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

APRIL 19, 1850,
•

herence under other circumstances than the present to
the line of conduct now prescribed to'you." There they
had the germ of those pretensions which were shOrtly
afterwards fully avowed. There they had an unmis-
takeable hint of the iutention of the Governor-General
to interfere with the succession, in the eventof the death
of Sdindiah without heirs by blood or by adoption. But
this caution come too late—the widow's adoption of the
next heir by blood was recognised; but, in cocomuni-
cating.the recognition, the Governor-General, assumed
a position and used a language , which was
quite novel in the intercourse between the two
states. The Governor General, in the first place, in-
vited the young Raja to repair to Agra, where he was
then residing, that he might himself grunt investiture of
the title; but this invitation being declined, the Resi-
dent was directed to perform the ceremony—" thereby,"
to use Governor-General's language, " affording the
most public proof cf my confirmation of th 6 Maharaja's
adoption." Here we have a public avowal that Scin-
diah's title as successor to an " absolute and despotic
monarchy," required for 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, it 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 iu blood to
Mulbar Rao.Holkar, and who had in 1834 ousted Mar-
tund Rao, the adopted soli of Mulbar Rao" was sticceeded-
in 1643 by his adopted son, Khunda Rao, 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 tho general wish. "We were
not," said Lord Williath 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'a 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 Rao, 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 bypredatory troops, it
mast 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:" Here was a proclamation that tnere were no
heirs to the Holkar state. Why were there no heirs?
Is reporting the death of Khunda Rao, the Resident had
repeated that the arrangement for the succession which
would he most agreeable to the people, would be the
recall and re-establishment of Martund Rao, the adopted
son of Mulhar Rao, who had been ousted by the heir of
blood of Mulhar Rao; and the Resident was informed
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 -Mutant, litfo-toroae froth,
the fact that, as the hereditary sovereign, he would have
had a right to perpetuate the succession by adoption,
and thus would have ;marred the plan of the Gover-
nor. General. Raving thus by an act of power rid
himself of all the heirs, the Governor-General proceeded
to proclaim himself heir, and, as such, assumed the
right to dispose of the succession as he might think fit;
but he first put forth a feeler to ascertain whether he
could at once take possesaion of the territory, He
directed the Resident to feel the pulse of 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 heal 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.—(Hear, hear.) Now this untoward precipi-
tancy, as it was called, of the Resident carried consterna-
tion into the camp of 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 thwart the Ma Sahibeh's wishes
in favour of Bhow 'hiker'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 son of Bhowj Holkar should succeed to theGha-
dee, but you were only authorised to make this commu-
nication latter inquiry. You were only authorised to
make it to the Mall Sahibeh herself ; you were not au-
thorised to make a public communication to
this effect in durbar ; still less' were you authorised in
durbar to explain the desire of the British Government
to perpetuate the Holkar state, or to speak of making a
selection from amongst those who were eligible, or to
refer to the Mah Sahiheh's having pointed out the
younger son of Bhow Holkar, or to refer to the great re-
spect of the Governor-General for the Mah Sahibeh as
the motive which had induced the British Government
to place that boy on the Ghadee.
" You were not authorised to say any thing 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
adoption of a successor to the guddee by the Mah
Sahibeh. 'The Governor-General in Council would fain

hope that you left upon the minds of all the impression
that the younger son of Bhow Holksr 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 entertainel 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
tho-Ghadee of his ancestors.

S./
" The opportunity of marking an important line of
policy has been lost to the Government by your pro-
ceedings 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 sunned of appointment,
and to demand from him a nuzzar, 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
:se:rests of
that he 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 Hardinge appeared upon the scene,
who
uwarvoitnegtoa
—British
o ka jdeeesHolkarrionmtpohateleis
tet:te: rtimhu
the chiefs and people of the state, and to preserve the
tnhs earnestT
an arrangement as would conduce to the hGoonvoeurrilmanedn,pdreotsepremriitnyedofonthtehisproienectlisiou
to
make
such
accomplish-
ment of these ends, and would at the same time, it was
believed, be agreeable to the feeling of the remaining
members of the family of the late Hums Rao Holkar,
and of the chiefs and nobles of the principality.
", Actuated by these motives, I was induced to direct
the British Resident at Indore to nominate your High-
ness to the occupation of the vacant Ghadee.
Again he.says:—
" It is the intention of the British: Government, in
thus bestowing on your Highness :the principality
of the Holkar state, that the chiefship should descend
to the heirs male of your Highness a body lawfully
begotten, in due succession, from generation to gene-
ration."
Now, here they had the Governor-General. absolutely
giving away the principality of Holkar with as
much sang -froid as it it were his own estate. How, then,
did the Governor-General acquire the right of disposing
of it in this manner ? They were connected with' the

state by treaty. In 1804, they first caine into contact with
it. They came into contact with JerWut Rao Holkar
hi
1805, when they made up the difference by treaty which
bound them to continue in perpetual friendship with the
Holkar state. In 1816 they came in contact with hip
successor, and after stripping him of half his posses-
sions, they made another treaty with biin by which they
granted him absolute possession of his territory, whether
he had heirs or no, and they had no more right to dispoSe
of it in the manner they did, than they would have to dis-
pose of the kingdom of Denmark if the present king died
without heirs. He had told them the object of the Go-
vernor-General in setting aside Martund Rao and all his
heirs to the Holkar state. Let him now show them
what was the pretext for all this. The British Govern-
ment having in the 'first instance recognised Martund
Rao, the adopted heir of Mulhar Rao, and afterwards
having recognised' his heir by blood, Ilurree Rao, and
in succession to him Kundi Rao, it would have been
inconsistent, the Governor-General said, to have recog-
nised Martund Rao a second time. Now, he asked
them, which was most conspicuous in these transactions
—their enormous justice or their odious hypocrisy?
The next proceeding was to declare themselves the
rulers, lords paramount cf the state, and to degrade the
once powerful sovereignty of Holkar into the position
of a jugadeei, limiting the succession to heirs male of
the body and thus depriving the sovereign of the vain-.
able privilege of adoption which he had previously en-
joyed.—(Hear, hear.) This was done under the usual
profession of scrupulous good faith. The British
varnnient informed the Holkar of its earnest desire

