The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-26 00:00:00

EAST INDIA HOUSE.
RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. TUCRER (Deputy Chairman) supported the motion.
iluch as he had admired the eloquence and ingennity of his
Hon. Friend, he thought he liad not, on the present
occasion, met the question; which was, whether
such papers were, or were not, in existence. If
they were in existence, he could gee no public reason why
they should not be produced for the satisfaction of the pro-
prietors. He should therefore vote for the motion.

Sir It. CAMPBELL (a director) was also in favour of pro-
ducing these papers.

• .
Mr:- SULLIVAN was proceeding to sußport the motion,
when he was obliged to sit down from indisposition.
Mr. \VIGaAM (a director) opposed the motion. He thought
that the Court should not sanction the production of parti-
cular papers which had been obtained in a surreptitious
manner

Mr. CLARKE denied that the motion specified any parti-
cular documents. It was a resolution commanding the pro-
ductions of papers having reference to a particular matter,
and as such he should support the motion.
Major OLIPHANT (a director) thought that they had had
quite sufficient grounds submitted to them to warrant the
production of these papers. They had, if he might be al-
lowed to misuse a word—they had tried, condemned, and
dethroned the Raja, upon the evidence of certain papers, and

. . .
he (Major Oliphant), as one of the judges to the condemna-
tion of the Raja, demanded, and he had the right to demand,
other papers, if such evidence would set the innocence of the
deposed Prince in a clear and satisfactory light. With these
opinions he would support the motion of the Hon. Proprietor.
Sir JAMES LAW LUSIIINGTON (a director) said that he
could not consent to the motion. He would not attempt to
deny that these papers were in existence, and he would be
must happy when the time came that 'they should be made
public, if they proved the innocence of the Raja. He (Sir
J. L. Lushington) would be the last man, in such a case, to
support an injustice.
Captain SHEPHERD (a director) supported the motion.
The papers were refused because they had been obtained in a
surreptitious manner. It showed the weakness of their opi-
nions that this was the only plea advanced. It was mon-
strous, it was almost incredible, that justice should be refused
to this unfortunate Prince, because one of their own servants
had been guilty of a gross misdemeanour.
Mr. D. SALoxoecs was of opinion that no time was better
than the present for re-opening the question of the innocence
or guilt of the Raja of Sattara, and he should therefore
suggest to some of his friends, who held a strong opinion on
this matter, that the question should be left in its present po-
sition, until examined into by the Governor. General of India
Mr. MILLS (a director) did not think that this motion, if
carded, would benefit the Raja; and he trusted, therefore.
that it would not he persevered in.
. _ _

Colonel SYKES (a director) would divide with the proposer
of the motion.

Mr. PLOWDEN (a director), on the ground that he was
desirous of ascertaining the truth, would vote for the motion.
General ROBERTSON raid that the Raja was condemned
unheard, and the case could not be therefore deemed a closed
one. But this was not the place to decide the question. It
should be adjudicated on by Viscount liardiuge, who had
in the case of a Prince in the Punjaub lately evinced his de-
sire to do even-handed justice. The case ( f the Raja was a
similar one, and he should vote for the motion.
Mr. WEEDING (a proprietor) opposed the motion.
Mr. GORDON supported the motion.
Mr. LEWIS replied.
The Court then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 4O
Against it 3B
Majority .. - _.2
---- • • -

A considerable majority of the directors were against the
motion, while the bulk of the proprietary were in its favour.
The result was received with much cheering.
Mr. D. SALOMONS postponed his motion relative to Lieut.
Waghorn's claims upon the East India Company.
The Court then separated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE CHANCERY COURT, March 25.
(Before Sir J. WI4IRA3I.
COSTOBADIE V. COSTOBADIE.
The arguments in this case had nut concluded at the rising
of the Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Two brothers, named George and Philip Reeves, were
brought before Mr. Alderman Johnson for final exa-
mination, charged with stealing about 801. in notes
and gold, the property of William John Baynham, who
keeps a coffee shop and lodging-house in Poppin's-court,
Fleet-street.
At the previous hearing it was shown that on the 25th
of November Mr. Baynham drew out a deposit of 100/.
from the London and Westminster Bank. The 501. note,
No. 2,242 B. N., was amongst the notes. The two pri-
soners, who had been lodging at his house about three
weeks, absconded on the following day, and it was im-
mediately discovered that a cash-box within a trunk in
the landlord's room had been opened, and the 50/. note,
and other monies and notes stolen. After the lapse of
three months Mr. Baynham accicentally met the two
runaway lodgers in Great George-street, Westminster.
They ran different ways, but he followed and secured
one of them, the prisoner George. At the station-house
he admitted the crime, and said he had secreted the
50/. note in the hollow of a pendulum of a clock which
stood in the kitchen of a puddler at Tipton-hill-top,
near Wolverhampton. Ho said they had changed the
two IN. notes.

