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

Mr. SULLIVAN rose and said, he had to crave the
kind indulgence of the Court whilst he proceeded to ac-
quit himself of the task which he had undertaken on this
occasion. The Court came to 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 ho 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; but, 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
is.ct, diet that
decision was come to in criminal igno-
rance of the important documents which be held in his
baud, that is, in the absence of the only evidence that
would have enabled them to arrive at a just decision
on the subject. He said criminal ignorance,
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 of 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
was 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-
peared by the papers which he held in his hand that
the question was agitated before the Council of India nu
less than 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 principalities of the native sovereigns of Cola's,
Setters, and Alandevee, 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 pretentious that
be had framed the resolutions he was about to more ;
and he felt the fullest confidence that those of the di-
rectors who looked to the legitimate consequences of
those monstrous pretentious would concur pith 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 (~f tee Mogul Emperor's prerogatives, they might
also cut off a iteau's head, or do any -other act of des-
potic tyranny which the Mogul Emperors themselves
sometimes did. But whence did the Mogul Emperors
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
19 h century for him to remind the Court of Directors
that they were not despotic sovereigns? Hai 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 princcs 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, fur example, their treaty with the' Raja of
Culaba, which e as cne of the native states which they
hal already swept away. What was the preamble to
that treaty ? The preamble ran thus—
" Whereas by the conquest of the territories of Bajee
Rao, the late Peishwah, and the complete extinction of
his power, the rights possessed by his Government are
now trans'erred to the East India Company; and whereas
it is desirable to fix the future relations thet aro to sub-
sist between the said Rajah and the East India Com-
pany."
Now, here were certain arbitrary and undefined preroga-
tives which had descended from the Peishwah to the
East India Compoy, which they immediately stripped
themselves of, and proceeded to define and fix tee
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 Cutch. It was as
follows:—" It being contrary to the religious
principles of the people of Cutch 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
&Vara, 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 bad 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, hear.) 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 Scindiah, 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 is guard against
any misapprehension of their motives by an unqualified
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 er regulate the succession to the
state of Gwalior—that its sole motive in 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 t f 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 Raj.), 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 thote 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, in common with
all other Ilindoos, of adopting a son and successor, in
conformity with the rules of the Shaeters, unless prece-
dent and state usage can be pleaded, which distinctly
bar the exercise of that right in the instance under

