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

him (the Chairman) to follow him through that part of
his speech. The other half of his speech bad been a
discussion upon the affairs of the Raja of Sattara; he
had taken this opportunity, and he (the Chairman)
thought very unwisely, of renewing the question of the
resumption of Sattara. He thought the Court would
agree with him in saying that ho thought this by no
means a fit opportunity for renewing the discussion
upon that subject. The question wee one which had
been over and over again discussed in that Court, and
which had been finally settled and decided upon by
ballot, and he did not see that there was the slightest.
occasion to renew it. He should feel it his duty to oppose
the resolutions which had been moved, and he did so
cameupon grounds. The Hon. Gentleman
pfloariwnaracludwsiirhpleeertain four abstract propositions,
but did not those propositions imply an undeserved cen-
sure upon the Government of India ?—(Cheers from
Mr. Sullivan's supporters.) The Hon. Gentleman asked
them not merely to signify their opinion upon these
questions, but to pass a censure upon the proceedings of
the Government in India. The Hon. Gentleman's sups
porters cheered this ; there could be little doubt, then,
what there object really was. Why, then, did they not
come prepared with some straightforward motion upon
the subject, and not attempt a vote of censure by a kind
of side-wind.—(Cheers.)
Mr. SULLIVAN—Though I have not the slightest hesi-
tation in saying that I disapprove of the proceedings of
the Government, my object is not to pass a vote of cen-
sure upon them, but to prevent
.the recurrence of any
such transactions for the future.
The CHAIRMAN said that was no answer. If they
wished to censure the Indian Government, why do it, by
a aide-wind in this manner ?—(Cheers.) That would
be a straightforward way of conducting the business.
The Hon. Gentleman had gone at some length into the
Mandevee, Colaba, and Sattara cases, and he had main-
tained that there were distinct breaches in the law and
custom of our Indian empire.
Mr. SULLIVAN—I scarcely said three words on the
subject of Sattara.
The CHAIRMAN appealed to the Court whether a
greatpart of the Hon. Gentleman's address bed not been
on the subject of Sattara. But he would not enter into
the discussion of these cases; the Hon. Gentleman
knew very well that there were peculiarities con-
nected with all the cases, and particularly with the Set-
ters case; that he must know from his great experience
in Indian affairs. But those peculiarities were very dif-
ferent from any which the Hon. Gentleman had com-
municated from his collection of papers. Some which
he had stated were such that he demanded to have a
tribunal to settle the case, and to decide what should be
done. He proposed in his four resolutions that a com-
mission, or some other tribunal, should be constituted to
investigate the facts of the case. Now, he imagined
they had already a tribunal in India which was quite
sufficient to satisfy any one. Where could they desire
to find a more experienced and independent tribunal
than the Council, every member of which was chosen
for his independence and knowledge of affairs, and bound
by his oath to give a fair and impartial vote upon every
subject which came before him ? Where could they de-
sire a more proper tribunal than this? What occasion
or what need was there for a special tribunal, thee, to
decide on thesecases, when they had this respectable body
already in existence? The directors, too, acted upon the
responsibility of their offices, and the proprietors had an
opportunity, which they not seldom took advantage of,
to express their opinions upon various points. But the
Hon. Gentleman would not be satisfied with the decision
of auy•tribunal. With regard to the question of Set-
ters, the Hon. Gentleman was aware that he (the Chair-
man) in some of his opinions agreed with him; but
there was this difference between them, that he (the
Chairman) was not so presumptuous as to think that he
was infallible, or to persevere in his endeavours because
he thought he was right and everybody else was wrong.
With regard to these resolutions, the Hon. Gentleman
talked of our iniquity in assuming to ourselves the para-
mount power. He was surprised to hear a gentleman
who had filled such prominent situations coming out
with such sentiments. The Hon. Gentleman was per-
fectly aware that the people in India regarded us as the
paramount power, and looked up to us for protection
and patronage. In the case of Holkar everything that
was done by the East India Company was done by the
desire and express request of the natives, who bad ap-
pealed to the Company as to their protectors, and the
Hon. Gentleman knew that. Again, what did he mean
by saying that Martund Row was set aside by the East
India Company alone for their own private ends?
Mr. Strerstv'est—l never said so, or at least I never
meant to say so. If I did, I withdraw the expression.
The CHAIRMAN had heard the Hon. Gentleman say
that Martund Row was a serpent in the Governor-Gene-
ral's path.
Mr. SULLIVAN—Ah, certainly, I did say that.
The CHAIRMAN—The Hon. Gentleman knew that the
r parties came forward to -ask for our assistance in the
selection to put some one in his place; but the Hon. Gen-
tleman said that this was a most unjustifiable proceeding
on the part of the East India Company. With regard
to the treaties, he (the Chairman) said that the East
India Company were bound to exercise the power which
bad been deposited in their hands. The Honourable
Gentleman knew very well that the Company
was regarded in India as the protectors of the
native states, and he knew also that if they had
stood aloof, and not interfered with native affairs, that
at this moment there would not have been one native
state remaining between the Ganges and'the Indus. The
Hon. Gentleman knew very well that all the residents
Were placed by the Government with a view to affording
aivice and assistance to the native princes—to inculcate
upon them moderation in thntreament of their subjects.
If the Company had not strictly adhered to that line of
policy, and did not continue to adhere to it, the country
itself would speedily lapse into a state of anarchy, and
they would be obliged to take military possession of it. He
did not think it was necessary or important to follow his
Hon. Friend into the Mysore case. The great object of
the East India Company was to treat all these cases
with the consideration which they deserved. He
trusted he had said enough, at- all events, to show
the Court that his Honourable Friend's object,
though he did not avow it, was to censure their govern-
ment of India and to express a decided want of confi-
dence in them. He would ask the Court if they were I
prepared to adopt such a course on this occasion? Were
they prepared by that indirect manner to show a want
of confidence in their Government?—(Hear, hear.) He
hoped his Hon. Friend would not press his resolution to
a division. If he did, he (the Chairman) would feel
himself called upon to move the previous question.
Mr. M. LHwIN said it appeared to him that it was by
no means a straightforward thing on the part of his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Sullivan) to endeavour to censure the
Court by implication, instead of doing it directly. If his
Hon. Friend wished to do anything practicable to benefit
the Raja of Sattara let him take some practical step
in that direction. They did not know who the fiaja of
Sattara was ; no one knew who he was. How much
better for his Hon. Friend would it have been to haie
brought before the Court the case of Mysore.—(Ques-
tion.) That was as much the question as was the matter
of the Raja. of Sattara.
- A PROPRIETOR—Are you not one of the requisi-
tionists, Mr. Lewin ?
Mr. Lxwat said he was one of the requisitionists.—,
(Laughter.) He thought if his Hon. Friend brotie'lli
before-
would trheeceiCvoeurfrtomanytheeasee onof rt
thesubs sidtanctoinalinejruai
stti.oena' jag
deserved.
on., of of the
(Mr. Sullivan), who wasg
Mr. PETER GORDON expressed his obli are
Icon, Friend to his
oldest and moat experienced servants of the Com-
pany, . fur the trouble and ability
displayed in bringing this matter befo r he had
The real question was, should they conti the Court.
tirely to their wealth and military power P"
to trust en-
act with justice towards the native ea. should they
family ie England had its own legal peinces? Every
man had a descendant—(Laughter)—ae:Alecen every
the ordinary course of events in Ins • d adoption
.was
as well as the poor. Whenever the aa, among the rich
princes of India had been brought case of
it the native
forward had been
the practice to represent them as nayin...
of wives and concubines. But he wairdgreat number
Company,that almost all men • who went to remindn this
this country into the Compare from
feservice went out single;
and it was notorious that, when these young English
bachelors returned home, the most of them left familiesg
behind them in India.—',Laughter and Question.)
The CHAIRMAN hor.,ed the Hon. Proprietor would not
diverge into questior,s which were not before the Court.
Mr. GORDON :Jontended that adoption wu the
question. —(Lauffiter.) Those gentlemen of whom he
spoke returned to England, became directors of the East
India Conspaysty; and entirely cast off their Indian females.
There was 'even a taint on the character ei Lord Teigte
mouth, unspotted as it otherwise was, in this matter o
adoption.,