Ephraim Joseph, an apprentice to Mr. Roseley, a
jeweller at Southampton, now identified Philip as having
tendered the 501. note produced two days after it was
stolen. The prisoner agreed to give 12/. 10s. for a watch,
and offered the note in payment, saying his name was
Philip Hughes, residing at the White Horse, Brighton,
but staying at the White Hart, Southampton. Witness
wrote this address on the back of the note, at the pri-
soner's dictation. The prisoner said he was nervous,
but was afterwards persuaded to try his hand at writing,
and wrote the word Philip, but would write no more.
They declined taking the note, and said he had better
send his father, to whom he said the note belonged.
Daniel Oliver deposed that on the 2d of December he
was in the service of Mr. Holford, a jeweller, at Wolver-
hampton, and on that day he changed the 50L note pro.
duced for the prisoner, in payment for some rings and
a brooch. The prisoner Philip was accompanied by a
woman older than himself. When he took the note he
supposed it was a 5/., and his master sent him to Fryer's
Bank to get change. He there found it was a 50/. note,
and wrote his master's name on the back of it.
The prisoners denied the charge, but did not attempt
to explain their sudden disappearance from the coffee-
shop. or their running away when they met him acci-
den tally.
Mr. _Marceau JOHNSON committed them for trial.
A respectable looking- couple, each about 30, were
charged with creating a disturbance, and cans.ng a mob
to assembl- in the piAibe
. . -

Constable 37 said he was on duty in the City-road
about Nix o'clock on the previous eventhg, when he ob-
served the defendants surrounikd by ab•,ut two hundred
persons—mt.n, women, and children. The male defen.l-
- held in his arms an infant, the possession of which,
however, was being resolutely di,puted by the fetnale,
who, he 1 arnA, wa: nis
," bOtet half," and who, it
appeared, had been cha'ing him for some time through
.t.

the various streets in the neighbourhood for that
purpose.

The husband, on br-ing asked what he had to say to
the charge, replied that a short rime since he had a
disagr. etnent with hiA wde, and propoo.?'t to her a *epara-
tion, he undertaking the charge of 1-I‘.: four in
number, which wal3 agreed upon ; rod been pro-
nosed a situation London. h(- c.dne up tai town, ming-
ing with him the three elder children. He, however,
returned to Norwich, and having got possession of the
infant, got into the railway train, and again proceeded I

(Cesitinued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. GEORGE Tnoairsosr supported the resolution. The
Hon. Proprietor proceeded to read certain extracts from the
letters of the ex-Raja to his agent Rungo Bapojee, stating
his determination to accept nothing less than full justice,
although terms (the terms which he (Mr. Thompson) bad
laid before the Court) had been offered to him by Major
Carpenter, agent of the Government, in an interview held
with him at Benares, in September, 1845. Another letter,
specifying the terms (the particulars of which had been
stated in the Raja's communication) was received from the
secretary of the deposed monarch, who added that the
Governor-General was himself expected at Benares, and
that he would endeavour to enter into arrangements in
a 'personal interview with the Raja. The secretary's
own impression was that an endeavour was being made to
entrap the Raja into some admission which should have the
authority of his hand and seal. He (Mr. Thompson) had
afterwards received a letter (the only one of the kind he had
ever received) from the Raja, expressing his regret that his
friends in England should have thought proper to take steps
which compromised him with Major Carpenter, who had
stated his annoyance that the conversation he had had with
the Raja should have been made public He (Mr. Thompson)
and his friend Rungo Bapojee wrote, in answer, that theywere
accountable for the act, and that he was freed from any
implication in it. Mr. Thompson then detailed at great length
the manner in which he had obtained possession.of the secret
papers referred to. They had been left unsought for at his
chambers. He had not fomented rebellion in their courts,
but who could blame him if lie had taken advantage of it
(Hear, hear.) But he did not run about the streets and
babble to all the persons he met that he had possession of
these secret papers, but he did this: he framed a motion for
returns for the House of Commons, which Mr. Villiers had
the kindness to make just before the rising of the last session
of Parliament, but Sir John Cans Hobhouse had taken the
liberty of making a slight alteration in the terms of that no-
tice, and the consequence was, that when the papers ordered
by the House were laid before the House, on the re-assembling
of Parliament, the very documents that were particularly re-
quired were not among them. Mr. Villiers subsequently saw
Sir John C. Hobhouse; and in answer to the representations
that were made that a dispatch of the 24th August, 1845,
and the correspondence relating thereto, were not included in
these returns, the Right Hon. Baronet assured.him that he
should issue an order to the East India House to furnish
them; but on the evening of the 15th February the lion.
Stephen llyng, one of the clerks under the Board of Control,
met Mr. Villiers in the lobby, and told him that he could not
get the papers, that the-East India Company would flat give
them up. Subsequently the matter was brought before the
House by Mr. Hume, and the result was known to them all.
It was for the proprietors to accede to the motion of his Hon.
Friend to have Sir John C. Hobliouse's sanction to have
these papers before them, as the only bar to their production
existed in that house. '
The CHAIRMAN said that he gave the Hon. Proprietor
who had last spoken credit for having made no immediate
use of the papers which had come into his possession. But
that silence was imposed upon bins by the consciousness that
they were obtained in a treacherous, clandestine, and sur-
reptitious mintier. A great deal had been said about the al-
terations that had been made in the notice of motion which
had been placed in the hands of Mr. Villiers, but the usual
course had only been adopted; for it was never intended, and
the House rarely ordered, that the papers of the secret office
should be given to the world. But Mr. Hume,' in the after
session of Parliament, had moved for, not general papers,
but documents of a specific date, which he had
seen fit afterwards to withdraw without a division,
Oecause he saw that the sentiments of the House
were in accordance with the opinion of Sir John
Cam Hobhouse, whose opposition was founded upon a deter-
mination not to be coerced into the production of certain
papers merely because they were in possession of some other
person. He (the Chairman) resisted this motion on the same
ground, and he prayed the proprietors not to sanction a
motion which contained an incentive to the production of
secret information originally obtained in a base, and treacher-
ous, and surreptitious manner.