and despotic monarch. Whet, then, was the status
of the neje of Ketch? The first article of the treaty
of Kotah said there shall he perpetual friendship,
alliance, and unity of interest between the British
Government on the one hand, and Meha Rao
Omed Sing Behander and his heirs and successors
on the other. Again, article 4 said the Mahe
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 tribute heretofore
paid by the principality of Kotah to the Mahratta chiefs
(fur instance, the reishwah, 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, and in token of
their dependence paying tribute to that Government. It
was a notable fact, in connexion with this instance of the
adoption of Kotah, that the subject of this adoption was
the son of a man who had fallen when fighting against
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 Hindoo 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 he
had adopted in 1830; and the British agent, in forward-
ing that application, !aid that the Raja, with other
princes of his class, had a right to adopt whom they
[Acts( d, 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 was recognised
by the British Government upon the death of
the Raja, in 1840. He (Mr. Sullivan) found
his strength failing him,
and therefore he
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 Geidee (throne), and his
succession recognised by the British Government. There
was next the first Holkar succession in the same year,
on'which the British Resident, in reporting the death of
Mulhar Rao Holkar, the reigning prince,
.observed that
a son had been adopted just before ho expired; that it
did not appear, however, that the adoption had 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
l3ritish Government. In announcing their recognition
that Government took care to explain that they did so
because the adoption appeared to be the spontaneous arid
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 recog-
nition to support the adoption should it prove to be
illegal, or subversive of the rights deny 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 tithed states,
and far trim 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 cling 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
ttte. That contingency occurred ; the adopted son,
M trtund Rao, was placed on the throne, but was for-
eddy 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 an
application made by the R tje of Oorchs f ,r the formal
recognition ae his successor of a son whom he had adopted
some years before, Lard (then Sir Charles) Motcalfu,the
Go, ernor uf Agra, re a,sserted the inherent right f llindoo
princes to adopt successors. He said on that oecasion,
The qu,stion 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
aui sageer&ireTbetween 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 aro sove-
reign princesin their own right, and of the llindoo 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 litter, 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 he
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,
&et on the right of the Raja of Ourcha to adopt a suc-
cessor it was impossible to raise a question, the adop-
tion was recegniseil, although the Raja had placed
in peril all his rights and his claims upon the British
Government, by the aid and encouragement which he
eels supposed to have given to the Jageurdar of
Chirgong when in rebellion against the Pritish
Government, that Government having in this
instance, as in the Faso of the father of the
adopted son of the R ja of Kotah,
determined that
the son should not bo punished for the sins of the father.
The next instance of adoption was that of the Rawul
f Banswarra. The Ranal cf Banswarra, having died in
1838, without male heirs and without having adopted a
successor, the nearest heir by blood, Bhahadur Sine,
was elects d with the consent and approleition of the
leading chiefs of the principality tv fill the vacant
Gha lee (throne), who proceeded forthwith to adopt,'as
his successor, a buy named Luchnaun Sing. Beth the
election of Bhahadur Sing as immediate successor, and
the adoption of Luchruun Sing as eventual successor,
were promptly
recognised by the British Government,
as was the etual succession of the latter when Bhaha-
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 case of the Doougerpore succession.
In that instance the titular of Dnongerpore 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 Purtabghur Dulput
Sing, who had been adopted as his eventual successor
by the titular Raja, Jeswunt Sing, or whether a re w
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 Baja otDoongerpore, 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 cf adoption; so far
from it, that he was permitted to make an adoption,
with reservation of the rights of his own issue, should he
i
have any. That was a third nstance 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-
keje4Scindiale expressed their readiness, in the event
of his Highness dying without issue of his holy, 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 au arrangement be consonant with
the general wish. In 1841 or 1842 there was
a amigo in the Governor-General, and Lord Ellenho-
rough came into power. Those instt netioue in the case
of the second Gwalior succession wore confirmed by the
Government of Lord Elleuborough, hut the 11,,sident
was at the same time cautioned not to declare the pur-
port of those instructions, or to take any Stop which
might compel the British Government to adhere to them
The Governor-General was asked it he had any inten-
tion to modify the regulations of the Government, but
he wrote thus to the Resident:—" , he 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 pursueein the event of the demise of
Scindiab, without male issue or any athoption having taken
place, and his Lordship directs that you reserve yourself
upon that, and tike uo oteP Pflalch might Compel an ad-

