never put forward until the accession of the Earl
of ELLENNOROUGH to the Governor-Generalship of
India. Many statesmen had previously used the
clearest and most intelligible language in speaking
of the rights of the native chiefs and princes. In-
deed the doctrine was so fully recognized
that even where the party had been guilty
of grave offences, the innocent heirs were not
punished, or held in any degree responsible for the
criminal acts of their " adoptive fathers." None had
spoken more distinctly and more unequivocally upon
this topic than the late lamented Earl of AUCKLAND.
That distinguished nobleman had used these remark-
able words respecting the case -of the Raja of
OORCHA, in which the broad principles on which the
British Government in India should ever act were
fairly and lucidly explained :

"I cannot (said the Governor-General), I cannot for
a moment admit the doctrine that, because the view of
policy upon which we may have formed engagements
with native princes, may have been by circumstances
materially altered, we are not to act scrupulously up to
the terms and spirit of those engagements."

•
And again :
"I have referred to our treaty with the Raja of Oor-
cha, and I find that its preamble commences in these
words: -= The Raja of Oorcha is one of the chiefs of
the Bundelkund, by whom, and his ancestors, his present
Possessions have been held in successive generations
during a long course of years without paying tribute or
acknowledging vassalage to any other power. And the
treaty formed with the Raja is designated as one of
' friendship and alliance,' the territory, which from
ancient times had descended to the Raja by
inheritance, and is now in his possession,
being guaranteed to the said Raja, his heirs
and successors. Upon words so distinct and
positive as these I hold it to be impossible to raise a question,
and I am of opinion, therefore, that the Raja of Oorcha
must be regarded as one of those sovereign rulers who,
according to the very proper rule laid down in the letter
of Sir Charles Metcalfe, of 28th October, 1837,
is entitled to make an adoption in his own discretion which
the British Government is bound to acknowledge, provided
that such adoption be regular and not in violation of Bin-
doo /awl" * • • • •
Admitting the right of the Raja for
reasons which I have stated to adopt an heir, I am not
disposed, after much reflection on the whole subject, to
mix up our recognition of that right with the sapient
consideration of the punishment that may be due to
him for unwarranted opposition to the British power."
These were the views of an able and honest states-
man, of one who occupied, at various periods, no in-
considerable positions in the national councils, and
one who enjoyed the respect and confidence of his
colleagues in the Ministry at the period of his lamented

death. But these just principles are now wholly di;
regarded and despised by the East India Company.

To those who desire full information on all the
cases we would commend the admirable speech of

Mr. SULLIVAN to the proprietors of East India
Stock, on the 17th April, which was fully reported in
The Sun of the 19th instant. That talented gentle-
man indeed brought forward an immense mass of
information on the occasion, and the clearest and most
unanswerable arguments in favour of the conclusions at
which he had arrived. Nothing was omitted that could
be desired ; but, as we have already stated, the pro-
prietors supported the directors in the unjust and in-
judicious line of policy which they had determined
on following. Nothing, therefore, remains but an
appeal to the honour and integrity of the Imperial
Parliament, and that appeal will be made to-morrow
evening. No immediate decision will be asked for.
It is not desired that Members should pronounce
final judgment upon a question respecting which
many must be in comparative ignorance; but in-
quiry—full and ample inquiry—is demanded, with
a view to future legislation i and we cannot suppose