The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-15 00:00:00

had been brought against him ; and he thought the
Court would not consent to any alteration in this case,
but would confirm the resolution which they came to
when the subject was made the matter of consideration
in the month of February last. He would, therefore,
propose an amendment, which he thought would not be
objectionable in itself, and which would not compromise
the opinions of any one as to the guilt or innocence of
the Raja of Sattara. The amendment he proposed was,
" That the Court of Proprietors having had laid before
it all the papers relating to the Raja of Sattara, adheres
to the resolution of the 13th of February, 1840, ' That
this Court deems it highly inexpedient, and accordingly
declines to interfere with the responsible Executive in
the affairs of Sattara.' "
Sir J. L. LUSHINGTON seconded the amendment, be-
cause he thought but little utility attended the discus-
sions of great political questions in the Court of Proprie-
tors. He did not deny the competency of the Court to
entertain those questions, but they had no power to alter
a resolution of the Court of Directors after that resolu-
tion had been agreed to by the Board of Control. In
the case of the Raja of Sattara, the Government of India,
the Court of Directors, and the Board of Control, were
agreed, and the Court of Proprietors would exceed the
power which they possessed under the Act of Parliament
if they attempted to interfere with the decision. The
power of the Court of Proprietors to discuss those ques-
tions was a most valuable privilege, and he could con-
ceive a case in which the Directors might wish to appeal
to the Court of Proprietors for their assistance. But if
they made the Court of Proprietors an engine for inter-
fering with the Government of India, he feared that they
might be deprived of the privileges which they pos-
sessed. Before proceeding further he would briefly
advert to the circumstances under which the Raja of Sat-
tara became possessed of his territory. That territory
was part of the dominions of the Peishwa. The
Raja of Sattara at that time had never possessed
any territory, but was put in possession of it
by the British Government who had come into possessson
of it in the course of their war with the Peishwas—one
of the most just wars that ever was undertaken. The
Raja of Sattara was a State prisoner of the Peishwas ;
he had no claim whatever on the British Government ;
and they would have been considered as acting with the
greatest liberality towards him if they had settled on
him a pension, or given him a Jagheerdar. But as had
been truly described, we had raised him from the prison
to the throne. Acting
i under the advice of Mr. Elphin-
stone, we had entered into a treaty with him, the condi-
tions of which, if broken, entailed the forfeiture of the
territory, which, by the advice of Mr. Elphinstone, had
been conferred upon him. For a while his conduct had
been such that he had been relieved from the strict
superintendence which had been at first imposed upon
him. After a while, however, a spirit of inordinate am-
bition began to manifest itself, accompanied by a desire
to violate the restrictions imposed upon him ; and his
conduct was such as to excite the suspicions of the seve-
ral residents, who had been his best friends. Colonel
Briggs, as early as the Ist of June, 1837, represented
the Raja as extremely tenacious of his prerogatives,
—as resisting all control—as being flattered into a
belief of his own powers, and stated that it would
be for his future happiness if circumstances were .to
occur to induce the British Government to give him
timely warning. Colonel Robertson had succeeded Colo-
nel Briggs while the Goa intrigue was going on, and
he had given the Raja repeated warnings. He had been
succeeded by Colonel Lodwick, who was also disposed
to act in a friendly :manner towards the Raja, and it was
deeply to be lamented that the Raja had not attended to
the advice of his best friends, but had pursued a course
of conduct by which the fears and apprehensions ex-
pressed on his account had been fulfilled. A great deal
had baen said respecting the question of the Jagheerdars.
It had been said that the English had broken the treaty
made with the Raja on that subject, but that was going
too far.—(Hear, hear.) How could persons be accused
of breaking a treaty, when the question was sub judice ?
The question relating to the Jagheerdars was one of
extreme difficulty. It was not Sir Robert Grant alone
who had opposed the Raja's claims : Lord Clare had
also opposed those claims, as was proved by his] Minute,
dated Oct. 4, 1832, page 38 of the further papers.

