233 



after ? The inference is invitable, that the proposal 

 is nothing more nor less, than to sell that with 

 which the seller admits he can give but a doubtful 

 title- a title that would not be recognised in any 

 country of Europe on the security of which, as 

 it stands at present, no English capitalist would 

 advance a shilling; and it is consequently of some 

 little importance to examine carefully into the rights 

 of the case, so that what is done may be equitable, 

 and that the State, the natives, and the settlers, 

 may receive, each and every, their just dues. 



Native Rulers, brought up in the atmosphere of 

 native society, have doubtless been imbued with its 

 ideas. It may be asked, then, have they respected 

 these rights ? On the contrary History satisfies us, 

 that if they have silently acquiesced in their subjects 

 appropriating waste lands, they have seldom failed 

 to vindicate the principle of Adverse Possession, 

 by respecting no rights that did not pay, and 

 others only so long as it suited their convenience. The 

 British Government, however, has not a like im- 

 munity from its own acts, and this fact has long 

 since been discovered by our Indian subjects, and 

 is often, I am afraid, turned to account to advance 

 claims to which neither Ancient Law, nor Ancient 

 Custom have given any sanction. As if, moreover, 

 the mail of legal enactments and public opinion, 

 were not sufficiently binding, instead of depending 

 for a character ou the uprightness and integrity 



