The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-02 00:00:00

THE

SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF THE
PRINCES OF INDIA.

TO THE MOST INOI :LE THE MARQUIS CF DALHOUSIE,
GOVERNOR- G ENERAL OF INDIA, &e., &C.
My Lord,—ln :your Lordship's minute cf the 30th
August, 1848, in. which you assign your reasons for
refusing to recog nise the adopted son of Appa Sahib,
late Raja of Sateara, as his successor in that Princi-
p tlity, you assert it " to be established as a general
rule, beyond cavil or doubt, that while adoption by a
Prince of any individual is valid so far as to consti-
tute him heir to the adopter's private possessions, it is
of no power or effect whatever in constituting him
heir to the Princiioality, or to Sovereign rights, until
the adoption so m ade, has received the sanction of the
sovereign power, with whom it rests to give or to re-
fuse it." And y our Lordship states, that it was
exclusively from the papers then before you—that is,
upon the Minut es of the members of the Bombay
Government—that you came to that conclusion.
Now, the prim ziple thus announced by your Lord-
ship is of the highest importance, not merely because
it constitutes tie foundation of your resolution
regarding the tie happy Sattara dynasty, but far
more, because, xl maintained, it will necessarily
lead you to a six li:er decision as to the numerous
principalities of es 'Fitral India—a decision, I confi-
dently assert, uttte sly at variance with justice and
good faith, fatal t a the moral strength of the British
name, rendering t Ye most solemn treaties of the Esst
India Company a snare and a mockery, and justify-
ing, if it do not o-ecasion, among many millions of a
breve and warlike people, a feeling wholly destructive
of all security for the peace, not to say the exist-
ence, of our Inc ian Empire. You adopted this
principle, while yet new to Indian affairs, exclusively
on the authority of those, on whose judgment you
might than not us inaturally rely, but of whose qua-
lifications to advise the supreme Government in such
a case, you uow doubtless are more accurately in-
formed, since it seems probable that the immediate
pressure of eurrenst business, that admitted no delay,
may have prevented 'that careful research into
the subject which you would otherwise have
directed. But, above all, since your Lordship can
no longer he ignmant, that the rule which you consi-
dered to he establ ;fished beyond " all cavil or doubt,"
is in direct conflitte with the deliberate and often-
reiterated j udgme set of your predecessors, I feel that,
humble as I am, I. need offer no apology for thus pub-
licly calling upon you carefully and candidly to revise
the conclusion which you have so unhappily, and
(with all respect, I must say it) incautiously adopted.
I make this call with the more confidence, because
in the Minute to which I have referred, while griev-
ously mistaking tiro real merits of the question before
you, you nevertheless announced the wholesome
general principle, that " the British Government is
bound in duty, :as well as policy, to act on every
occasion of acquit ing territory or revenue, with the
purest integrity-, and with the most scru-
pulous observalace of good faith, and that
where even a shadow of doubt can be shown, the claim
should at once he abandoned ;" and I will not insult
you by questioning for a moment the good faith in
which this avowal was made, however much I may
feel astonished that it should find a place in such a
document, and bowever strongly it may evince, that
the fairest intentions and the highest talents may fail
to secure their possessor from being guilty oe
gross injustice when combined with despotic power.
But, accepting this declaration in its plain and
simple meaning, land utterly rejecting the notion that
it can be a mere cover for designs of violence and
spoliation, I entreat your Lordship to observe, that
the papers which have lately been printed by order of
the House of Commons, demonstrate, in the clearest
manner, that the rule which your predecessors pro-
nounced to have been established " beyond all cavil
or doubt," and upon which they repeatedly acted,
was, that every Sovereign Prince in India has
an inherent right to adopt a successor to his so-
vereign rights, and that the British Government is as
much bound to recognise such right, as a judge is
bound to enforce the law, without any, the slightest
pretence to the power of arbitrarily withholding the
right which it confers upon those, who sue for its
protection. You will accordingly find that, in con-