I have endeavoured to shape it so that it may nicct his
views, as well as those of the other members of the
Council. (Signed) " AUCKLAND.
" 20th May, 1837." _ _. _

He thought that minute would prove to the Court that
at that period the Governor-General took a decided view, of
the case. He had listened with great satisfaction to the
eulogiums which the Hon. Proprietor had passed on the
Governor-General—(Hear, hear)—but he could not agree
to neutralize those eulogiums by agreeing to what the
Hon. Proprietor had afterwards said of Lord Auckland,
that he had been pressed and worried by the Bombay
Government into their view of the subject. Lord Auck-
land was too much of a statesman to be pressed 'and
worried into a view of a subject contrary to his convic-
tions. He had looked at the case in all its bearing's, had
read all the papers with attention, and could not arrive
at any other conclusion but that the Raja was guilty.
He stated that conclusion in his minute of 23d Dec.,
1838, as far as regarded the Raja's attempts to corrupt
the fidelity of two native officers, and that the opinion of
Lord Auckland coincided with that of Sir Robert Grant,
also appeared from the minute of Mr. Farish, dated 13th
Oct., 1838, which would be found at p. 272, and the three
paragraphs of which he would read to the Court.
" 1. I have perused with the most unfeigned satisfac-
tion the minute of the Right Honourable the Governor-
General of India, dated the 23d ultimo, recording his
opinions on the case of the Raja of Sattara, which are,
in fact, exactly similar to those which the Government
had previously recorded.

" 2. I need not explain, that my satisfaction does not
arise from the fact that his Lordship has pronounced the
Raja guilty of the three principal charges preferred
against him : it arises from the circumstance, that all the
obloquy and reproach which has been cast on this Go-
vernment, and more especially on our late respected and
lamented head, by the Raja and his supporters, are re-
moved. We have now the satisfaction of learning, that
there is no disagreement between his Lordship and our-
selves respecting the Raja's guilt ; and in this uniformity
of opinion rests the complete justification of the measures
adopted by this Government, in the painful, difficult, and
resposible position in which it has been placed.
"3. With reference to the 10th paragraph of the Go-
vernor-General's minute, I cannot refrain from observing
that I am not aware that this Government has ever
stated an opinion, ' that magnanimity in pardoning an
offence of a weak ally is not, in different cases which
may be readily contemplated, to be at all viewed as a
suitable and expedient policy ;' on the contrary, I am
quite prepared to admit, that cases of this kind have
happened, and may again do so, where the parties may
evince repentance, and are likely duly to appreciate the
clemency extended to them. All the remarks which I
have made bearing on this question (and I think I may
say the same of those which proceeded from the late
Governor and my colleague Mr. Anderson) had peculiar
reference to the individual case of the Raja of Sattara., and I
am glad to find that the Governor. General is of opinion
that, in this case, " measures of leniency and conciliotion
would be perfectly inapplicable.' "
He would now advert to the conduct of Sir James Car-
nac, and he had little fear but that he should be able
entirely to repel all those aspersions and insinuations
which had on more than one occasion been cast upon
him as regarded his conduct in this affair. It had been
said that Sir James Carnac had evinced a want of firm-
ness in his conduct, that he had exhibited weakness and
indecision, had become infected with the atmosphere of
Bombay—(Hear, hear)—that he was worried out of his
opinion. Such was not the case, as was proved by Sir
James Carnac's own minute, p. 296 of the Sattara
Papers—paragraphs from 7 to 11 of which, both inclu-
sive, he would quote in support of his assertion :
" 7. On the 24th June an extract from the proceedings
of Government was forwarded for the consideration and
instructions of the Governor-Gem ral of India ; and,
under the same date, the Resident at Sattara was re-
quested to afford certain informationwhich would be re-
quired in the event of his Lordship seeing fit to autho-
rise the line of policy which I had proposed.
" 8. At this stage of our proceedings (namely, on the
21st June,) we received Mr. Secretary Maddock's letter,
dated 30th May last, transmitting for our information
copies of the Minutes of the Government of India, in
which all unanimously concur in opinion, after a careful
and attentive consideration of the whole case, that the
Raja's guilt has been conclusively established, and that
his offences are of that grave and serious character as to
render his deposition, and the annexation of his domi-
nions to the British Indian empire, highly expedient and
necessary, as an example to the hole of India.
" 9. Notwithstanding this important 'accession to the
strength and weight of the opinions previously recorded
in favour of this mode of disposing of the case, in my
minute dated the 22d June last, I stated, that I still ad-
hered to the sentiments recorded in those of the 19th and
20th of that month ; and this was communicated to the
Governor-General of India on the 29th following.
" 10. When, therefore, I became an advocate for a
lenient course being adopted towards the Raja, I was
opposed to the opinions of the following high au-
thorities :

" An attentive perusal of the treaty and of those pa-
pers satisfies me, that the Deputy Agent has taken a
correct view of this case of jurisdiction ; whatever in-
strument passed between Captain Grant and the Punt,
could only cover his possessions actually within the Sat-
tara Raja's territory, that officer being confined in all his
acts to the kingdom given to the Raja ; and the acquies-
cence of the British authorities in the Deccan would
have been necessary to have given the Raja jurisdiction
over districts situated beyond the limits of his territory.
(Signed) " CLARE."

