The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-27 00:00:00

SU N,

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

A epeciel geeerel cont.! of the East India Company
was held Vest rdAy mornieg at their 'louse. Leatlenhells
ree for the puriai,e, Oita consieeration the ac
kn,,W i4A!.(Pell i,td 1,3' to Weerd of Commissioners
fir the Adair, of. India to the resolution passed by the
Speeial G Ceurt of Proprietors, held en the 25th
March lasi.
i• nry St. George Tucker in the chair.
The minutes of tee previous Court having been read
and confirmed, the correspondence and resoluti ins relat-
ing to 'the subject for which the meeting bad been con
veze d having been read,
Mr. LEWIS, t .ne of the gentleman who signed the re-
quisition caliitig the Directors to convene the meeting,
then detail, d the pi oceedings which had taken place at a
firmer Court, when it wit- revolved to cell upon the
Board of Control to produce certain papers relating to
the neje of Savant. That resolution was communicated
to the Beard of Commissioners for the affeirs of Delis ;
hut it was quite clear from the correspondence
which had teken place with the President of
the Board of Control, that the production of
these papers was to be refused. Now he would not
comment upon the indignity with which the Board of
Conte 1 had thus 'r ate-I this honourable society, hut
he could not het regret that airy splenetic feclines on the
part of the President of that Board should have led to
the non-preductitm of the papers in eines:ion. There
could he ne deubt whateYer of the inexpediency, the
injustice, or the impropriety of r fusi, g the papers
The resolution calling for their production was paned
neon a start-meet made by an Honourable Proprietor, to
tee eff le that her e. ejesty's Government had m, de cer-
tain ove, tures to the R ije of Stamm and he sheuld hove
thought the Wald of Control would have felt it due to
its on n character to supply- this society with the in'or-
matien called fer under such circumstances. Every par.
-on present must admit the impolicy of the refusal, be-
wise independently of its inflicting injustice upon a
private individual, it was uncoustitutiona% if not wholly
illegal. No doubt the functions of the Board of Con-
rol were to keep secret the documents, which came into
her hands during such time when secrecy was re-
quired, but when the necessity far secrecy has been
got rid of it was unjust. illegal, and unconstitutional,
fir the Secret Committee to withhold information fr. m
the Court of East India Directors, who wets the teltni-
nistrative body of the affairs of India, and had a right to
insist upon the production of these papers. It was in-
flicting an atrocious injustice on the Raja of Sattara to
keep back these decuments. They related to an offer
th-t had been made to the Raja of Sattara by the anent
of the Governor-General. inconsistent with the eharees
which had been preferred against the Rja of Sattara,
and it was therefore incumbent upon that Court, having
a due regard for its character for honesty and justice,
not to rest satisfied with the refusal which the Beard of
C'ererel had conveyed to them. A grievous wrong had
been done to the Raja of Sattara, and justice could not
he. ecured to that individual without inquiry. No cir-
eurnstance more showed the necessity for such an
inquiry than the refusal to produce these documents.
Bagnell, who was a distinguished commander in
their own service, in a letter written to a friend in this
country, d,clared that it was the opinion of almost every
Person connected with the 231 regiment, that there was
no truth in the charges which had been made

against the Raja of Sattara, arid these papers ought to
be pr, iduced. Ile should therefore move, " That
.:!tinsiilering that the correspondence adverted to in this
Court's resolution of the 25th of March last arose in con-
sequence of a statement publicly made in this Court,
arid in order that the Court of Directors and Proprietors
might he informed of the truth or falsehood of such
statement, this Court is of opinion that such corre-
spondence ought not to have been imported into the
S-eret Committee. That the retention of such corre-
spondence in the secret department, for a period of
nearly fourteen months, without any alleged injury to
the public service, is impolitic and unconstitutional.
Chat th- non-production of correspondence whieh may,
as in the present instance, affect the judgment of the
n,-mbers of this Court in regard to the innocence of the
x-R ja of Sattara, is repngt ant to the first principles of
lost-ice, and calls upon this Court to declare its movie-
/ion of the necessity of an inimtediate inquiry into all
the proceedings conn.cted with this ease.
Mr. SULLIVAN scconded the resolution. Truth, he

aid, never could be eancell‘ d, and if there was any
truth in the charges mid • against the Raja of &Mara.
what obj, cool,' there he to the production ••f these
raper'. The • iris of Jewiee required the production of
the papers, and the only question was, had that Court
,-.he power to call for theta. lie entertained no doubt
that it had; an ;, in his opinion, the refusal was cliatne
tricaPy opposed to their rights and privileges, and multi
,iyt be SIISt4iIP-d. If, therefore, the Board of Cootrol

ier-ist!cl in its r' fugal, he should reenitim.-nd the Conrt
pe,it'on Parliament for its aholit;on. Th. prialuction