slates. The Governor General, in the first place, in-
vited the youug R'ija to repair to Agra, where he war
then residing, that he might himself grant investiture of
the title; but this invitation being declitel, the Resi-
dent was directed to perform the ceremony—" thereby,"
to use Governor-General's language, " affording the
most public proof tf my confirmation of the Maharaja's
adoption." Here we have a public avowal that Scin-
diab'e title as successor to an " absolute and despotic
monarchy," required fir its validity the confirmation of
the British Government. There then they had, for the
first time, the Governor-General seated in the chair of
the Mogul Emperors, and they would soon find him
invested with more than: their usual prerogatives. He
(Mr. Sullivan) came now to the second succession of
Holkar, to which he would request the particular atten-
tion of the Court. On the death of Khunda Rao, the
adopted son of Mulbar Rao, the Governor-General inti-
mated his intention of striking" out an entirely new line
of policy," the object of which was, if possible the imme-
diate confiscation of the Holkar territory for the benefit
of the British Government, or, if that were not practi-
cable, the eventual confiscation of that territory. A preli-
minary step was to get rid of all the heirs and claimants
to the succession upon the first vacancy. Lord William
Bentinck had intimated his readiness to recognise
any succession that was consonant to the wishes of
the people. Hurree Rao, the next in blood to
Mulbar Rao Holkar, and who had in 1834 ousted Mar-
tund Rao, the adopted son of Mulbar Rao, was succeeded
in 1843 by his adopted son, Khunda tio, whose title
was immediately recognised by the British Government.
Khunda Rao died in 1844 without issue, and without
having made any adoption, and this event gave rise to a
more open display of those pretensions which were put
forth on the occasion of the last succession by adoption
in the Scindiah family. Heretofore it had been a gene-
rally recognised ptinciple that, under no circumstances,
could these principalities lapse to the British Govern-
ment ; that in failure of heirs by blood or of adoption
by the reigning prince, his widow had the right to adopt,
and that in failure of the exercise of this right, and of
heirs altogether, the chiefs and people were at liberty to
make such provision for the succession to an
" absolute and despotic monarchy" as should be
most agreeable to the general wish. "We were
not," said Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General,
when the throne of Holkar was vacant by the death of
Mulhar Rao," prepared to pronounce upon the relative
superiority of these claims. The decision upon them
may be fairly left to the voice of the country, and our
duty will be to maintain whatever arrangement may be
unequivocally consonant to the general wish." Now
contrast the language of Lord William Bentinck on the
first vacancy with that of Lord Auckland on the second.
When the Resident, in reporting the precarious state of
Hurree Rao's health, intimated that it would become a
question for the British Government to decide who
should succeed to the Holkar state, Lord Auckland ex-
pressed his determination to be guided in the matter of
the succession by the usages of the Holkar state. These
were Lord Auckland's words:—"His Lordship in
Council would also authorise you to recognise an adop-
tion of a son duly made by the Maharaja, or by
any other person whom he may authorise for that
purpose, and who may be• competent to exercise such
a trust under the customs of the Holkar and other
Mahratta sovereignties." Such was the language of
Lord Auckland in the latter part of 1841. Now contrast
that language with the language of Lord Ellenborough
in 1842. Lord Ellenborough said, "In our dispatch of
the 23d of March last we announced to you the demise
of Khunda Ran, the young chief of Indore. By this
event the Ghadee of the Holkar state was rendered
vacant, there being no person with any legal claim what-
ever to succeed, and there being no one possessed of a
legitimate title to adopt a successor. When there is no
person having the shadow of an hereditary claim to suc-
ceed to the Ghadee of a native state, and no person pos-
sessing a legitimate title to adopt, and where, moreover,
that state itself is comparatively of modern origin, owing
its existence to a conquest made by predatory troops, it
must always remain a question how tar it may be expe-
dient to maintain the separate existence of that state for
the benefit of none but the intermediate followers of the
court." Hers was a proclamation that tt•ere were no
heirs to the liolkar state. Why were there no heirs?
Is reporting the death of Khunda Rao, the Resident had
repeated that the arrangement fur the succession which
would he most agreeaUle to the people, would be the
recall and re-establishment of Martund Rao, the adopted
son of Mulhar Ira e, aho had been ousted by the heir t f
blood of Mulhar Rao; and the Resident was nifirmed
that the Governor-General " would regard with ex-
treme displeasure any attempt to put forward in any
manner the pretensions of Martund Rao." The anxiety
thus manifested to dispose of Martund Rao arose from
the fact that, as the hereditary sovereign, he would have
had a right to perpetuate the succession by adoption,
and thus a/cult! have ;marred the plan t f the Gover-
nor General. Having thus by an act of power rid
himself of all the heirs, the Governor-Gs eral proceeded
to proclaim himself heir, and, as such, assumed the
right to dispose cf the sum scion as he might think fit;
but he first put forth a feeler to ascertain whether he
could at once take possession of the territory. He
directed the Resident to feel the pulse t f the peo-
ple, but the reply of the Resident being un-
propitious, the Governor-General was obliged to
pause, and he intimated to the Resident his wil-
lingness to recognise the adoption that might be
made by the head of the Holkar family. The
Resident informed the Holkar family that such
was the will of the Governor-General, and the
widow immediately made an adoption, who was instantly
placed on the throne without reserve or restriction of
any kind.—(licar, hear.) Now this untoward precipi-
tancy, as it was called, of the Resident carried consterna-

lion into the camp cf the Governor-General, and he was
written to in these terms:—

