The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-21 00:00:00

ORNING SUN.

were absurd and disproportioned to the objects
aimed at, was in his opinion extremely injudicious. Even
in that country they had seen instances of men bringing
forward the most absurd plans with very inadequate
means, and that did not appear to him to be a sufficient
ground for acquittinr, the Raja of any breach of faith.
As to the question of the Raja's jewels and revenue he
did not pretend to understand it fully, but he thought
that whatever was necessary for his comfort in his pre-
sent position should be allowed him.—(Hear, hear.) It
was satisfactory to know that as far as regarded the dis-
cussion of the question in that Court ample justice had
been done to the Raja. Even in the absence of the Hon.
Baronet (Sir C. Forbes), by whom the question had
been brought forward, it had been ably and powerfully
advocated. There was one point, however, connected
with the discussions that had taken place which might
bi attended with inconvenience hereafter—he meant
the publication of despatches and documents of a private
and secret character, and which were circulated, not
only throughout England, but would be transmitted to
India.—(Hear, hear.) If he was called upon to pro-
nounce an opinion, he must say that he felt himself jus-
tified in supporting the amendment of the Hon. Deputy-
Chairman. The act had been done after due delibera-
tion by those upon whom that responsibility rested,
and to disturb it now would only be to increase the evil.
In conclusion he would observe that if the question of
the Jagheers was still unsettled, he trusted that it would
not be lost sight of, but that it would be brought to a
speedy and satisfactory termination, by which they would
guard against the chance of these evils again occurring.
The measure having received the sanction of the Court
of Directors—not unanimously certainly, but still by a
large majority—it having also received the sanction of
the Board of Control, he thought, as a member of that
Court, he was bound to vote for the amendment.—(Hear,

hear.)
In answer to Mr. POYNDER,
The CHAIRMAN said it was the anxious wish of the
Directors that the debate should close that night, and he
had no objection to sit till twelve o'clock for that pur-
pose.
Captain COGAN said, so far as the decision of the Raja
of Sattara was concerned, in regard to the propositions
that had been made to him, he fully approved of hia
Highness's conduct, and was proud of the part he had
acte,l.—(Hear.) He thought his conduct in rejecting
these terms was highly. honourable, and was strong evi-
dence in itself of his innocence.—(Hear, hear.) There
was one matter of a personal nature which he was anxious
to clear up. It had been stated that a present of 2,500
rupees had been sent him by the Raja, but the fact was,
he had obtained a statement from the parties in Bom-
bay, to whom that money had been transmitted, show-
ing how it had been disposed of, for so far as he was
concerned, he had never touched it. An application had
been made to him to go to Sattara, and the money had
been sent by the Raja to pay his travelling expenses, but
he had declined to receive it, expressing his determina-
tion to pay the expenses out of his own pocket. The
money was then lodged in the banker's hands at Born
bay, where it still remained, and the original letter con-
taining these statements was in his hands now, and was
at the 'service of any Hon. Proprietor who might wish to
look at it.—(Hear, hear.) Again, with regard to Dr.
Milne; whose name had been most unwarrantably mixed
up in these despatches, and who had been most unjustifi-
ably attacked.
A PROPRIETOR said the attacks had not been made in
that Court, and therefore it was unnecessary to allude to
them.

Captain COGAN proceeded. He had been the bearer
of a letter from Mr. -Hume to Don Manoel, who it was
understood was in correspondence with the vakeels of the
Raja of Sattara. The answer of Don Manoel was that
he did not believe the British Government could be seri-
ous in believing that any treasonable correspondence
existed, and as to the 30,000 men to be furnished by
him, it was well known that he could not furnish 3,000
or 300.—(Hear, hear.) He had shown Don Manoel
cvies of the letters supposed to be written by him and
he had laughed at them, declaring that they were fabri-
cations, and that he knew nothing whatever of them.
That was the substance of his interview with Don
Manoel, and there could be no doubt of the truth
of the statements made by that nobleman. He
had perused the documents that had been laid before the
Court with-as much deliberation and attention as any
other Hon. Members, and his decided conviction was
that the Raja was as innocent of any treason against the
British Government as any of the Hon. Gentlemen who
had signed his condemnation.—(Hear, hear.) Now the
opinions of the Government and of these gentlemen had
been quoted, but it should be remembered that they were
sitting as a Court of Appeal, and that •the judgment of
the former judges had nothing to do with their decision.
It was upon that evidence they were to decide, and he would
ask where was there any evidence of the Raja's guilt ?
—(Hear, hear.) He regretted to find that Sir J. Hob-
house had made up his mind before hearing what the

