The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-16 00:00:00

. _
letter. Another question I would propound is this. Have
not the Government violated the pledge which they gave
the Raja, that if he would peaceably submit to dethrone-
ment, the whole of his private property should be se-
cured to him ? Have they not spoiled him of his cash,
his jewels, his carriages, his flocks, and even a part of
his wardrobe ? What says an Hon. Director, in his mi-
nute of dissent (Mr. Shepherd)?—
" The Raja did submit peaceably ; and confiding in
the assurances conveyed to him through the Resident,
he left in the palace the whole of his treasure, and other
property, wits the exception of the jewels belonging to
his two ranees, estimated at the value of two lees, which
they were permitted to take with them, and which the
Court state that they were very properly allowed to retain.
" The melancholy result of the Government's profes-
sions, and the Raja's eonfidence, has been the confiscation
and transfer of the whole of his property to his successor.
" The Court takes no notice of any of these. details,
the despatch, as it now stands, simply approves of the
rejection of the ex-Raja's claim, as being one not ordi-
narily recognised in Native States,' and that, therefore,
the property has been rightly adjudged to the present.
Raja.

I am not prepared from personal knowledge to con-
trovert what is here alleged to be the ordinary usage in
Native States, but the result of my inquiries of gentle-
men who have filled high and responsible situations in
India under the Company, justifies me in questioning it;
certain I am, however, that no such usage can be esta-
blished without resolving itself into an act of oppression
and spoliation—the simple principles of justice cannot
be destroyed by any precedent whatever. The Raja was
to be treated as an object of sympathy, not of punish-
ment.' He received also the pledge of the Governor,
that his private property should not be interfered with •
can any usage or precedent justify the breach of this
promise ?
" But to return to the ground assumed by the Bombay
Government, that the whole of the property was State
property. Had, then, the Raja no private property what-
ever ?

