The Sun.
London, England, 1825-02-01 00:00:00

INDIA

THE LATE MAHRATTA WAR.

As every c•ti:ii•t is making to.lessen the value of
the services,of the Troops who were engaged in
the late Mahn:►tta War—it becomes necessary
that the results of their brilliant achieveme4ts
should be made, known to the British Public ;
not only that they may be most amply rewarded
for their gallantry and. heroism, but that the
merit uhich is so pre-eminently due to the Com-
mander-in-Chief and the Officers of the Deccan
Army should 'be properly appreciated by the
Nation. In addition to the immense booty—
that is, public property—which was taken by the
Troops in 1817 and 1818, apmunting to many
Millions sterling, %, hich the East India Co►npany
now hold,they have secured the permanent pos-
sescion of vast Provinces, from which they derive
.an enormous net annual revenue, which is thewn
by the following Extract from " the last terri-
torial Financial Letter"' from Bengal of the 31st
of December, 1822 :

-" The aggregate receipts of the three Presidencies amounted
to 19,011.04,10 rupees; the charges to rupees 17,31,71,544.
The surplus Indian revenue has consequently reached the sum
of rti pees 1,71-43-2,616.
.Favourable as this result is, beyond the example of any for-
mer period, your Honourable Court will observe, that from
the receipts stated in the .accounts, a considerable sum -is ex-
cluthyl, which properly belongs to the r,sources of the period
under review. _

But for..these cmcumstanee? the Indian-surplus would beliea
considerably exceed two crores of rupees, (or two
Stelling.) • ,
We trust your • honourable Court will derive a high grati-
fication from the.comehiplation of a state of thins, favourable
beyond your most sanguine expectations, and calculated to
aflbrd the most.solid ground for anticipating a still more im-
portant amelioration.
Although we.. have met the demands of the commercial branch
in their fullest extent, and have remitted to England, within
the past year, treasure to the extent of rupees-1,66,06,17ti, the
rash balances in our Indian treasuries on the 30th of April last
amounted to rupees 9,99,39,196, (about ten millions Sterling)
affording a large surplus to be-disposed of in such manner as
may appear most conducive to the intcreats of the.lionourahle
Conlpakiy."

.To these important .advantages must be added
the concessions of tt rritory and money the Coin-
patty gave up after the war to the Native Princes
who were their Allier,and to the Niz:un, in
particular, ‘iho received not only a large portion
of the territory of the late Peishwa, but also an
arrear, of tribute, wldch was due front him to the
Peishwa, to the amount of two millions and a
quarter sterling, but which, legally speaking,
actually belonzed to the troops.
By a careful perusal of the Ilydrahad and
other papers, published by the Company last
autumn, these and other interesting facts will
appear. •Yet, notwithstanding all the-advantages
which the East.lntlia Company-have derived front
the military operations of 1817 and 'lBlB, no exer-
tion has been_nraele by lhent tO facilitate the payment
of any part of the .Booty to the Troops ; but-
claims have been set tkp -by the Directors to the
most valuable parts of the Booty, as repugnant to
the principlesw controul subjects of this.nation,
as they are. contrary to _those of justice, and to
the Tractive
.which prevailed in matters of prize
in 'all former wars in India.! The period ha,;,
however, prrived, wLell this subject will pro.
bableundergo that, revision whicri will sltew.lhe
Company, they are not pos,essed of the Sove.
rei.4nty of India, but that the -same is in the
Crown, ho has most graciously given all this
Boohy to the Troops.

THE GOVERNMENT AND MR. FAIR.

It is with great regret we tind .that Mr. EL-
PuiscroN.E has been permitted by the,Company's
Legal' Advisers ,at Bombay to commit- himself in
.this case. As for as the-facts of it have-come to
our. knowleage,- we think the. Government ought
not to have interfered in it, but to have left the
Supreme!Court to have exercised its own,,power,
a;;d to kw. puid Mr. FAIR fur the contempt
of which it is alleged he is guilty. But .the Go-
:erument having interfered, it was not consistent
with •justice that -Mr. FAttt should have-been so
harshly dealt with., as his previous good conduct,
integritys, and .character, entitled him to every
reasonable ind4llg,ence, and he ought not,in a case
of-this nature, to have been treated with a rigour
beyond the Law.; for it appears lie was consign-
ed, not in the most courteoas manner, to Captain
SOTTIE;;T'S hiCh was bound front Bombay
to-China, and from thence to London, when, by
the statute of the"s3d of -his late Majesty, c. 155,
section 104, •the Government of Bombay was
only authorised to send the party to the United
kingdorwia some ship bound direct to the United
Kingdom! We shall resume the subject at an
early opportunity ; in the meantime we refer our
It ea d rs to the following extract on it, front
The Telescope of Sunday

" In another part of our Paper will be found -the particulars
of the transmission of Mr. Fair, the editor of the Bombay
Gazrtle, for an alleged contempt of the Suprme Court. As
Mr. Fair's must necessarily be an ex-party statement, he has
wisely, as well as justly, confined himself to publishing the
official correspondence which passed between himself and the
authorities at Bombay. So far as we can glean, the case stands
thus.—Mr. .Fair publishes what the Supreme Court consider
an untrue statement of their proceedings, and thus is guilty of
contempt. The court complains of this contempt to Govern-
ment, who take up the cause by threatening to .punish Mr.
Fair, if he do not make what they (the Government) consider a
sufficient apology. Mr. Fair foes not make what is conceived
to be a stifficient.api4ogy, and the Government fulfil their threat
by ordering Mr. .Fair to depart for England, a charter party
passenger in the ship London, or to find security to the amount
of 20,900 rupees himself, and two sttretiesia 10,000 each, that
he will depart in a week. Mr. Fair fails to do so, and is sent
on board accordingly. Oa this brief outline we shall make the
-following remarks :
" l a the first place, we knoW nothing about Mr. Fair, and
therefore we are bound. to believe that he is an honeseand .13o-
nouratle man. The Governor of Bombay is, as every ore
knows, both the one and the other_ So that we must -judge
solely on the acts of each, so far as we can gather them from
the statements now before us.
" The Court then appears to us to have acted both unwisely
and imprope(ly in the mode which they adopted in punishing
the alleged contempt, as there exists in every Court a power of
judging and punishing contempt, and it was therefore below the
dignity of theConet to resort to any other tribunal than their
own, for redressing their grievances. What would any one
in this country say, were the Court of King's Bench to apply to
the King in Council to punish a man who had been guilty of
contempt ?
" Whether thee.Bornbay Government were justified or not in
taking up the quarrel of.the Supreme Court, is another matter,
on which there may be a difference of opinion ; it was, at least,
taking on themselves an invidipus office without the plea of
necessity; but having once entered into such measure, they
were, in our opinion, perfectly justified in insisting on an
ample and sufficient apology, more particularly as the editor
had previous notice that iris conduct had not met with their
approbation; and when they came to the resolution of sending
glr. Fair to England, they did so with as little harshness as
such a measure would admit of. One thing, we acknowledge,
surprises us not a little. Mr. Fair informs us, that he could
not avail himself of the indulgence offered him by the Govern-
ment, of remaining in the country three months, because he
could-not find two sureties to the amount of 10,000 rupees each.
What are we to infer from this ? India must be very much
changed indeed, if any respectable man could not find security