secured to the cause of order, by affording them a safe and honorble shelter and an ample provision-if, as all travellers and all Government functionaries concur, with a rare unanimity, in stating, the country is more prosperous, the people richer, the taxes more easily paid, crime more rare, life and property more secure, than in many of our own districts-it would be difficult to say in what single particular the result could have better justified the policy of the wise and large-hearted statesman, to whom Satara owes its existence as an independant sovereignty.

2.

This brings us to the second question-Is it incumbent on the British Government, on the grounds of JUSTICE or of sound POLICY, to continue the Satara sovereignty, and to the late Raja's adopted son?

Let us, as in duty bound, give precedence to the question of JUSTICE. We solemnly bound ourselves by a treaty in 1818, which we ratified and recognized with equal solemnity in 1839, to cede the country of Satara in perpetual sovereignty" to the Raja of Satara, his heirs and successors."* As long, therefore as the Raja, with whom we treated, left any heir or successor, we cannot, according to our view of the case, resume the territory without being guilty of a breach of a solemn treaty.

We have already mentioned that the late Raja adopted a son. The adoption was in every respect perfectly valid and regular, according to the law and custom of the nation: and in any court of justice in India-in the Supreme Court of Calcutta or Bombay, as well as in any Adalut of the Company or of any native power -the adopted son would be recognized, without possibility of question, as standing in precisely the same position, with respect to rights of property and relationship, as the naturally born legitimate male issue of the deceased Raja's body. In a word, the late Raja's adopted son has succeeded to all the legal rights, and is subject to all the legal liabilities, of his adoptive parent.†

"But," it is argued, "no adoption can transmit rights of sovereignty without the recognition of the adoption by the paramount power." Though the soundness of this position, in the case of sovereign princes, be not free from question, let us, for

The 1st article of the treaty of Satara runs thus: "The British Government agrees to cede in perpetual sovereignty to the Raja of Satara, his heirs and successors the districts specified in the annexed schedule."

In replying to a question put to him last session, Sir J. C. Hobhouse is reported to have mentioned, as a defect in the late Raja's adoption, that it took place during the absence of the Resident and without his consent; and that Dr. Murray, who was present, protested against it, or at least urged its suspension until the Resident's arrival. But the assent or dissent, the presence or absence, of the Resident had nothing whatever to do with the validity of the adoption-the formality and legality of which, we are informed, are unquestionable.

the sake of argument, admit that confirmation is necessary to justify the title,-the question will then arise.-Can this sanction be equitably withheld? or, in other words, can it be refused without a departure from the established custom and usage of native governments, as well as of our own?

Whatever may have been the abstract legal rights of the Imperial Government of Delhi, a reference to history will shew that in practice its recognition of adoption was never withheld, unless where the Prince who wished to adopt was disaffected to the paramount power-a ground of objection which no one asserts to have existed in the case of our trusty ally the late ruler of Satara. Again, let us refer to the practice of the British Government, and we shall find, that, since the creation of the Satara state, adoption. has been recognized in almost every Mahratta state of note in India, Kolapur only excepted:-That is to say, sons adopted in precisely the same manner and on the same grounds as in the case of Satara, have succeeded to the sovereignty of Scindia at Gwalior, of Holkar at Indore, of Powar at Dhar, and twice successively to that of Bhousli at Nagpur. In most, if not all, of the cases enumerated, the present reigning Rajas are adopted children, to say nothing of minor Mahratta Rajas, Chiefs, and feudatories, so numerous that we believe the succession by adoption would far outnumber those by direct descent.+

A regard to the established custom and usage of India-British, Mahomedan, and Hindu-would thus seem to impose upon. the British Government, the moral obligation of continuing the sovereignty to the adopted son of the late Raja, even if we had not bound ourselves by a specific engagement so to do; and this brings us to the legal obligation we have voluntarily but solemnly incurred.

By the treaty of Satara, as before stated, we ceded a certain territory in perpetuity to the Raja and to "his heirs and succesThe terms here used, it will be observed are gene

sors."

The privilege has even been conceded to the Jaghirdars of the Satara state, four of whom were permitted to adopt during the late Raja's reign.

+ The object of adoption is religious rather than economical. The superstitious belief is that certain ceremonies performed by a son can alone deliver the soul of even the purest and most virtuous of parents from one of the direst quarters of purgatory. Hence where no natural born son exists, a son must be adopted from the same tribe as the parent; and the favorite cousin, nephew, or other relation is invariably adopted among the Mahrattas, even when such a step is no way necessary to secure to him the succession to property. It is a common error to suppose, that adoption is a remedy for lack of heirs. Adoption is merely a selection, from among possible heirs, of one individual as heir, which he becomes in virtue of his election to the religious position of a son. Vide Colebrooke, Strange, or any other of the ordinary Hindu law text books on adoption.

ral. There is no restriction or limitation to particular heirs, direct or collateral. The succession is made absolute to the Raja's heirs and successors generally, and for ever. The real question, therefore, which we have now to answer, is simply this - has the Raja of Satara left any heir, or did he die heirless? No one possessing the slightest knowledge of Hindu law can hesitate for a moment in answering, that the late Raja did leave an heir, and that heir was his own adopted son, who, for all legal purposes is the Raja's heir as completely and effectually as if he had been his legitimate son. He did not, perhaps, on his adoptive parent's decease, become ipso facto RAJA, but he became ipso facto, his heir at law--THE HEIR whom, agreeably to the tenor of the treaty, we ought to recognize as successor" in perpetual sovereignty" to the state of Satara. This adopted son, therefore, being according to the law of the country, the Raja's heir, we can no more, consistently with the treaty, refuse to recognize and invest him, than we could have refused to recognize and invest the original grantee's naturally born son.