Now the Deputy Agent, Mr. John Wall, had given it
as his opinion that the Raja's claims were inadmissible.
The seventh article of the treaty was expressed in the
following terms, further papers, p. 2 :
" The possessions of the Jagheerdars within his High-
ness's territory are to be under the guarantee of the
British Government ; which, on the other hand, enga-
ges to secure their performing the service which they
owe to his Highness according to established custom."
He would wish to draw the particular attention of the
Court to the manner in which the word "within" was made
use of in the seventh article, which he had just read.
He would also refer to the following passage in the Mi-
nute of Sir Robert Grant, page 79 of the papers relating
to this subject : ,
"12. In fact, however, the question at issue has al-
ready been decided against the Raja, not only by L,.,Ld
Clare's Government, but likewise by the Govertrrient of
India and by the Home Authorities. I refer the case
of Sheikh Meeran Waeekur, reported on, in a dispatch
of Lord Clare's Government, to the Court of Directors,
dated the 17th June, 1835. In their reply recently re-
ceived, dated the Bth June, 183r4, the Court confirm the
views of the Bombay Government."
Now, he would beg the:in to look to the word "within."
If it had been intendcit that the jurisdiction of the Raja
should extend to the Jagheerdars out of his territory,
the treaty would have been differently worded.—(Hear,
hear.) The words used in that case would probably
have been " within and without," or words to that effect.
But there could be no question but what the subject was
one of doubt and difficulty, and it was to be regretted
that the treaty had not been more explicitly worded. He
would now consider the charges which had been made
against the Raja; and first, as to the attempt which had
been made to corrupt the fidelity of the native troops,
and on that point he would refer to the original com-
munication of Colonel Lodwick to the Governor of Bom-
bay; and the Government of Bombay, in remarking upon
that charge, said that they had no doubt that theinter-
view between the Raja and the native officers actually
took place, and that, although the Raja's intentions ap-
peared inexplicable, yet there could be no doubt that the
intention of the interview was, as had been originally
reported, treasonable towards the Power by whom he
had been so long protected. A Special Com-
mission had been appointed to investigate the
charges, and all the members of it had come
to the conclusion that the Raja was guilty. He
said all the members, for all had signed the Report, al-
though one of the members of the Commission had sub-
sequently protested against it.—(Hear, hear.) Shortly
afterwards other acts of a treasonable nature on the part
of the Raja had come to the knowledge of the Bombay
Government--he meant the Raja's intrigues with the
Goa authorities, and with the ex-Raja of Nagpore—and
on those points he would refer the Court to the minutes
of the sth of May, of the 24th of May, and of the 31st
May, which were among the Sattara papers, and which
he supposed every one present had read, and which were
conclusive as to the guilt of the Raja of Sattara. He
was aware that Mr. Shakespear had expressed an opinion
of doubt as to the Raja's guilt, but that opinion was only
a qualified one; and that gentleman had said, that if
further evidence should be produced, he might be in-
duced to alter his opinion. Unfortunately Mr. Shake-
spear had died before, this additional evidence could be
produced. It, however, subsequently to the lamented
death of that gr,ntleman, came to light, and the following
were the observations made by Mr. Robertson on the
subject, i s his minute of 9th April 1839, page 343 of
the parers

" First. By the entire Government of the late Sir Ro-
bert Grant, whose sentiments were adhered to by the
Government of my immediate predecessor, my present
respected colleague, lir. Farish.

Secondly, kr' the Right Hon. the Governor-Gene-
ral of India. And this is the more important, because,
in the 16;st instance, his Lordship was disposed to view
the -.Liaja of Sattara's conduct as I did, as beneath serious
notice, but was ultimately constrained to change this
view, by the irresistible weight of the evidence adduced
against him. _ _

" Thirdly, By all the members composing the Goyern-
ment of India.