evidence was, and.: had declared his determination to

support the East India Company and the Government of
India, whether right er wrong.----(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Proprietor then referred to the refusal of the Sat-
tarA Commissioners to allow the witnesses to be cross-
examined, and contended that such a proceeding was a
gross violation and outrage of all justice, and that it
11a3 the duty of the Government to direct the suspen-
sion of the two Commissioners, Mr. Willoughby slid Gen.
Ovans, till an investigation into their conduct had taken
place. After some observations upon the conduct and
character of Ballajee Punt, and declaring that so far
from his (Captain Cowan's) having been a paid agent
of the Raja, he had never, until the last two or three
months, when he had assisted the unfortunate Vakeels
who had come over to that country, touched a single
rupee of the Raja's money, Captain Cogan concluded
by expressing his determination to vote in favour of the
motion of his Hon. Friend.
After a few words from Mr. WARDEN, in explanation,
Mr. SALOMONS rose to speak to the amendment.
Mr. WEEDING rose to order. The Hon. Proprietor
had already addressed the Court, and, therefore, he con-
sidered him out of order in attempting to make a second
speech.
The CHAIRMAN said the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Salo-
mans) was perfectly in order. His former speech had
been on the motion, and he had not yet spoken on the
amendment, which, according to the rules of the Court,
he had a right to do.—(Cheers.)
Mr. SALOMONS had no intention of again going over
the subject, but would confine himself strictly to the
amendment. With regard to the allegations of the first

part of the motion there could be no doubt. There could
be no doubt that the allegations contained in the first
part of the motion were undeniable. It was undeniable
that the Raja had not had an opportunity of defending
himself. It was not denied that he had been called on
to sign a document acknowledging that he had been
guilty of the crimes imputed to him. It could not be
denied that he had been dispossessed of his throne on
his refusal to sign such a document.—(Hear, hear.)
'These facts had been so clearly admitted, that it was a
work of supererogation to make any remarks upon
them. He believed the fact was, that the reason why
the Raja had never had an opportunity of replying to
the charges against him, arose entirely from the unfor-
tunate death of Sir Robert Grant, because Sir Robert
Grant's minutes proved that he had;always intended that
the Raja should have an opportunity of replying to the
charges before proceeding to punish him, and it was
only owing to the accidental appointment of Sir James
Carnac to the Presidency, who was presumed to be in
possession of everything relating to the case before he
left England, that the Raja had been deprived of that op-
portunity. The Governor-General intended that he
should have an opportunity of replying to the charges.
Sir R. CAMPBELL was understood to deny this state-
ment.
Mr. SALOMOtiS would appeal to the minute of Mr.
Shakespear. He really must say that they were quite
as capable of judging of the evidence which had been so
handsomely placed upon the table by the Court of Di-
rectors, and he thought the Court would be deviating
from strict justice, if they did judge according to that
evidence alone.—(Hear, kcal%) With regard to the
placing Appa Sahib on the throne, there could be l
doubt but that the Governor-General did not approve of
the proceedings, but he threw the whole responsibility
upon the Government of Bombay, who, he imagined,
had obtained the
opinion of the Court of Directors upon
he subject. The Government of Bombay had twoon
courses to pursue. The first was to put Appa Sahib on
the throne ; the other to abridge _
not adopt the mild
the military Power of
_used to sign the do-
the Baja. Sir James Canute did
. powerpunishment, but when the Raja refused
cument, he proceeded at once to the heaviest punish-
ment which it was in his poer to inflict. He now Caine
to the amendment. If the Directors had said that there
were great State reasons, which had induced' them
to depose the Raja without giving him a trial,
which reasons they, could not publish, as the publi-
cation of them might be detrimental to the public
service if some such amendment as that
been brought forward, it might have been a 4104
unreasonable mode of proceeding. But *hp:.
did they
say ? They said that it would be inex: .
z
eedent for the
Court of Proprietors to interfere wit
the decision of the
Court of Directors. A more -
ancourteous amendment
had never been placed bd.,-
When the question wr-
first
the Court of Proprietors.
of Proprietors in F brought before the Court
official doc r - ebruary, 1840, supported only by un-
to sa to tv it might be very fair for the Directors
the y
.4 Court of Proprietors, "You have not yet seen
.ram in this case. We have seen it ; we are at pre-
aged in the investigation : we ask you to trust
to your responsible Executive, and therefore consider it
inexpedient for the Court of Proprietors to interfere at
present." But, after the Proprietors had had an opportu-
iaity of looking over all the documents, on which the
Court of Directors had decided ; after seeing the diffe-
rence of opinion which existed among the Directors
themselves on the subject, it was rather too much for
Directors to come forward with an amendment, not
itatins any public grounds, but merely declaring that it
was inexpedient that the subject should be entertained
by the Court of Proprietors.—(Hear, hear.) He had al-
ways stood up for the rights of the Court of Pro-
prietors—(Hear)—because he believed the maintenance
of those rights was necessary in order to enable
them to give that support and assistance to the Court of
Directors which they might require ? But he would
ask had the Court of Proprietors no duty to perform ?
What constituted the East India Company ? Not the
Court of Directors but the Court of Proprietors--
(Cheers)--and he was convinced that their harmonizing
together was the best security for the peace of India.
Had the Court of Proprietors ever shown a disposition
unduly to interfere or intermeddle with the Government
of India, or with any other matters beyond their cogni-
zance ?--(Cheers.) But in a case like the one under dis-
cussion he would ask if it was not the duty of the Court
of Proprietors to interfere, and he thought that the in-
terference of the Court of Proprietors' could not but
produce a great effect' not only on the Court of Direc-
tors,or but
itaeon the Board of Control, and even on Parlia-
t lf.--(Lowlcheers.) Their opinion should be
listened to, and he
:usterd it would have due weight.
(Cheers.) The Directors said that the Court of Pro-
prietors could not alter any oi their decisions aftero those
decisions had received the sanction of the Bartdoef