We can perceive no escape from the obligation thus imposed on us by the plain terms of the treaty: and no argument is necessary to prove the real injustice, as well as the technical illegality of construing a deed of gift more strictly than is warranted by the plain meaning of the terms used. To read "heirs and successors," as though it were synonymous with "heirs male of his body," is so clearly contrary to common justice and common sense, that it were loss of time to argue the point further,*

After what we have just written, we need say little regarding the POLICY of continuing the sovereignty to the late Raja's heir. If we have taken a correct view of the question, our recognition of his claim becomes a matter of imperative obligation. If the construction of the treaty were even doubtful, we would still hold it to be sound policy to confirm the adoption, on the wise and equitable principle of interpreting a doubtful point in favor of the weaker contracting party. Or, if there had been no stipulation at all in the treaty regarding the succession, it would, even in such a case, be the part of a wise and a just government to respect the prescriptive rights of ancient and established usage, which have been hitherto preserved inviolate, both under our own rule, and under that of our Mahomedan and Hindu prede

cessors.

Even had the late Raja not adopted a son, be would still have left an heir in the person of the nearest of his blood relatives, whoever he might have been. There is, in fact, no expression in the treaty which can be construed to bar any particular class of

heirs.

Are we prepared to set these obligations aside, to interpret treaties according to our own fashion, and to pronounce the rights of prescription to be obsolete? And, after having done so, what is to be our gain? Uniformity of rule, and two or three lakhs of surplus revenue, for after payment of pensions, estab lishments, and salaries, it could scarcely be more.* But, will a foreign government, with all its uniformity, be more popular or more efficient than the late one, under judicious British control? Will the people, now happy and thriving, be more prosperous and contented then? Will the higher classes, which now form a connecting link between the rulers and the peasantry, be maintained? Will our public improvements† surpass in magnitude and utility the magnificent works which have been executed in the late reign? Will hospitals and dispensaries be more liberally supported? Will education, English and Vernacular, be more extensively diffused? Will greater facilities be afforded for the propagation of the Christian faith? We will leave each

of our readers to answer these questions for himself, according to his own individual experience of the benefits of British rule. Whatever differences of opinion may exist on these matters, there is one point on which the sentiments of all wise and good statesmen are in cordial unison-the supreme importance of maintaining our good name unimpaired. Let us then hold fast our pledged faith, whether direct or implied, without wavering. Let us give a fair and liberal construction to our treaties. Let us beware of affixing a strained limitation to their stipulations, which the framers of them never contemplated, and which the ordinary and grammatical acceptation of the words does not warrant. The whole history of our connection with the Satara state has heretofore been marked by the most enlightened liberality. We were generous to the late Raja, let us not be unjust to his son.

* The late Raja, we believe, was in the habit of expending all his income, though he never exceeded it. The military charges, some years ago, were about 5 lakhs of Rs. und we suppose they are about the same now. If we put down the civil charges at 24 lakhs-roads, schools, hospitals, &c. at half a lakh-and pensions of all kinds, including those to the widows and families of the two last Rajas, at 2 lakhs more-we shall have little more than 3 lakhs of surplus, even under the supposition of the continuance of the present flourishing state of the revenue-which, in the absence of the Court and its large local expenditure, is scarcely to be expected.

†The late Raja, during his reign, expended on public works a sum amounting to between 8 and 9 per cent. of the annual revenues of the Satara State. From Mr. Mangles' recent evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons, it appears that the sums expended in similar works, by the British Indian Government, during the last fourteen years have not exceeded per cent. of the revenue.

ART. VI.-1. Scenes in a Soldier's life, being a connected narrative of the principal military events in Sindh, Belúchistan, and Affghanistan, during 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843, under Generals Lord Keane, Brooks, Sir R. Sale, Wiltshire, Pollock, Nott, England, McCaskill, and Sir C. Napier; by J. H. W. Hall, author of "Ethaldi ;"" the Outcast;"" the Deserters," &c. &c. Montreal and London, 1848.

2. Narrative of services in Beluchistan and Affghanistan, in the years 1840, 1841 and 1842: By Colonel Lewis Robert Stacy, C. B., Bengal Native Infantry, A. D. C. to Her Majesty employed on special service in Kelat; and in command of the 2d brigade of the Kandahar Force. London, 1848.

WE purpose to have another gossip about military life and military adventure in the East. The two works, whose titles we have just transcribed, are the latest which have reached us. They illustrate, in a great measure, the same transactions, and carry the reader over the same ground-but they are exceedingly unlike each other. Mr. Hall's book is the more amusing-Colonel Stacy's (on which a brief notice was bestowed in our last number) the more valuable. Mr. Hall has written a readable volume full of the most extraordinary blunders; Colonel Stacy is accurate enough, though his book may prove, to most readers, as dry as a volume of old despatches. An interesting account of our military operations in Western Affghanistan, might be constructed out of the two volumes. Mr. Hall is gossipy and anecdotical; Colonel Stacy is stately and official. The latter might supply the historical ground-work; the former the lights and shadows of military adventure. Each might furnish what the other lacks. Mr. Hall's attempts at history are most grotesque, and Colonel Stacy is much too dignified to indulge in personal anecdote except when he has something to say about himself. But a judicious fusion of the two narratives, enlivening the comparative dullness of the one and correcting the inaccuracies of the other, might result in a really interesting and valuable work.

Mr. Hall has committed a grand error-but one common to writers of this class. He has attempted too much. Not content to treat merely of matters with which he may be presumed to have some acquaintance, he has betaken himself to topics with which he has none. In an evil hour he has bethought himself of turning historian It was not enough that he should