DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.34827#0405
1842-59.
389
paramount, and the assertion of feudal claims of escheat as
applicable to every state in India, were frequently commented
upon, and he particularly dwelt upon the fallacy which, was at
the bottom of all the reasoning of the advocates of resumption,
that precedents of interference with successions as arbiters
supported our claim to decide the question in our own favour.
These views were expressed at the time in the letters which I
take from a very numerous hie in my possession. The hrst
tells its own story; the second was written at my request, with
a view to be shown to the Government. I obtained it from
him with some difficulty, as he had previously refused an
appeal that was made to him by Mr. Hume, to give his opinion
publicly on the substantial merits of the case ; and I begged him
at least to let it be known to the Government how strongly he
was opposed to the application of this precedent to states whose
sovereignty we acknowledged.
'Hookwood, May 13, 1849.
' My dear Colebrooke,—Many thanks for your letter. I sup-
pose the argument wih be what you say, that the Raja was
placed under so many restrictions that he could not be regarded
as a sovereign, but must come under the rules applicable to
dependants. But although such an argument might be used
by foreign princes who chose to deny the Raja's sovereignty, it
could not be urged by us wbo have solemnly acknowledged his
sovereh/rhy in the same treaty that enumerates the restrictions
which are put upon the exercise of it. Even granting that he
is dependent, it does not necessarily follow that his territory, on
defect of heirs, is to escheat to the power on which he depends,
or that that power has a right to regulate the succession to
his possessions. To complete the argument, it is necessary to
prove that such has been the invariable practice of India, and
must have been understood by the parties to the treaty. To
make out this proof, Mr. Willoughby and those who adopt his
reasoning proceed to argue that so we dependent chiefs are
subject to this rule, and ^Aene/o?'e the Raja is subject to it.
They instance many enamdars, jageerdars, &c.; but can they
show any prince who had been acknowledged as a sovereign to
389
paramount, and the assertion of feudal claims of escheat as
applicable to every state in India, were frequently commented
upon, and he particularly dwelt upon the fallacy which, was at
the bottom of all the reasoning of the advocates of resumption,
that precedents of interference with successions as arbiters
supported our claim to decide the question in our own favour.
These views were expressed at the time in the letters which I
take from a very numerous hie in my possession. The hrst
tells its own story; the second was written at my request, with
a view to be shown to the Government. I obtained it from
him with some difficulty, as he had previously refused an
appeal that was made to him by Mr. Hume, to give his opinion
publicly on the substantial merits of the case ; and I begged him
at least to let it be known to the Government how strongly he
was opposed to the application of this precedent to states whose
sovereignty we acknowledged.
'Hookwood, May 13, 1849.
' My dear Colebrooke,—Many thanks for your letter. I sup-
pose the argument wih be what you say, that the Raja was
placed under so many restrictions that he could not be regarded
as a sovereign, but must come under the rules applicable to
dependants. But although such an argument might be used
by foreign princes who chose to deny the Raja's sovereignty, it
could not be urged by us wbo have solemnly acknowledged his
sovereh/rhy in the same treaty that enumerates the restrictions
which are put upon the exercise of it. Even granting that he
is dependent, it does not necessarily follow that his territory, on
defect of heirs, is to escheat to the power on which he depends,
or that that power has a right to regulate the succession to
his possessions. To complete the argument, it is necessary to
prove that such has been the invariable practice of India, and
must have been understood by the parties to the treaty. To
make out this proof, Mr. Willoughby and those who adopt his
reasoning proceed to argue that so we dependent chiefs are
subject to this rule, and ^Aene/o?'e the Raja is subject to it.
They instance many enamdars, jageerdars, &c.; but can they
show any prince who had been acknowledged as a sovereign to