Control. That was perfectly true, and it would be exceed-
ingly wrong to attempt to overrule their decisions, but the
motion attempted nothing of the sort ; it simply recom-
mended the Courtof Directors to revise their decision,
and the Court had the power to express its censure or
approval of the conduct of the Coh' of Directors, or to
recommend to them any course which the Proprietors
might think should be adopted.—(Loud cheers.) What'
had Mr. Charles Grant, now Lord Glenelg, said, at the
time of the renewal of the Charter ? He referred more
particularly to his celebrated letter, which would be
found among the Charter papers, in which Mr. C. Grant,
at the time the assets of the Company were taken to
India, said that such a measure was most desirable, inas-
much as it would make them the more watchful in their
proceedings, because on the good government of India
their own prosperity would depend.—(Cheers.) Those
were the words of Mr. Charles Grant, when laying down
in his celebrated letter the arrangements for the future
government of India.—(Cheers.) The Board of Direc-
tors called themselves a responsible Executive. Now to
whom were they responsible ? Not to the Board of
Control he hoped—(Hear, hear)—they had thrown otf
their responsibility to the Court of Proprietors. To
whom, then, were they responsible ? He supposed they
were responsible to God, being bound by their oaths to
administer justice. But the Proprietors had also a re-
sponsibility. They had never shown any desire to wrong
the Court of Directors, or weaken their authority either
in this country or in India ; and he would say that their
interference in this great question was more likely to add
to the permanence of our power in India than any other
course which could have been adopted, because it would
show the natives of that country that whenever questions
arose in which they might conceive that they were
wronged, that there, was a power in this country
which would interfere to remedy those wrongs, and
make the public aware of their case.—(Cheers.) This
ought to be done in a kindly spirit, and he would refer to
the whole course of the present debate to show that it
had been done in a kindly spirit in the present instance.
There had not been a single reflection cast on any one
individual behind the bar—(Hear, hear)—and never
had a debate been conducted with less of personality.
—(Hear, hear.) Not a single reference had been
made to the Indian Government calculated to create a
prejudice against it ; on the contrary, full credit had
been given them for having kept strictly to what they
thought their duty. But here was a matter requiring
correction. Here was a native Prince who had been
many years the object of Four care. He had not been
heard in his defence—he ought to have been heard.
They should endeavour, so far as possible, to retrace
their steps, and place him in that situation which he
would be entitled had he been the meanest subject in-
stead of a sovereign Prince.—(Hear, hear.) Should the
original motion be negatived he hoped the of-
fensive amendment would not be persisted in.
He should, in the event of such an occurrence, propose
an amendment, which he would read as part of his
speech
" That, after an attentive perusal and careful examina-
tion of the papers laid before this Court, in the case of
the late Baja of Sattara, this Court does not feel satisfied
that justice has been done in the deposal of the late
Baja, and in the confiscation of his private property ;
and also in the elevation of his brother Appa Sahib to
the throne.