"11. These high authorities agreed in opinion, that the
charges were undeniably proved ; and, although some
variations are observable in their sentiments in regard to
the precise mode in which the case should be finally dis-
posed of', all concurred in thinking that the Raja's trans-
gressions were too heinous to admit of their being over-
looked and forgiven. I particularly notice these facts ;
for, although I do not apprehend that any one will doubt
my sincerity, they are of themselves an ample guarantee
that I must have earnestly and conscientiously endea-
voured to succeed in my exertions on the Raja's behalf,
and that his failure and consequent downfal is solely to
be attributed to his own infatuation and perverse obsti-
nacy, and to the pernicious counsels of interested and de-
signing men."
It was, indeed, an infatuation scarcely intelligible, and
was a memorable illustration of the addage—"Quam
Deus vult perdere, prius dementat." Sir James Carnac
had done everything in his power to leave the door
open for the Raja to make concessions, but all his
friendly endeavours were in vain.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
he asked would any one deny that the Raja was in con-
stant communication with the native Indian officers in
the service of the Company, for purposes which could
not, after what had transpired, be easily misunderstood ?
Was it possible for any one to deny that he had also
been in correspondence with the Governor of Goa ?
(Hear, hear, and cries of" Oh.") He would not say that
the conduct of the Raja was altogether proved to be
treasonable—(Hear, hear)—but if it had been such, the
leniency which he had experienced could not have been
extended towards him. But it was quite clear that the
treaty had been violated, and that no other course was
left to Sir James Carnac than that which he had taken.
The Lieutenant-Governor had shown many years be-
fore, and constantly, up to that time, that he was most
favourably inclined towards the Raja.—(Hear.) But
what says Sir James Carnac, on the 4th of February,
1839 ? In page 313 of the printed papers, paragraph
37, would be found these extracts, from the minutes
" In regard to the second cause of failure in effecting
the object of my visit to Sattara, we are not left to con-
jecture. I annex to this minute two letters received
from Colonel Ovens, dated as per margin, forwarding
some intercepted correspondence of the Raja's agents, a
short time previously to my arrival at Sattara, and
during the very period of my endeavours to induce the
Raja to accept an amnesty on the lenient terms proposed.
" It is almost incredible the number of agents em-
ployed by the Raja. He had sent two separate missions
to England, on whose influence and exertions he confi-
dently depends to obtain a reversal of whatever proceed-
ings are adopted against him by the authorities in India.
From the day of my arrival in this country, I have been
continually beset by his agents in Bombay and at Poona,
and their efforts have been unceasing, to induce me to
consent to direct communications with them indepen-
dently of the local authority. I, of course, defeated
this object, and have purposely abstained from resorting
to native agency of any kind.'
It seemed, in fact, that the money which was supplied
for these purposes was about 3 lacs 300,000 rupees,
or nearly 40,000/. sterling.—(Hear, hear.) A confir-
mation of this calculation would be found at page 301,
paragraph 13, of the Sattara papers. He (Sir. J. L. L.)
would not trespass much further on the indulgence of
of the meeting ; but he would conclude with a refer-
ence to the opinions of a man whose loss every, person,
not only who knew Mr. Edmonstone, but every person
in any way connected with India must deplore—(Hear,
hear)—a man in whose heart the milk of human kind-
ness overflowed—(Hear, hear)—a man who was inti-
mate with all that relates to India—to the native Princes
or to our Government—who had always been the stre-
nuous and able supporter of our allies and dependents.
—(Hear, hear.) Would not the opinion of that man be
of some weight ?—(Hear, hear.) He felt that every
Hon. Gentleman in that Court, and every man who had
the honour of Mr. Edmonstone's acquaintance, would
answer " Yes."—(Hear, hear.) He would not trouble
the Court with the whole of that gentleman's commu-
nication respecting the Raja of Sattara ; but he would
only read this concluding paragraph, from page 378, of
the papers in the hands. of Hon. Proprietors :
" Finally, I must maintain, that in political questions
involving the rights, interests, and conduct of its allies
and dependents, the ruling power is the sole and pro-
per judge, and that, in the case now under considera-
tion, the British Government was not required to put
the Raja on his trial, and to be governed by the issue of
it, but was strictly justified in deciding, on the ground
of recorded and undisputed facts, that by his conduct he
had incurred the forfeiture of his dominion, and that it
was placed under the absolute necessity of carrying that
decision into effect, on his refusing to accede to the terms
of a new treaty, which, although it necessarily involved
either a direct or inferential acknowledgment of his mis-
conduct, yet only required him, in future, to abide by
the principles of his original agreement, the conditions
of which he had failed to observe."
It had been said that Sir J. Carnac had not attended
to the recommendations of the Governor-General to
offer milder terms to the Raja than were contained in
the first paper proposed to the Prince, and which was
said to require of him a confession of his own guilt, but
there was in fact nothing in the paper which implied a,
confession of guilt. There was indeed in the preamble
tahne allusionsceend paper, or 3
madetobrefhacahreast
toaf
mfaeitmheorand
on hisuiti (p. )
part, but in
the
Ipnrfeearmmbaltei rann
having
atvhi
gs
been received by the British
Government; that your Highness, misled by evil advi,
sers, had, in breach of the treaty which placed you.on
the throne, entered into communications hostile to the
British Goveriunent, an inquiry into these accusations

•
Aus case being still undecided, there can, I conceive,
be no impropriety in my tubmitting an opinion on the
merits of the evidence which I therein find recorded.