ot the paper t!..uld wit by any po-4,ibility, injure the pub

. . . _ .
Ire service. and he contend-d that. the Board of Control.
lad no right to refuse them Gross injustice lied been
one to the Raja or Sattara Fle h,d been &throned,
•legraded, and banished, (without hearing his defence.
A promise that he simuld be furnished with a copy of
the evidence against him, in his own langu'.ge, was
tlagroaly broken ; while, on the one heed, when
anything could be found to tell against him,
it was readily pr ,duced ; on the ether, when-
yer anything in his favour was called for it had
ale ays , een refused. This; Court could not, thtirefore,
with any r,:e"ard for its character, tolerate this refusal,
and he called upon the Court to adopt the r, -solutions
which had been submitted to them, in order that then
might be in a p.sitien to perform the functions which
the Legislature had imposed upon them.
Mr. WEEDING opposed the resolutions, believing that
if the Board of Control had refused to preduce.the pa-
ofwa
s Control
most
h acdourrette= d
andto the
pers. thy had &me so. flom a sense of public dutY
rTehsoehltnis- aorudr t
iwneror
ththeatß
Court had no right to ask or expect mare. It
vident from the debates which had taken
place tw"
House of Commons that Parliament was notfa favour'
l
the production of these papers, and he nura.;;:
otherwise than blame those proprietors who had br
ht
the Court into thisdilemme, while he ;applauded the "114
reV-
n-
:etion and tetermination of the Right lion. Gentletn
the President of the Board of ContrL tie • '
moveu, as
An amendment, that the Court do adjourn.
Mr. FIELDER seconded the amendment, because he
Celt convinced that if G-verement refused to produce
these papers, it was useless for that Court to interfere
further.
Av. GEORGE THOMPSON opposed the motion for ad-
iouretnent. The Board of Directors had already sent
India for information connected with a etetement he
inade at a former Court, without the colvent of the Board
of Control. A reply had since been received from
India, and as it neither related to matters connected
with the levying of war and making of peace, it coned
mot legally be suppressed. These papers would eternally
prove the innocence of the Raja of Sattara, and the
measure could never be left at rest fill they were lai
before that Court. He had intended to move another
amendment, but as the motion for adjournment was
before the Court, he could not move it, and
therefore he would read it as part of his speech
Whereas, by the Act o 3 and 4 Willian IV. cip.,Bs,
section 35, it is enacted, that the Court of Directors
hall, from time to time, appoint a Secret Committee of
hoe Directors, for ihe particul.,r purposes in this Act
specified ; and that the said Secret Committee shall
take ats oath, of which the folLiwing words form pert.
viz.: --• I wi l not disclose or make known any of the
a-cret orders, instructions, dispatches, official letters or
comutUnicatiot,s, which shall be sent or given ta
me by the Commissioners for the uffiirs ot. It-
ria, unless I shall he authorised by the said
Commis-loners to disciose and make known the same.'
And a h<-reas. the c particular purposes' above mentioned
are specifieally declared in the 36th section of the same
Act, in the following words, viz.: Pr waded also, and he
it ernic;(4,l, that if the said Board shall be or
that the subject matter of any of their deliberations
eoncerning the levying war, or the making peace, or
treating or negotiating with any of the native
princes or states in India, or 'with arty other
princes or states, or touching the policy to he
observed with respect to such princes or state,
intended to be ecnnmunieated in ordars, dispatches, •
official letters or communications, to any of the Ooverrn:
snouts or Presidencie: in India, or to any officers or
v:ints of the said Company, shall b • of a nature to re-
(ure secree:. it shall and may be lawful for the Hail
Board to send their order;, dispatches, official letters, or
communications to the Secret Committee' of the said
Court of l firectors, to be appoint, d as is 1:1) this Act
die cted,' Therefore res ilve That the pao,,rs relating
o the case of the IlAja, of Sauer)' the cemmunieation Of
A hilt has been • efused by ( he Boa rd of Commissioners to a
resolution passed by the Court of Proprietors on the 25th
diet not form the subject matter of any of the de-
liberatiens of that board, and were not sent or given by
the board to the Secret Committee of the Court of
Direeters, brit arose out of a letter, dated the 24th
March, 1846, which was written by the Sect et Committee,
for the purpose declared in it, of obtaining informed, ,n
tOr the Jelin of Directors, touching a matter which
had been the suiiieet of public debate at the India
a "Ise* That the origin sting of such a letter by the
Secret Committee, irrespective of the Bird of Control,
attd the witholding of the reply, when received, from the
knowledge of the Court of Directors, on the ground that
the "ad of Commissioners refuse:l to comrunnicate the
same, was against Law; a usurpation by the Secret Com
mutee of the proper and peculiar functions of the Court
of Directors ; a concealment of papers to which the
Gain of Proprietors h:d an undoubted right; and a
denial of justice to the deposed R ja, of Satta re.'
lie could not believe that, the Secret Committee oi that
house could not produce these papers without the con-
sent of the Board of Control, because such a power exer-
cised by the Board of Control would be illegal and un-
constitutional, and he would never cease to demand their
pro auction.

The CuAflame/ said it was in the option of the presi
dent of the Board of Control to decide what were and
what were not secret questions, and he for
one could not understand what good could
possibly result from the adoption of the first resolu-
tion; with regard to the question of re-opening the
case of the Raja of Sattara he must confess that from
first to last his opinion had not changed upon that sub-
ject, but still he could not consent to the re-opening of
the matter. Something had been said about the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control being actuated by splenetic
motives. He could not concur in that opinion. lie had
always found Sir John Hohtiouse most courteous in his
communication with that Board, and ever read•
to listen with reason to any statement thAt
weight be made to him, and arrive at his
decisions with justice and impartiality. No •doubt
the Right. lion. Gentleman thought it inexpedient to
produce these papers at present for the use of that Court
very iikt.ls for toe same reason that he refused to give
tt, itiriiam,..nt, cod. he wust,..therefore, resist the
itr. .1. W. 11000 contended that the rights and privi
leges of that Court had not been invaded by the refusal
of the Board of Control, because the power of decidiu