" That this opinion is confirmed by the fact, that at
the last hour the Governor of Bombay tendered the ex
Raja a general amnesty for his past conduct, from which
fact it is clearly to be inferred that the political offences
of the ex-Raja (if any) were not of a grave or dan-
gerous character, such as to call for so heavy a penalty
as his deposition and the forfeiture of his private pro-
perty.
" That this Court therefore recommends to the Court
of Directors to take again this case into their serious
and deliberate consideration."—(Cheers.)
Mr. LEWIS then rose and said that after the long dis-
cussion which had taken place on this case he would en-
deavour to make his reply as brief as possible.—(Hear,
hear.) He rejoiced to hear the admission which had
been, somewhati tardily and reluctantly, made, that a
communication had been made to both Chairs from the
Board of Control on the subject of this case.—
(Cheers.) He had been told, indeed, that that commu-
nication was confidential, but he could not understand
how any communication relating to such a subject could
be made matter of confidential communication.—
(Cheers.) He was, however, glad to hear that that
communication had been made.—(Hear, hear.) lie
looked upon it as a good omen.—(Cheers.) He was sa-
tisfied from that communication having been made, that
the President of the Board of Control had a conviction,
or, at all events, a suspicion, that justice had not been
done in the case.—(Cheers.) It afforded the Directors
an opportunity of receding from their opinion, of re-
tracing the steps which they had taken, and of giving to
the injured party that reparation which was due at their
hands.—(Hear, hear.) He could have wished that every
statement of the Court of Directors had been equally
gratifying. It had given him great pain to hear the
Chairman assert that the Court of Proprietors had not
the power to alter any measure which had received the
sanction of the Board of Control and the Court of Di-
rectors. What reason could there be for the assertion
which had been made that the present motion was trench-
ing upon provisions of the Act of Parliament? He denied
that the motion trenched at all upon the provisions of
the Act of Parliament.—(Cheers.) He asserted that the
Court of Proprietors had a right to discuss any measure
which the Court of Directors might think fit to adopt,
and to recommend to the Court of Directors what course
they chose. It was afterwards for the Court of Director
either to adopt or to reject the recommendation, but the
Proprietors had certainly the right of pointing out what
they might consider to be errors in the conduct of the
Court of Directors. The Court of Proprietors had cer-
tainly the power of offering the recommendation to the
Court of Directors—whether the Directors would accept
it or not it was of -course for themselves to decide. On
that subject he would refer to the authority of Mr.
Auber, who expressly stated that the authority pf the
Company was delegated to, not absorbed by the Court
of Directors.—(Cheers.) Mr. Salomons had referred to
the opinion of Lord Glenelg, which showed most clearly
that the intention of the Legislature was that the Court
of Proprietors should be clearly identified with the
affairs of India.—(Cheers.) He was still more sorry to
hear the threat which had been held out of an Act of
Parliament to restrain them.—(Cheers.) He was sorry
that none of the mitigating or qualifying circumstances
which had been alluded to by the Hon. Director, Air.
Shepherd, as having accompanied that menace had met
his ear.—(Hear.) He would give the Deputy Chairman
the credit of admitting that he had afterwards qualified
his speech by his subsequent explanations.—(Hear, hear.)
So far from thinking that the conduct they were then
pursuing would be such as to induce the Legislature to
interfere with their privileges, he was satisfied that
if any application were made to the Legislature
to curtail those privileges which had only been
used to ask that justice . might be done, I
that the Legislature would indignantly reject any such
application.—(Loud cheers.) In the opening of the case
he had said that the question was whether the act of the
Bombay Government in deposing the Raja was or was
not justified by the evidence.—(Cheers.) The Govern-
ment had rested the justification of their conduct on
three grounds—first, that he had been temporising with