It'iELDElt rose to order. This was not a court 01

kr. GORDON asked if the East India Company bad
nev,tr libelled. the native princes?
Mr. VlELnzn (with great warmth)—l am sorry to say
rcm are a blackguard._(. Chair," " Order," and great ex-
citement, in the midst of which Mr. Gordon resumed his
seat.)

Major-General BRlciaas said he thought the Chairman
had unfairly
Sullivan)se that thelpropositions of his lion.
Friend (Mr.
the
Cwere brought forward with the
view of attacking ourt of Directors. It was not
his (Major-General
the case of the Raja of
Briggs's)
Sett intention to dilate upon
settled, but it had been seattledwa. Tihthaotutnatshee had
didebneecne
before the Court. Ex-
that was necessary to have been
cept the case of Holkar, there wit: not one ease in which
the Governor-General had ever asserted his right to in-
recognised
princes. The
terfere with the succession of
nised the officers
British Government bad always
of the Mogul Government as sovereign
the same way they recognised altghne princes, In
ov
until 1802, when the Pasha, who held G rule over
the great officers of the Mahratta Government,
was driven from the throne, and fleder ,
e
to
Bombay. The British Government then madeoawtrreaaty
with the Pasha, by which he relinquished all p
influence over his officers. On that occasion he nd
recog-
nised, as sovereigns, all the officers of the Pasha's Go.
vernment. In a word, we made certain treaties with
them, and it was proposed by the resolutions before the
Court to adhere to those treaties.—(Cheers.) The
practice of adoption in India was a religious ceremony.
It had been said 1:e and his friends made a difference
between adoption and the case of lineal descent. There
was neither in practice nor in law any difference what-
ever. The directors themselves had stated that there
was no difference. Ile contended that if they departed
from the principle of adoption the social condition of the
people 'of India would undergo demoralization. All
the ladies in the harem would have children ; should
a lady in the family-way produce a female there would
be a boy brought forward, to be substituted for adoption.
They would thus neglect those principles of morality
which they should ever maintain, by their departure 1
ILTm_a practice which generally obtained in the country.
"U. would cheerfully support the resolutions of his Hoc. 1
Friend,