" I have quoted the Advocate-General's opinion on
that point, and I would now request particular attention
to the Resident of Sattara's letter dated the 28th Sept.
1839, which states there were about seven lacs of rupees
in hard cash, and about seven or eight loos' worth of
jewels and other valuables in the palace. Irithe eleventh
paragraph of ids letter he says, the whole of this pro-
perty is claimed by the ex-Raja, but Appa Sahib Maha-
raj (his successor) maintains, that about five or six lacs
of the money is State property, and private property be-
longing to him, and also about two lacs' worth of jewels,
and that the remainder only belongs to the ex-Raja and the
ladies of his family.'
" Here we have the express admission of the validity
of the ex-Raja's claims from the party most interested
in opposing them. He who was to be the possessor of
all the property that could be designated State property,
reluctantly admits that the remainder,' amounting to
about two lacs of hard cash, and six lacs' worth of jewels,
belonged to the ex-Raja, and the ladies of his family."
Thus we find that by one act of spoliation the Raja
was deprived of about 80,000 L's worth of his private
property, according to the testimony of Appa Sahib.
When the dethroned Prince was on his way into exile,
was not his earnest request for a few days' halt, during
the accouchement of his cousin and companion's wife,
denied him ? Was not Balla Sahibi Senaputteee suf-
fered to die in his palankeen, and were not all the Royal
entreaties for a halt and assistance sternly refused ?
Mr. Thompson here quoted a political despatch of
the Court of Directors, pige 388, and said, "We
have now, Sir, reached the sad and fatal sequel of
our story. I shall now retire to make way for others,
.who may easily evince more ability then I have done in
the conduct of this case, but cannot :eel more zeal, or a
more intense anxiety, that the decision of this Court
may be such as will do credit to the profession which it
makes of attachment to the welfare of the natives of
India. I will put it to Honourable Directors whether,
after the signal exposure of the worthlessness of every
part of the evidence upon which the charges against the
Raja are founded, they can still believe him guilty, un-
less they have evidence behind of which we know nothing.
If, in their consciences, they believe him not guilty,
then I implore them to do him justice, and to do him
justice speedily. Should justice be denied here, it will
assuredly be brought elsewhere. It will be brought in
that Assembly which has clothed this Court with power,
and are bound to see that it is not abused." The Hon.
Proprietor concluded with a fervent appeal to the Court,
and took his seat amidst loud cheering.
Mr. HENRY ST. GEORGE TUCKER, a Director, said he
had already had an opportunity of recording his delibe-
rate opinion upon the question, at a time when he had
came fresh from the examination of the papers relating
to it; and anything he might now say could give little
additional weight or force to what he had then done.
But pn the present occasion he was called upon to vote,
and he wished to state his reasons for the vote he was
about to give. His dissent had been alluded to by seve-
ral Hon. Gentlemen, and one in particular had done him
the honour of spending a good deal of time in comment-
ing upon it. It was, however, now upon record, and let
it be taken, valeat quantum. He wished to offer his
sentiments upon the subject now as briefly as might be,
in order to bring the Court to a calm and dispassionate
consideration of the question before them.—(Hear, hear.)
He feared the Court had been led away in some degree
by the impassioned eloquence of the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted
that that Hon. Gentleman had brought so much of that
fervid eloquence which belonged to him to the present
question, because when they were acting in their,
iiudicial
capacity they should act with calmness. His opinion of
a judicial functionary was, that he should render him-
self almost a living automaton, moved by no compassion,
no feelings, and no prejudices.—(Cheers.) He would
not now go into the merits of the case, which had been
most fully discussed in that Court for the last two days ;
but he should place the whole merits of the question,
and everything connected with it, upon the amnesty that
had been tendered upon the last hour by the late Gover-
nor of Bombay to the ex-Raja of Sattara. Had the
Governor been under the impression that the Raja was
guilty of these crimes, it would have been his duty to
withold any such amnesty. The terms were, "If
you acknowledge yourself guilty, we shall treat
you as an innocent man ; but if you persist
in asserting your innocence we shall visit you with the
severest punishment of guilt." Now, he believed that
the refusal of the Raja to subscribe to these terms was
the strongest proof of his innocence.—(Cheers.) The
opinions of Lord Auckland had been quoted, but he
(Mr. Tucker) could quote his opinion in 1837, where he
treats the accusation as a petty and obscure intrigue.
He would now, however, come to the simple question
before the Court. The motion of the Hon. Gentleman
might be divided into two parts. In the first place, there
was an averment of certain facts, and in these he should
concur, although not perhaps in the same language.
The second division of his motion went to propose the
appointment of a Commission. Now he would read a
few propositions which he had put down in order that he
might be precise, and it would show how far he would
go if it were thought advisable to modify the motion. His
first resolution was, that the Court, after a careful review
of all the proceedings in the case of the ex-Raja of
Sattara, was of opinion that no crime or political
offence justly involving the position of the Prince, or
the confiscation of his private property, had been esta-
blished.--(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") That was his
decided conscientious conviction as a public functionary.
He had carefully reviewed all the papers, and that was
his deliberate conclusion. His second proposition was
that that opinion was confirmed by the fact that at the
last hour the Government of Bombay tendered to his
Highness the ex-Raja of Sattara a general amnesty for
his past conduct, from which it might clearly be inferred
that it was not of a very dangerous character, and not
such as would call for the penalty of deposition, or the
confiscation of his personal property.—(Hear, hear.)
His third proposition was, that that Court considered all
the private property held by natives of India to be under
the protection of the law, and that they could not be
deprived of it otherwise than by the judgment of a
Court of competent jurisdiction.---t Cheers.) The' Raja
was in possession of that property, and he contended that
they had no right to deprive him of it. He would re-
mind the Court that Lord Cornwallis established Courts
of Justice in India to maintain the rights of native sub-
jects and the rights of personal property in every in-
stance whatsoever. With that part of the question, there-
fore, he had no hesitation in dealing. But with regard
to the latter part it appeared to him to be surrounded
with a great deal of difficulty. The appointment for a
Commission was proposed. A Commission had been an
pointed, and what had been the result ? Ex-past e l', 0 +-
dence had been received, but there had been nothing
lelte out his
satisfy his (Mr. Tucker's) mind of the Raja's—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Now he mite.
it was for those who accused the Raja to nded that
make
guilt ; and that, in his opinion, had not be
ill
fact, a
Commission
would
n
_mearommission to try
was not called upon to prove a nezative, done. Ile
could nhoetarptce
In his opinion the appointznent a CA:::(11-ear, hear.)
be nugatory ; it would bee,ourt.
Thatte
thewas jaudgsrtaeanttleaofiathawtbieh
they
Company or the Beard of Conti.
been errors on the other side, Control,
hTe h(elareru:Thay have
might might have erred ; but he regret that the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had lasts poke
honourable feeling,—(Cheers.).
there was on that side orthe should have fancied that
Tihnetererems-tas—
interest—painful and romantic
ar any want of proper and
atorLmnduchthoef
whole case, and it should
the Hon. Gentleman, not have been enhanced by
who could not forget that the
Directors were the sworn instruments of justice, and had
decided according to the
best of their abilities.—(Hear,
hear.) The former Commission had failed, and there-
fore the proposition would have been nu,
gatory. It
would end in nothing, and would merely excite fallacious
hopes In the minds of the Raja and his friends. There
were some very sensible observations of Sir James Car-
nac's, tending to show the practical difficulties in the
way of forming such a Commission, which would be
found in page 289
" The ditlieultles in the way of the course first referred
to appear to me very great. There is no ordinary tribunal
to which the Raja could be made amenable, and a special
one must be organised, for the purpose pf investigating
the charges against him, if they are to be investigated.
" A Commission has been proposed, and the expe-
diency has neon *uggestod, of selecting its members from
the Other Presidencies, excluding altogether persons
serving under this Government. I think that, proces(l,
ing to subject the Raja to trial by a Commissien would
be a course very much open to suspicion and uthrepre.
sentation, however that Commission Melt be constituted.
I know that, from Ow civil and military services of
lie difficulty whatever in sele,
India thw Ayala no ,
- would perform their auV vtthout
(icommitaners who .
I
regard to anything but justice ;but need us 4 add, that
in the conduct of States, as of indisidsi4,,it is most im-
portant not only to avoid Amy; to Make this avoid-
ance apparent, and to placf t Ca,araeter of the State
for integrity iknsl gwq f 01.; 'beyond the possibility of
clues 11:
t, vox this reason I should desire, if practicable, to
avoid the Frip,,l vf an issue, in which the British Govern-