" To promote the interests of 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 accOmplishinent 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 titemselvea„ and the
young Holkar was placed on his Ghadee without any
restrictions whatever.—(llear, hear.) It was an atter
thought of the Governor-General to write him a letter,
telling him that ho 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 right, of his state.—
(Hear, hoar.) Baring thus stated to them fifteen-or-
sixteen instances where the sovereigns 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 cf 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
between the right to recognise, or to refuse the recog-
nition of the title of a particular individual, and the
right to interdict or allow tho right of adop-
tion; for instance, they might properly refuse to
recognise the succession of a particular person from
political motives. They might ,have refused 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 was
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 not'been violated what
the feelings of th people have not been outraged; and
that your own just rights, have not been set aside. But
in such a case, your sanctionis in its nature a judicial
sanction given to prevent or settle disputes. You 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
him self 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 he had a right to expect
an explicit answer—how it came about that, when they
determined to bar the Rajas of Sattara and Coloba the
right of succession by adoption, they said they wore
warran-ed in doing so by the laws and customs of India?
—( Hear, hear.) These were their words—
" Concurring with you in opinion, we are satisfied,
that by the general law and custom of India, a dependant
principality, like that of Setters, cannot pass to an
adopted heir without the consent of the paramount
power ; that we are under no pledge, direct or con-
structive, to give such consent."
Now the directors said they were satisfied,
*Ad the Court ,of Proprietors. kid_ a right to
know what it was that satisfied them. They bad
a right to ask when they were satisfied. He demanded
to know when it was that this stream of light first broke
upon them, scattering away all the darkness in which
they appeared to have been enveloped for 25 years?—
(Hear, hear.) They said "concurring in this opinion,"
but they did not say what that opinion was, and it would
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,
he 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 as
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 ef the sovereign
power, with whom it rests to give or to refuse it."
Now, hero they had positive proof of the criminal igno-
rance;with vthich this important question had been dis-
cussed. Here they had the Governor. General asserting
it as an established rule, admitting of no
cavil or doubt, that no sovereign prince in India
had a right to adopt—that they had a right to refuse or
to sanction the adoption; but had the Governor-General
been in possession 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 had 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 of 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 I,a successor. Let
him give them their own words:—
"If the Raja were created a sovereign, in the ordi-

nary acceptation of the term, he was unq-ueitionably com-
petent to appoint a successor to his royal rights, as well
us 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 Set-
ters, had a right to adopt a successor. But were they
really of opinion that none but ordinary sovereigns
could adopt? During the Government of Lord
Aucklind some cases of this nature occurred, and
there was a letter of Mr. haddocks, the Government
secretary, in which the right was admitted, so far as the
Raja of Oocha was concerned. What said the Governor
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 haveformed
engagements with native princes may have been y cir-
cumstances
h, eanßdajla find of
in these words •—‘
Oorcha,
materially altered, we are not to act scru-
pulously up to the terms and spirit of those engagements.
"I b•
that its preamble commences The
Raja of Ooreha is one of the chiefs of Bundelkund, by
' whom and his ancestors, his present possessions have
rea
been held in successive generations during a long
ha have
ded on theto our23d December,t treaty
with
course of years, without paying tribute or acknow-
ledging vassalage to any
_other power.' And the
treaty formed with the Baja is designated as one of
friendship and alliance ;' the territory, which from
ancient times has descended to the Raja 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 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 Met-
calfe, of 28th October, 1837, is entitled to make an
adoption, in his own discretion, which the British Go-
vernment is bound to acknowledge, provided that such
adoption be regular, and not in violation of llindoo
law.

" Admitting the right of the Raja, for the reasons
owhichur
recognition l hav e st a stated,
that
d to adopt
right a nwi
twith heir,
the
ea ms
enpoatrda
ti sop osed,
after much reflection on the whole subject, to mix up
con-
sideration of the punishment that may be due to him for
unwarranted opposition to the Briiish power."
It was impossible to raise a question about words so dis-
tinct and positive as those, and he, therefore, maintained
that, if the directors took up the ground that none but
ordinary sovereigns had a right to adopt, they were di-
rectly opposed to Lord Auckland's minute.—(Hear,
hear.) But the directors were now of opinion with the
Governor-General, that heirs and successors meant
lineal descendants, but, as Lord Auckland observed in
treaties where tire words were so distinct and positive as
those, it was impossible to raise a question about thew.
In dealing with these cases, however, the question ought
not to turn upon whether the. sovereign was an ordinary
or an extraordinary one, but what were the rights
granted to him by the treaty. Now, precisely such a
question as that occurred under the Government of Lord
Auckland. In viewing this question (says his Lordship),
it was by these treaties alone that their relations in
Iright uwfesl.uec suo
ccession sbs ieon b
governed.ecame dormant
A
ll
u so
the moment
mrespectingtreaties
the
were conclude& They might restrict princes in Indialty,
I treaty as to the persons,whom they were to adopt. They