" My high respect for the judicial talents of the late
Mr. Shakespear has induced me to read with great at-
tention his minute of the 11th May, 1837, in which
several ingenious arguments are advanced against the
credibility of the evidence, to what then constituted the
sole
charge against the Raja of Sattara.
" Much that then appeared quite inexplicable has
since been cleared up ; and it may be doubted whether,'
with the light acquired by subsequent investigations, Mr.
Shakespear would
not have given havei persisted in the opinion which
he has left onr e
" What strikes record
as remarkable is, that he should
more weight to the high character and
high station of
Baja
even the two principal witnesses, and to the
fact, that
himself does not attempt to
assign any plausible
up a story, to be motive for their combining to get
liked by natives of confirmed in the manner ever most dis-
liked
own examinataions pretensions to rank, namely, by
of
an alleged any attempt on their
on oath. Had the Baja even
presents or favours part to obtain from him
pected them of acting in
petted one might have sus-
but, as the case stands, I reallyusion with the Brahmin ; can
whatever for not giving full reliance perceive no grounds
" 9th April, 1839. (Signed) „T. to their testimony.
That was the opinion of Mr. Robertson,e.ROBERTSON."
and without
meaning any disparagement to Mr. Shakespear,
think that the authority of Mr. Robertson
he must
n
was entitled
great attention.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Proprietor,
Mr. Salomons, had the other day said the Governor-Ge-
neral had at first been disposed to coincide in the opinion
eof Mr. Shakespear, and he had read the papers with great
grea
attentiOn, but he had omitted to direct the attention of
the Court to the minute of the Governor-General of the
20th May, 1837,p. 333, or the minute of Mr. Shakespear:
" Mr. Shakespear's examination of the evidence taken
before the Commissioners at Sattara has not altered my
opinion, or convinced me that any doubt should beenter-
tamed of the guilt of the Raja; at least, to the extent
stated in my former minute. He has indeed, pointed out
certain contradictions in the evidence taken; and I might
perhaps wish, with him, that in some instances cross-
examination had been carried further, and that the in-
vestigation had been more complete; but I am afraid that
we shallin vain have to seek, in any complicated inquiry,
a total absence of contradiction in a long chain of na-
tive evidence, and I should always with extreme unwil-
lingness adopt a conclusion drawn from the perusal of a
written report, in rejection of one to which an honest
and well-constituted tribunal has been led upon a viva
voce examination of witnesses. In the present instance,
the Commissioners consisted of officers of high character
and experience, the inquiry was patiently, laboriously,
and dispassionately conducted, and the verdict has been
confidently given. But a clue to a new circumstance as
bearing upon this case has been found, and it is desirable
that the inquiry be resumed, in the hope that light may
be thrown upon whatever is yet obscure in regard to' it.
To this extent I agree with Mr. Shakespear; and in re-
vising the draft of a letter to the Government of Bombay,

THE SUN, LONDON, THITRSDAY, JULY 15, i 441

rl446lPiclered indispensable. This inquiry has satis-
fied tlie Dritish Government, that your Highness hasek-
poseifyoutself to the sacrifice of its alliance and protec-
tion. Nevertheless, moved by considerations of cle-
mency towards tour Highness and your family, the
British GOvernment has resolved entirely to -overlook
what has passed, on the following conditions,. namely
" First, that your , Highness now binds yourself;
strictly and in good faith, to act up literally to all the
articles of the treaty of the 25th September, 1819:!
Thus the object of the proposition was merely the re-
newal of the treaty, and on the Raja's refusal it was
impossible not to see that he was an evil and designing
man. ~He (Sir J. L. L.) was Deputy Chairman at the
time, and he could say, that the wish on all hands was
to -do. everything consistent with the dignity. of the
CroWn, and . the security of the Indian Empire, to re-
store the Raja to power ; but his own perverse con-
duct, and obliquity of intellect, rendered it impos-
sible. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by seconding
the amendment.