formity with this rule, your predecessors, Lord
Amherst, Lords W. Bentinck, Auckland, and Met-
calfe, recognised, between the years 1826 and 1846,
seven adoptions meek by reigning sovereign Princes,
and seven made either by the widows or mothers of
deceased princes. Furthermore, in one instance,
where there was an entire failure of heirs, a succes-
sion, made by election of the chiefs and people of the
State, was instantly recognised, in accordance with a
rule which had been laid down by Lord Metcalfe in
October, 1837, and adopted by the Government of
India of that day, viz., " That where there
is a total failure of heirs, it is probably
more consistent with right, that the people should elect
a Sovereign, than that the principality should lapse
to the Paramount State, that state, in fact, having no
rights in such a case but what it assumes by virtue of
its power."
The same papers will show your Lordship, that
all pretensions to deal with the Native Princes and
Chiefs of India, by virtue of certain powers
which your Lordship, in your judgment upon the
Sattara adoption, assumed to have devolved upon the
British Government, as successors of the Emperors of
Delhi, had been formally abandoned by your prede-
cessors, and that it had been ruled by them,
with the sanction of the Home Authorities, that
in all our dealings with these princes, "we
are to look only to the terms and spirit of
our treaties and engagements, which we have
formed with them, and bring forward no other de-
mand, than such as in reference to those engagements,
may be indisputably consistent with good faith." And
that when a question arose, as to the sense in which
the words " heirs and successors" should be inter-
preted in our treaty with the Raja of Oo\rcha,
Lord Auckland at once determined it to mean " heirs
by adoption," as well as "heirs natural," observing,
that " upon words so distinct and positive, it was
impossible to raise a question." Thus construing
that treaty, and all other treaties, simi-
larly worded, in the teeth of the construc-
tion which your Lordship put upon the
same words in the treaty with Sattara, where you
determined that the words " heirs and successors
must be read in their ordinary sense, in the sense in
which they are employed in other treaties between
states, that is, as meaning only heirs natural.' " The
same papers will show your Lordship the serious
error into which you fell, in assuming that the Raja
of Sattara had " claimed larger powers in respect of
adoption than are enjoyed by old established states,"
the right which he claimed being precisely
the same that had been invariably recognised to
belong to all other sovereign princes, viz., the right to
adopt a successor to his royal rights, in failure of
hairs of his body—a right which, strange to say, is
unequivocally admitted in the papers which autho-
rised you to confiscate the principality of Sattara,
upon the ground that the Raja had no such
right : "for," says the Minute which bears the sig-
nature of a majority of the Court of Directors, by
whose vote that measure was carried, "it is freely
admitted, that if the Raja were created a sovereign in
the ordinary acceptation of the term, he was unques-
tionably competent to adopt a successor to his royal
rights, as well as an heir to his private estate." The
conclusion, I leave it to your Lordship to
draw, seeing that you have unequivocally ad-
admitted that the late Raja was such a sove-
reign as is contemplated in that paper; for in the very
first paragraph of your Lordship's Minute, you de-
signate him with great truth and propriety as an in-
dependent Sovereign. Recurring, then, to your
t frankspuzhht
Ito abvveoe envtaulr, that
e
enforced,
t n
ofoa scklwa ihmyico
htuor
tt
he
Lre r
ovi traodlrisydhiiotpyr,
sel re
ddnosuahebip
whether, with the proof now before you,
that your confiscation
Scaut tsatrosm, woaf s
India, the
as oftlae
iedt
ht the
00
wf
n principality
and
ra ew.
oafnd
peatedly acted upon by your predecessors, in
accordance, I believe, with the judgment of every
officer entitled to pronounce an opinion on the sub-
ject—amongst them, that distinguished man, Mr.
M. Elphinstone, who framed, the original treaty
vsith the Raja.—l venture, I say, humbly, but
firmly to ask, whether your Lordship can honestly
maintain that territory and revenue, so acquired, can
be retained, consistently with that " pure integrity,
and scrupulous good faith," which you say should
characterise all the dealings of the British Govern-
ment with the Princes of India?
I have the honour to be, with great respect,
Your Lordship's e servant,
JOHN SULLIVAN.