the fidelity of the Sepoys of the 23d Regiment ; second,
that he had entered into treasonable communications
with the ex-Raja of Nagpore ; and third, that he had
entered into treasonable communications with the Go-
vernor of Goa. He would call their attention in the
first place to the first charge, viz. that of tampering with
the fidelity of the Sepoys. That depended upon the
evidence of the Soubadars, and all that they stated was
that they had had two interviews with the Itaja and the
Dewar. In the first interview nothing particular had
passed, and in the second interview certain enigmatical
expressions, which had been much commented on, had
been made use of. That was the whole statement of
the Soubadars, and they stated that a Brahmin had in-
troduced them to the Raja, and their statements all went
to implicate the Raja. That Brahmin had prevaricated
in his evidence, and throughout the whole proceeding
there was nothing to show that either the
Raja or the Dewan had authorised the Brahmin.—
(Cheers.) That was the whole history of the transac- •
tion as connected with the Brahmin. The Raja had -
had the opportunity of knowing the.evidence wi"
been given against him. True, the testir -Leh had
Soubadars had been' read dyer to him- ...iony of the
had an opportunity of reading , Out he had not
oral testimony, and the Jr-'
deuce ;he had not had an 0- -.e documentary evi-
!xamination of the w 4 -prortunitcv of having the
cross-
known at the time' -ages had prevented any
...nesses. These facts he had not
had since had brought forward his motion ; they
review of the proceedings its r' borne testimony to by General Lodwick ;
0411111 e known that the Court had been preparing
that the condctf
the whole time it was at Sattara; and from
the conduct of judges. of that Company, he would say
the majority of the Court was not
such, and their Aeosie He could not consider that as
proceedings were utterly l worth-
ess.—Cheers.) The
by evid(ence. It wassetsardtd charge wan also unsupported
that treasonable communica-
tions had taken place betweenthe Baja of Sattara and
the ex-Raja of Nagpore.
evidence that these communicativ, it appeared tom the
private
were merely such as
domestic nature.
and were
usually took place between
cmo estie nature. These
confined entirely to matters of a
n.aphmentary nature,
communications were entirely of a
and indeed the position of the ex-Raja of Nab°
moscridi-e: ,Attara
it evident that any application from the Raia-,-,trec made
to him for a supply of troops must be
(Loud cheers.) Those communications were uenlieels.t—ly
harmless, and it was evident to them the exP-
Najpore had no means whatever of affording any ja of
support
to any treasonable designs of the Raja of Sattara. The last
charge related to the alleged intrigues with the Governor
of Goa. Now no connection whatever had been established
between Najo and the Raja. Najo had gone to Goa to es-
tablish the influence of the Swammee. During the whole
twelve years he had only had three interviews with
the Raja of Sattara, and there was no evidence whatever
to-show that he was the agent either of the Raja or the
Dewan. Then with regard to the seal attached to those
papers, it was proved that it differed considerably from
the seal of the Raja ; and if they considered the posi-
tion of the Governor of Goa, and the absolute impossi-
bility of his furnishing any troops, they must come to
the conclusion that it was impossible that the Raja, ex_
cept he was a madman, could have made such
an application. On these grounds, he had con-
tended that the Raja was not guilty. Now, how
had those arguments been met on the other side? No
one who had addressed the Court had attempted to
grapple with them, but they had all gone off into colla-
teral topics. They had spoken of the character of the
Raja, of the high opinion which he entertained of his
own rank and importance, of the ambitious nature of his
character. That was the alpha and the omega of the case.
and they had not deigned to make one passing obiervie--
tion on the evidence.—(Cheers.)- They hall debated. on
various topics, which he could not help considering as-
pitiful subterfuges to take up the time of the Court, and
to withdraw their attention from the only point really-
before them, the evidence of the case. The Deputy
chairman had alluded to the ambitious character of the