Mr. HUME begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman whe-
ther any communication had been made to the Secret
Department ?
The CHAIRMAN said he had himself received a commu-
nication, but it was personally and confidentially made.
Mr. HUME had been anxious to receive a satisfactory
answer, for he felt a great interest in the government of
Sir James Carnac, as he thought there never was a man
sent to India better qualified for the office of a Governor
than that gallant officer—(Hear, hear)—and he had no
doubt such was the general opinion of the public.
—(Hear, hear.) He had entertained the same opinion
of Lord Auckland; and although there were differences
of opinion respecting some parts of the Noble Lord's
administration, yet upon the whole he (Mr. Hume)
thought that Lord Auckland's measures were generally
right. And besides the confidence in Lord Auckland
and Sir J. Carnac, he felt great unwillingness to bring
great questions of political importance into the Court.
In fact, he paid very little attention to the subject,
until the printed papers were put into his hands. He
thought that in reading those papers he should find rea-
sons and grounds to Justify the strong measures which
had been taken ; but, in fact, there was nothing what-
ever in the whole of the book to warrant the course that
had been pursued. He had since reason to believe that
new matter bad come to light, which was not known
when the Government formed its decision.—(Hear, hear.)
He therefore thought that the Directons and the Board
of Control ought to re-consider the subject.—(Hear.)
He agreed with the Hon. Chairman, that, as a general
rule, political questions ought not to be discussed in that
Court, because the Correspondence relating to them was
generally voluminous, and no man who did not devote
his whole time to their consideration, could make him-
self master of the subject.
The CHAnateN explained what he had said to be,
that the interference of the Court was useless in the pre-
sent case, as that act of the India Government had been
approved of by the Directors, and was ratified by the
Board of Control.

Mr. HUME said that the Proprietors had however the
right to meet and express their opinions, and endeavour,
if they saw fit, to induce the Court of Directors and the
Board of Control to reconsider their decision.—(Hear,
hear.) It was not his intention to enter into the details
of the question, but be must say that neither the Chair-
man nor the Deputy Chairman had taken notice of the
facts so ably stated by Mr. Lewis, and many of which
were new.—(Hear, hear.) It was not sufficient to tell the
Court that the charges against the Raja were proved.—
(Hear, hear.) They wanted to see the proofs. Looking
to the three charges against the Raja, he thought
that two of them were disposed of.—(Hear, hear.)
The correspondence with native officers in our service
amounted to nothing, and no man who had ever lived
in. India could think of making it a serious charge against
one chief that he had sent presents to another.—(Hear.)
In fact, this occasional sending of gifts was the esta-
blished mode of maintaining friendships between native
chieftains—(Hear, hear)—and it was absurd to construe
the present of some shoes from the Raja of Sattara to
the Raja of Nagpore into a conspiracy against the Bri-
tish Government.—(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) As to
the alleged treasonable correspondence with the Portu-
guese Government at Goa, he (Mr. Hume) could never
believe that, even if it had existed, which was very far
from being proved, Sir James Carnac or Lord Auckland
could apprehend any danger from it to the British sove-
reignty in India.—(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) The
Hon. Gentleman then read a Report of the Court
of Directors, dated 1835, and signed "W. S. Clerk,
Chairman," and "J. R. Carnac, Deputy Chairman."
highly extolling the conduct and ability of the Raja, and
giving a glowing picture of the prosperity of his domi-
nions under his rule. He (Mr. Hume) was surprised
that the Hon. Deputy should go back to 1831 and even
to 1827, for proofs that the report of 1835 was not justi-
fied by the previous conduct of the Raja in those remote
years, however well he might deserve the praise bestowed
upon him in 1835.—(Hear, hear.) The three grounds of
the Raja's deposition were, the interference with native
officers—the correspondence with the Raja of Nagpore,
and treasonable communications with the Governor of
Goa. On this last charge he must say that he did not
think Sir James Carnac understood the tendency of his
own letters. It should be remembered how high was the
feeling of honour amongst the Hindoos. He himself
knew Sepoys with whom he had had the honour to serve,
and who were more sensitive on points of honour than
many Europeans of a higher class.—(Hear, hear.) The
question now was whether the deposition of the Raja
was consistent with the honour of our Government and
the principles of justice. And here he must observe
that it was generally supposed that we held our power
in India at the point of the bayonet. But he denied
that.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the confidence of
the native chiefs in' the good faith and honour of the
British Government, was up to this hour, and would ever
continue to be, the great support of our power and pre-
dominance.—(Hear, hear.) It was therefore of the
highest importance that we should always do justice, or
that if injustice had been done by mistake, we should
not hesitate to repair the error.—(Hear, hear.) In this
case, he (Mr. IL) did not look to the opinions of Mr.
Shakespear or Mr. Tucker—he looked only to the facts
of the case ; and he could not but observe that
Lord Auckland seemed to think all along that there were
sufficient reasons why the Raja should not be con-
demned without a trial.—(Hear.) But where had there
been a trial ?—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the
treasonable correspondence with Goa, which Sir James
Carnac said was fully proved, he (Mr. H.) could
find not a single fact in all the papers that had been
published.—(Hear, hear.) The Rajah had demanded
inquiry into the accusations made against him.—(Hear.)
He had demanded to be confronted with his accusers.
—(Hear.) That just demand was refused.—(Hear.)
Would any man in that Court be satisfied with such
a refusal, if the case were his own ?—(Cries of
(" Hear, hear.") Would the twenty-four Gentlemen
within the bar (the Directors) think themselves well
treated in a similar case ?—(Hear, hear.) Could they,
therefore, say that in refusing a trial to this Prince, and
condemning him unheard, they had " done unto others
as they should wish that others did to them ?"
(Cheers.) Could they lay their heads on their pillows
that night, and say that in opposing the motion of Mr.
Lewis they had done their duty to their fellow-man ?
Hear, hear.) He was aware how difficult it was for
public bodies to retrace their steps, But nothing could
be more important to the interests of India than that we
should show ourselves determined to maintain go od faith
and justice, and that, whenever any act of misgovern- I
ment might be committed through mistake, arising from
the distance of that territory fro:n the seat of Govern-
ment at home, we were willing to repair the mischief.--
(Hear, hear.) In page 299 of the Sattara papers, Sir J.
Carnac expressed his conviction that the Raja felt at the
moment conscious of his guih. From the statements of
the Gallant Officer himself, he (Mr. H.) arrived at a
different conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) Sir J. Carnac
wrote—

