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

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

A special general court of the East India Company
was held yesterday morning at their House, Leadenhall-
street for the purpose of taking into consideration the ac-
knowledgment returned by the Board of Commissioners
for the Affairs of India to the resolution passed by the
Special General Court of Proprietors, held on the 25th
March last.
Henry St. George Tucker in the chair.
The minutes of the previous Court having been read
and confirmed, the correspondence and resolutions relat-
ing to the subject for which the meeting had been con-
vened having been read,
Mr. LEWIS, one of the gentlemen who signed the re-
quisition calling the Directors to convene the meeting,
then detailed the proceedings which had taken place at a
former Court, when it was resolved to call upon the
Board of Control to produce certain papers relating to
the Raja of Sattara. That resolution was communicated
to the Board of Commissioners for the affairs of India ;
but it was quite clear from the correspondence
which had taken 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
Control bad thus treated this honourable society, but
he could not but regret that any splenetic feelings ;n the
part of the President of that Board should. have led to
the non-production of the papers in question. There
could be no doubt whatever of the inexpediency, the
injustice, or the impropriety of re fusing the papers,
The resolution calling for their production was passed
upon a statement made by an Honourable Proprietor, to
the effect that her Majesty's Government had made cer-
tain overtures to the Raja of Sattara, and he should have
.thought the Board of Control would have felt it due to
Its own character to supply this society with the infor-
mation called fer under such circumstances. Every per-
son present must admit the impolicy of the refusal, be-
cause independently of its inflicting injustice upon a
private individual, it was unconstitutional, if not wholly
illegal. No doubt the functions of the Board of Con-
trol were to keep secret the documents which came into
their hands during such time when secrecy was re-
quired, but when the necessity for secrecy has been
got rid of it was unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional,
for the Secret Committee to withhold information from
the Court of East India Directors, who were the admi-
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 documents. They related to an offer
that had been made to the Raja of Sattara by the agent
of the Governor-General, inconsistent with the charges
which had been preferred against the Raja 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 Board of
Control had conveyed to them. A grievous wrong had
been done to the Raja of Sattara, and justice could not
he secured to that individual without inquiry. No cir-
cumstance more showed the necessity for such an
inquiry than the refusal to produce these documents.
Colonel Bagnell, who was a distinguished commander in
their own service, in a letter written to a friend in this
country, declared that it was the opinion of almost every
person connected with the 2341 regiment, that there was
no truth in the charges which had been made
against the Raja of Sattara, and these papers ought to
be produced. He should therefore move, " That
considering 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,
and in order that the Court of Directors and Proprietors'
:night be 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
Secret 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.
That the non-production of correspondence which may,
as in the present instance, affect the judgment of the
members of this Court in regard to the innocence of the
ex-Raja of Sattara, is repugnant to the first principles of
justice, and calls upon this Court to declare its convic.
lion of the necessity of an immediate inquiry into all
the proceedings connected with this case.
Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the resolution. Truth, he
said, never could be cancelled, and if there was any
truth in the charges made against the Raja of Sattara,
what objection could there be to the production of these
papers. The ends of justice required the production of
the papers, and the only question was, had that Court
the power to call for them. He entertained no doubt
that it had; and, in his opinion, the refusal was diame-
trically opposed to their rights and privileges, and could
not be sustained. If, therefore, the Board of Control
persisted in its refusal, he should recommend the Court
to petition Parliament for its abolition. The production
of the paper could not, by any possibility, injure the pub-
lic service, and he contended that, the Board of Control,
had no right to refuse them. Gross injustice had been
'one to the Raja of Sattara. He had been dethroned,
degraded, and banished, without hearing his defence.
A promise that he should be furnished with a copy of
the evidence against him, in his own language, was
flagrantly broken ; while, on the one hand, when
anything could be found to tell against him,
it was readily produced ; on the other, when-
ever anything in his favour was called for it had
always been refused. This Court could not, therefore,
with any regard for its character, tolerate this refusal,
and he called upon the Court to adopt the resolutions
which had been submitted to them, in order that they
might be in a position 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 produce the pa-
pers, they had done so from a sense of public duty.
The answer the Board of Control had returned to the
resolution of that Court was most courteous, and the
Court had no right to ask or expect more. It was
evident from the debates which had taken place in the
(rouse of Commons, that Parliament was not favourable
to the production of these papers, and he could not do
otherwise than blame those proprietors who had brought
he Court into this dilemma, while he applauded the reso-
lution and determination of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
the President of the Board of Control. He moved, as
an amendment, that the Court do adjourn.
Mr. FIELDER seconded the amendment, because he
felt convinced that if Government refused to produce
these papers, it was useless for that Court to interfere
further.
Mr. GEORGZ THOMPSON opposed the motion for ad-
journment. The Board of Directors had already sent
to India for information connected with a statement he
made at a former Court, without the consent 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 could
not legally be suppressed. These papers would actually
prove the innocence of the Raja of Sattara, and the
measure could never be left at rest till they were laid
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 of 3 and 4 Willian IV. cap. 85,
section 35, it is enacted, that the Court of Directors
shall, from time to time, appoint a Secret Committee of
three Directors, for the particular purposes in this Act
specified ; and that the said Secret Committee shall
take ai oath, of which the following words form part,
viz I will not disclose or make known any of the
secret orders, instructions, dispatches, official letters or
communications, which shall be sent or given to
me by the Commissioners for the affairs of In-
dia, unless I shall be authorised by the said
Commissioners to disclose and make known the same.'
And whereas, the particular purposes' above mentioned
are specifically declared in the 36th section of the same
Act, in the following words, viz. Provided also, and be
it enacted, that if the said Board shall be of opinion,
that the subject matter of any of their deliberations
concerning the levying war, or the making peace, or
treating or negotiating with any of the native
princes or states in India, or with any other
princes or states, or touching the policy to be
observed with respect to such princes or state,
intended to be communicated in orders, dispatches,
official letters or communications, to auy of the Govern.
ments or Presidencies in India, or to any officers or ser-
vants of the said Company, shall bo of a nature to re-
quire secrecy, it shall and may be lawful for the said
Board to send their orders, dispatches, official letters, or
communications to the Secret Committee of the said