" You were authorised, if no grave reasons should upon
inquiry appear to you to exist to dispose the Governor.
General in Council to thvs art the Ma Sahibeh's wishes
in favour of Bhow Holkar's second son, to inform her
Highness that the Governor-General in Council, having
taking into consideration all past occurrences, and the
present position of the Holkar state, bad formed the con-
clusion that it was most for the benefit of the state that the

younger Bond 13ovv, Holkar should succeed to theGha-
eee, but you were only authorised to make this commu-
nication !after irquiry. You were only. authorised to
make it to the Alan Sahibeh herself ; you were not au-
thorised to make a publio communication to
this effect in durbar ; still less were you authorised in
aurbar to explain the desire of the British Government
to perpetuate the Holkar state, or to speak cf making a
selection from amongst those who were eligible, or to
refer t) the Mah Sahiteh's having pointed out the
younger son of Bhow Holkar, or to ri fer to the great re-
spect of the Governor-General fur the Mah Sanibeh as
the motive which had induced the British Government
to place that boy on the Ghadee.
" You were not authorised to say anything which
could by possibility be held to bind the British Govern-
ment to the adoption of a course similar to that now
adopted, in the event of a similar vacancy of the gud-
dee; you were in no respect to bind up the hands of the
Government for the future; you were not to use any
expressions which could by possibility be interpreted as
conveying the sanction of the British Government to an
adoptioa of a successor to the guddee by the Mah
Sahibeh. The Governor-General in Council would lain
hope that you left upon the minds of all the impression
that the your ger son of Bhow Holkar was placed upon
the guddee by the mere will of the British Government."
Now the Governor-General goes on to say, elsewhere—
"lt is not necessary now to advert particularly to the
intentions which were entertained by the Governor-
General in Council with regard to the nomination on
this occasion of a successor to an extensive independent
principality, left without a legal heir, and of the mode in
which it was proposed to mark the difference of the posi-
tion in respect to the paramount state.of the chief of its
selection, from one who might succeed in due course to
the Ghadee of his ancestors.

" The opportunity of marking an important line of
policy has been lost to the Government by your pro-
ceediugs on this occasion; for in the face of what you,
as the representative of the British Government, and in
its name, have done, as above described, it would be,
the Governor-General in. Council considers, inconsistent
to offer to the young chief a sunnud of appointment,
and to demand from him a nunar, the mark of subordi-
nation and dependence."
Now, the Resident, in order to reinstate himself in the
good opinion of his superior, proposed that the Governor-
General should write to the young Raja an intimation
that ho sat upon the throne as the nominee of the
British Government with limitation only to the heirs
male of his body. This was accordingly done, and now
Governor-General Harding° appeared upon the scene,
who wrote to the Tookajee Llelkar in these terras:—
" having an e a-nest desire to promote the interests of
tho chiefs and people of the state, and to preserve the
honour and prosperity of the principality, the British
Government determine i on this occasion to make such
an arrangement as would conduce to tho accomplish-
ment of these ends, and would at the same time, it was
believed, be agreeable to the feeling cf the remaining
members of the family of the late Hullos Rao Heater,
and of the chiefs and nobles of the principality.
" Actuated by these motives, I was induced to direct
the British Reiident at Indore to nominate your High-
ness t) the occupation of the vacant Ghadce."

Again he says:—
"It is the intention of the British Government, in
thus hes:owing on your Highness ;;the principality
of the Holkar state, that the chiefahip should descend
to the heirs male of your Highness's body lawfully
begotten, in due succession, from generation to gene.
ration."