" I had stated, that some of Appa Sahib's original
letters had fallen into the hands of the British Govern-
ment, and inquired whether he could deny the fact of
those letters having been sent to him. He did not deny,
as would have been natural on the supposition of inno-
cence, but evaded a direct answer, by observing that
the circumstance of receiving letters did not constitute
guilt on the part of him who received them. A letter
from a person does not establish guilt against the party
to whom it is addressed. Where are my answers ?
There is Mr. Anderson - he may receive a letter ; but.
this would be no proof that :lie answered it, or that he
committed any fault in receiving it.'
He (Mr. Hume) thought the answer of the Raja was evi-.
dente rather of his innocence.—(Hear, hear.) He stood
upon his integrity, and in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, he
did perfectly right.—(Cheers.) As to the charge re-
specting the Goa correspondence, was there one letter,
or a scrap of a letter, which could be construed into a
charge of treason?--(Hear, hear.) When he first heard
of the charge, he laughed at the idea of the Raja of Sat-
tara intriguing with the Governor of Goa, to overthrow
the British Government in India—(Hear, hear, and
laughter)—when the Portuguese could not raise 1,000
men even in Europe, without the assistance of Great
Britain.—(Hear, hear.) If, indeed, he had been in-
triguing with Russia, there might have been something
in it.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume) believed the
whole accusation to have grown out of the treachery of
one individual, who more than any other ought to have
taken an opposite course, although he was now placed
upon the throne.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume)
had been surprised to hear the Chairman say that
it was the unanimous opinion of all parties to the
inquiry that the Raja was guilty, whereas it was the
fact, that in the parlour of the Directors there were only
fourteen in favour of that opinion—(Cheers)—and one
of the Government Commissioners strongly recommended
a reconsideration of their opinion.—(Cheers.) Now, if
it had been chaiged against any officer of a Foreign Go-
vernment, that whilst his nation was our ally, he can-
nived at, and entered into the treasonable intrigues of
one of our subjects, and promoted hostile designs against
our Government, would not an explanation be demanded,
certainly not from himself, but from the nation which
he represented?—(Hear, hear.) Now, in the case of
Don Manuel de Portugal e Cassro, the Governor of Goa,
this had not been done.—(Hear, hear.) But when his
(Mr. H.'s) attention was drawn to the subject, he was
unwilling tq take any decided steps respecting it until he
had securedn all possible information. For this purpose
he sent a special messenger to Lisbon with a letter to
Don Mauoel, directing his attention to the circumstance,
and requesting an explanation of the charge, as far as
that nebleman was concerned. The answer of Don Ma-
noel inclosed his solemn declaration, certified by a public
notary; ,that he never had any correspondence on politi-
cal affaiis' with the. Raja of Sattara, and that any writilig
pnryOrting to be part of any such correspondence in hi i
ruin . Nyft. a fabrication.—(Cheers.) For his own part,
he H.). had come to the conclusion, upon a careful
examination of, all the documents, that every principle
of justice,, good policy, and good faith required the re-
consideration of the decision that had been come to.
. Mr.. X..'ppipEß, from all the attention he had given to
the question,.was convinced of the truth of certain pro-.
positions, which, on account of the lateness Of the hour,
he would layt)efore to meeting us precisely as possible.
. „