Court of Directors, to be appointed as is by this Act
directed.' Therefore resolved—'That the papers relating
to the case of the Raja of Sattara, the communication of
which has been refused by the Board of Commissioners to a
resolution passed by the Court of Proprietors on the 25th
Nlarch, did not form the subject matter of any of the de-
liberations of that board, and were not sent or given by
the board to the Secret Committee of the Court of
Directors, but arose out of a letter, dated the 24th
March, 1846, which was writtenlby the Secret Committee,
for the purpose declared in it, of obtaining information
for the Court of Directors, touching a matter which
had been the subject of public debate at the India
House. That the originating of such a letter by the
Secret Committee, irrespective of the Board of Control,
and the witholding of the reply, when received, from the
knowledge of the Court of Directors, on the ground that
the Board of Commissioners refused to comninnicate the
same, was against law; a usurpation by the Secret Com-
mittee of the proper and peculiar functions of the Court
of Directors ; a concealment of papers to which the
Court of Proprietors had an undoubted right; and a
denial of justice to the deposed Raja of Sattara.' "
He could not believe that, the Secret Committee of 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

production.
The CHAIRMAN said it was in the option of the presi-
dent of the Board of Control to decide what were and

_ ~.
rvi3nhea t e wereon
lcould
notno t
usnedcer
of the first resolu-
ueswtiohnast, agnodod he for
possibly result from the adoption r
f -
resttanqd
et ihosne ;
owithe regard
of t os a ther a question st i on
must oc 0 rnet
eos
sp etnhiantgfrot hale
first to last his opinion had not changed upon that sub-
ject, but still he could not consent to the re-opening of
then matter. Something had been said about the Presi-
det of the Board of Control being actuated by splenetic
motives. He could not concur in that opinion. He had
always found Sir John Hobhouse most courteous in his
communication with that Board, and ever ready
listen with reason to any statement that
might be made to him, and arrive at his
decisions with justice and impartiality. No doubt
the Right Hon. Gentleman thought it inexpedient to
produce these papers at present for the use of that Court
very likey for the same reason that he refused to give
them_o _ar ament, and he must, therefore, resist the
t P li
original resolutions.
° Mr. J. W. HOGG contended that the rights and privi-
legesof that Court hadn otbetius
eecni: the
vadepderibyertlexfe
dreecfuidisal,
Of the Board of Control, h