Now, here they bad the Governor• General absolutely
giving away the principality of Holkar with as
much sang fivid as it it were his own estate. How, then,
did the Governor-General acquire the right cf disposing
of it in tbia wanner ? They were connected with the

" To promote theinterestsOt the Chiefs and the people
of the state, and to preserve the honour. and prosperity
of the principality, by making such an arrangement as
would conduce to the accomplishment of those ends, and
would at the same time be agreeable to the feelings of
the remaining members of the family—and of the chiefs
and nobles of the principality."
He was happy to say that the parties engaged in
that discreditable attempt to rob a native sovereign
of his rights had overreached themselves, and the
young Holkar was placed on his Ghadee without any
restrictions whatever.—(Hear, hear.) It was an after
thought of the Governor-General to write him a letter ,
telling him that he sat on the throne as the nominee of
the British Government; but it was too late, and he now
sat there enjoying all the ancient rights of his state.—
(Hear, hear.) Having thus stated to them fifteen or
sixteen instances where the so►ereigns of India
had exercised independent rights of succes-
sion without the British Government having
put forward any pretensions to question such
rights, bat by and with the consent of its formal
recognition of the right, he felt that he had said enough
to justify the adoption of his resolutions.—(Hear, hear.)
He need hardly point out to them the wide distinction
bete een the right to recognise, or to refuse the recog-
nition of the title of a particular individual, and the
right to interdict or allow the right of adop-
tion; for instance, they might properly refuse to
recognise the succession of a particular person from
political motives. They might have refaced to recog-
nise Napoleon as the sovereign of France, just as Louis
the 14th refused to recognise William the 3rd as sove-
reign of England.—(Hear, hear.) But the refusal to
recognise the adoption here stood upon a very different
footing. The distinction he had mentioned vs as
clearly stated in a speech of a Right Honourable
Friend of his made on a former occasion, whose absence
from sickness he much deplored, as he was quite sure
these resolutions would have had his cordial support.
He said—

" And, Sir, this brings to my mind an important dis-
tinction to which it is necessary to advert. I freely ad
mit that in all cases of adoption, where there is a dis-
pute as to the succession, the sanction of the paramount
power is necessary. And why? Because we have taken
upon ourselves, and we are entitled to take upon our-
selves, the task of maintaining the peace of all subordi-
nate states in India. In such a case our sanction is re-
quisite for the purpose of declaring that the thing is
legal and regular; that rights have noebeen violated ;Ithat
the feelings of the people have not been outraged; and
that your own just rights have not been set aside. But
in such a case, your sanction is in its nature a judicial
sanction given ,to prevent or settle disputes. Yon are
bound to give it to the rightful claimant, just as you are
bound to acknowledge the rightful heir ; and the fact
that it is sought no more entitles you to withhold it, than
the appeal of parties entitles a judge to appropriate to
himself the thing litigated."
With this stream of precedents before them, of 'sove-
reigns of all classes having exercised independent rights
of succession by virtue ef the law and custom of India,
he was entitled to ask them, and ho likd a right to expect
an explicit answer—how iy came about that, when they
determined to bar the kilas. of Satter* and Coloba the
right of succession hfrefitlptior, they said they were
warran ed in doing so by= the laws and customs of India?
—(Hear, hear.) . These were their words—

e• Concurring-with you in opinion.- we are, satisfied,
that by the general-IA- and custom f India, a dependant
principality, like that of Sattara, cannot pass to an
adopted &it- withriiit the consent of the paramount
power ; that uo are under no pledge, direct or con-
structive, to give such consent."
Now the directors said they were satisfied,
a-id the Court of Proprietors had a right to
know what it was that satisfied them. They had
a right to ask when they were eavisfied. He demanded
to know when it was that this stream of light fist broke
upon them, scattering assay all the darkness in which
they appeared to have been enveloped for 25 years?—
(11ear, hear.) They said "concurring in this opinion,"
but they did not say what that opinion was, and it ssoald
therefore become his duty to endeavour to pin them
down to the opinion expressed by the Governor. General,
which they said they concur in. In the first place, then,
ho would ask whether they concurred in this opinion?—
"I hold it to be established as a general rule, beyond
cavil or doubt, in the papers, now before us that, while
adoption by a prince of any individual is valid, so far es
to constitute him heir to the adopter's private posses-
sions, it is of no power or effect whatever in constituting
him heir to the principality, or to sovereign rights, until
the adoption has received the sanction of the sovereign
power, with whom it rests to give or to refuse it."
Now, here they had positive proof of the criminal igno-
rance with which this important question had been dis-
cussed. Here they had the Governor, General asserting
it as an established rule, admitting cf DU
cavil or doubt, that no sovereign prince in 'lndia
had a rigbt to adopt—that they had a right to rt fuse or
to sanction the adoption; but had the Governor-General
been in posfeoion of the papers which he (Mr. Sullivan)
then held in his hand, he would have seen that this esta-
blished rule came in direct contact with the rule laid
down by his predecessors, and by which it was acknow-
ledged that every sovereign prince bad a right to adopt,
and that we had no option, but were bound to acknow-
ledge the right. Now, if the directors were in unison
with the opinion cf the Governor-General, they were
in direct opposition to their former opinions.—(Hear,
hear.) But perhaps they had changed their minds;
perhaps they were now of opinion that no sovereign
prince in
,India had a right to adopt ;a successor. Let
him give them their own wordf:—