THE

The first was, that a course of injuStice,had been per-
sued
,for many years towards the native Princes:of/India,
of which' the present. case ,was ,only a continuation.
There had been .a constant invasion of the original ter-
ritory assigned to the Raja of Sattara, in 1819, and no
question against the Prince himself was raised until
1824.=--,(Hear, hear.) His second proposition was, that
Sir James Carnac pursued the same policy as previous
,Grovernors, and carried that injustice so far as to require
the Raja to sign an acknowledgment of his own guilt,
and condemned the Raja without a trial on his refusal to
make, that acknowledgment. His . third proposition was,
that all the accusations against the Raja were frivolous,
and founded only in the base inventions of his enemies,
who had succeeded in giving the Raja a bad name in the
Courts of the British Governors, knowing very well the
truth, " give a dog a bad name and you are sure to hang
him"— (Laughter)—or perhaps the way the French say
it might be the truer expression, Quand on veut tuer un
chien, on dit qu'il a rage.—(Hear, hear, and great laugh-
ter.) The French proverb seemed to; be applicable to
those who condemned the Raja upon evidence which was
confessedly perjured, and to which the accused was not
permitted to reply.—(Hear, hear.) They had put into
his place a man who was a notorious drunkard, and in
every respect a most base man.—(Hear, hear.) It had
been said that all the Governors and all persons con-
nected with the Indian Government were unanimous in
condemnation of the Raja. But, on the contrary, the
Proprietors had received in the Court on the last
discussion, the strongest testimony that the Raja
was an honourable and well intentioned Prince,
and that he was foully maligned, from two gallant and
distinguished officers, members of the Court, who had
every opportunity of observing his conduct and examin-
ing the merits of the whole case. The Hon. Proprietor
-concluded by expressing his concurrence in the original
motion.

Mr. FIELDEN, who was imperfectly heard throughout
a very long speech (in the course of which the Court.
from being crowded to inconvenience, became exceed-
ingly thinned) supported the amendment, and defended
the conduct of the Government and Directors. He read
numerous and lengthened extracts from the Sattara
papers, to show that the Raja was guilty of the crimes
laid to his charge, and had been justly deposed.
It being then a quarter past six o'clock, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting to twelve to-morrow (this day).

Just ready, in 3 vols. post Bvo.,
THE OLD k; A R L and his YOUNG WIFE.
A STORY OF THE DAY.

Richard Bentley, New Burlington-street.

MAJESTY the EMPEROR of
AUSTRIA having AUTHORISED and GUA-
RANTEED several DISTRIBUTIONS of MONEY
DIVIDENDS, which (though they are NO. LOTTERIES)
offer many possibilities of obtaining
LARGE FORTUNES,
HEINE BROTHERS, at HAMBURGH and at
LUBECK,

Are now SELLING BONDS for the-said DI ST RIBU TIONS.
Persons desirous to purchase for the Neat Distributions
may re?eive, PREVIOUS to giving any orders, the PROS-
PECTUS and PAR FICULARS, upon addressing, WITH-
OUT DELAY, a line to
HEINE BROTHERS, at HAMBURGH,
or to HEINE BROTHERS, at LUBECK.

The NEXT DISTRIBUTION contains DIVIDENDS of
£25,000 £6OO £l2O £BO
5,000 400 110 70
1,500 200 100 60
1,000 150 90 50
800 100
The largest Dividend of the Distribution of Ist March last,
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS,

was remitted to London and vicinity by
HEINE BROTHERS,
who remitted, during a few years, 21 large Money Dividends,
from 6001. and upwards unto 25,0001., besides many Dividends
of smaller amounts to England, Ireland, and Scotland.

ROYAL SURREY THEATRE.

UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF MR. DAVIDGE

AND MR. WILLIS JONES.

Grand Musical Treat.—Locke's magnificent Musie to Mac-
beth will be sang by Miss Romer, Mr. Wilson, and Mr.
Leffler, who will appear on the same evening in two pieces,
a combination of attraction that can only be given a, this
Theatre. Nightly overflows. Mr. Graham has been emi-
nently successful.
THIS EVENING, JULY 15,
Will be performed Shakspear's Tragedy of
MACBETH.
Macbeth, Mr. Graham ; _ Hecate, Mr. Leffler ;

Singing Witches, Miss Ronv.r, Mrs. Serle, Mr. Wilson, Mr.
Stoker, Mr. Roberts, and a powerful Chorus, conducted by
Mr. G. Stansbury.
After which, Auber's Grand Opera of

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE THIS DAY.
riling 11 minutes attar 10. Evening 1 minutes after 10.

401,4,•.
$
nu)
7,4
• trf'477; '
), • ..
,rllOO 'ur ono