"It the Raja were created a sovereign, in the ordi-
nary acceptation of the term, he was unquestionably com-
pst2nt to appoint a successor to his royal right-, as well
as an heir to his personal property."
This was an unqualified admission, on their part, that all
sovereigns in the ordinary sense of the word, that was 99
out of every 100, the exception being the Raja of Sat-
tare, had a right to adopt a successor. But were they
really of opinion that none but ordinary sovereigns
could adopt? During the Government cf Lord
Auckland some cases of this nature occurred, and
there was a letter of Mr. Maddocks, the Government
secretary, in which the right was admitted, so far as the
Raja of Oocha was concerned. What said the Gus ornor
General of that day upon the point. Why, this—
" I cannot for a moment admit the doctrine, that be-
cause the view of policy upon which we may have formed
engagements with native princes may
cir-
cumstances materially altered, we are not to act scru-
pulously up to the terms and spirit of those engagements.
"I have referred to our treaty with the Raja of
on the 23d December, Oorcha, concluded have been by
r, 1812, and I find
that its preamble commences in these words The
Raja of Oorcha is one of the chiefs of 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 acknow-
leredagtiyng vassalage to any other power.' And the
formed with the Raja is designated as one of
friendship and alliance ;' the territory, which from
ancient times has descended to the Baja by inherit-
ance, and is now in his possession, being guaranteed to
the said Raja, and to his heirs and successors.' Upon
words so distinct and positive as these, I hold it to be
impossible to raise a question, and .1 am of opinion,
v de ronpmt i oe
therefore, that the Baja 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 Mel-
calf e, of 28th October, 1837, is entitled to make an
adoption, in his own discretion, which the British Go-
ant is broeugular
bound to
anda notcknowl in violationedge,provid of H
edthatiusduceh
a e
law.

" Admitting the right of the Raja, for the reasons
which I have stated, to adept an heir, I am not disposed,
after much reflection on the whole übject, to mix up
cur recognition of that right with the separate con-
sideration of the punishment that may be thee to him for
unwarranted opposition to the Mash power."
It was ireposs.ble to raise a question about words so dis-
tinct and positive as those, awl he, therefore, maintained
that, if the directors took up the ground that none but
ordinary sovereigns had a right to adopt, they wore di-
rectly opposed to Lord Auckland's minute.—(Bear,
hear.) But the directors were now of opinion with the
Governor-General, that heirs and successors meant
lines! descendants, but, as Lotd Auckland observed in
treaties wh& re the words were so distinct and positive as
those, it was impossible to raise a question about them.
In dealing with these cases, however, the question ought
not to turn upon whether the sovereign was an ordinary
or an extraordinary ore, but what were the rights
granted to him by the treaty. Now, precisely such It
question as that occurred under the Government of Lord
Auckland. lu viewing this question (says his Lordship),
it was by these treaties alone that their relations in
India were to be governed. All custom respecting the
right of succession became dormant the moment
ill India bymoment treaties
were concluded. They might restrict princes
treaty's, to the perm:1180020w they were to adopt. They