The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-03 00:00:00

S AT FEBRUARY 3 1848 s

it was remarkable that in both cases either the parties
had partaken of no meal before death, or that by
vomiting they had rid themselves of the contents, as
both stomachs were empty at the time they reached
his (I)r. Letheby's) hands.
At this stage of the proceedings,
The CORONER inquired of the jury whether they
were desirous of going on with the case farther at
that time ?

The Foreman said he thought it was desirable to
hear the whole of the witnesses with reference to the
will which it was said had been recently made in
favour of the nurse.

The CORONIR—Then it will be better for us now
to adjourn, to allow time to summon the witnesses.
All parties having concurred,
The CORONER dec►ded that the case should be ad-
journed until Friday next.

INQUEST ON MRS. SHUTTLE-

WORTH.

Yesterday forenoon, at ten o'clock, pursuant to
adjournment from the 2 oth ult., a jury of thein-
habitants of Marvlebone, who were on that day em-
pannelled before- Thomas Wakley, Esq., M.P., the
Coroner for West Middlesex, to investigate the death
of a lady, late an inmate of York House Lunatic Asy-
lum, Battersea, and who is described as Mrs. Martha
Rhodes, alias Shuttleworth, re-assembled at the
Manchester Arms, Baker-street, Portman-square,
further to pursue their inquiry.
Miss Rhodes, sister of deceased, on being called,
expressed her anxiety that the inquiry should be
made. She said deceased died on the 6th of January,
and the first information she received of it was on the
1 1 th, after the removal of the body. She last
aw deceased on the 10th of November at
the asylum, but was so treated, that believing
she was not to be permitted to see her sister,
she applied to the Metropolitan Lunatic Commis-
sioners for an order, but was refused. She re-
ceived information of her sister's death from Mr.
Newland, solicitor, and that her body was at Mr.
Storking's, undertaker, Pimlico. On the sth of
January she received a letter from the solicitor, re-
questing her to call upon him on important business,
but conceiving it to refer to the appointment of a
trustee to her sister's property, to which she had re-
fused her assent, she did not attend to it. On going
to the undertaker's he told her he had orders from
the Rev. M. Rowlett, who signed an order for her
sisters' confinement, and from Mr. Parkin, one of the
asylum doctors, not to deliver up the body, but to
bury it, and allow her to attend the funeral. She ap-
plied to the Rev. Mr. Rowlett, and that gentleman
ordered the body to be delivered up to her, and it was
brought to her house in Adam-street East on Friday
evening, the 14th of January.
After hearing this statement, the jury determined
to go on with the investigation, and Mr. Findley,
having been chosen foreman, the jury were sworn,
and viewed the body, at the appearance of which
they expressed themselves much shocked.
The CORONER remarked that the sores on the body
were very bad, and the mortification extensive, but in
Some cases it could not be prevent-d. The question
was, whether the deceased had been properly treated,
and proper means resorted to, to prevent the extensive
injury which appeared. He considered that they had
better now adjourn, in order that the body might be
exanained by a gentleman whom he would appoint,
well acquainted with hospital practice.
The inquiry was accordingly adjourned till yes-
terday, when the jury re assembling,
Mr. llutchings, the Coroner's clerk, said he was
instructed by Mr. Wakley to express his great regret
that serious and sudden illness prevented the possi-
bility of his attendance that morning to proceed with
the inquiry lie begged to assure the jury that he
hail just left Mr. Wakley so ill in bed, from the effects
of an ulcerated throat, that he was unable to speak ;
and as Mr. Mills, the Deputy Coroner, had gone to
hold some inquest out of town, it was necessary again
to adjourn the proceedings.
The inquiry was then further adjourned.

[P R ICE iD.

EAST INDIA HOUSE.
THE LATE RAJA OF SATTARA.

(Continued from our afternoon Edition of Yesterday.)
Mr. LEWIS seconded the motion in the absence of
Mr. Sullivan, who was prevented from attending the
Court by severe indisposition. The Honourable Pro-
prietor, after a few preliminary observations, repeated
many of the remarks already made during the dis-
cussion of this case. He then read sonic extracts
from the recently published letter of Major Carpenter,
and he concluded by expressing a hope that the
directors would no longer hesitate to repair the wrong
which they had done to the Raja.
Mr. SA.TAGH said a few words in favour of the re-
solution.

Mr. WEEDING opposed the resolution, and in doing
so he replied to many of the observations made by
Mr. Ilume. He denied that any witness had ad-
mitted that any of the documents exhibited against
the Raja were forgeries, or that any important docu-
ments had been withheld. He defended the Govern-
ment of Bombay from the charges that had been
brought against it, expressed his conviction of the
guilt
of the ex-Raja, deprecated any further discus-
sion with reference to his case, and in support of his
opinion read some long extracts from a letter written
by Lord Auckland. He hoped the resolution would
be met by a motion of adjournment of the Court.
Mr THOMPSON would demonstrate that the state-
ments of the last speaker as to Colonel Ovans was
incorrect. He would show that there was not one
iota of truth in the statement of the honesty of the
course pursued by Colonel Ovans. Why did Colonel
Ovans keep back most of the evidence relative to the
charges against the ex-Raja ? The Hon. Proprietor
then repeated the charges he had before made against
Colonel Ovans, and openly charged the Colonel with
intercepting and keeping back statements and evidence
that would have proved the innocence of the deceased
Raja. He (Mr. Thompson) claimed for the issue of
the deceased Raja the restoration of every title and
of every rupee that had been plundered from their
progenitor.

-ltr. PRINCEPS (after a few remarks from Mr.
Fielder) rose with reluctance. In the early treaty
before September 1807, there was no mention made
of keeping up the independence of the Raja. After
the rupture of 1817, Mr. Elphinstone submitted to
Lord Hastings that these points were argued—the
taking of the whole of Sattara into the hands of the
Government, or the restoration of the independence
of the Raja and his family. After consideration, Sir
Lionel Smith was ordered to reduce Sattara, which
he did. There was no use in further inquiry. The
late Raja's brother sat on the throne of Sattara as an
independent prince.
Colonel SYLES said the political rights of the late
Raja had died with him. His knowledge of the
laws of the Hindoos made him acquainted with this
fact. The late Raja had not requested his locale to
be changed.
The CHAIRMAN would not reply to the terms used
by the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He would
support the decision of the majority of the Court of
Proprietors, as that decision had been confirmed by
Parliament and the Board of Control. The Chairman
moved that the Court do now adjourn.
Sir JAMES LAW LUSHINGTON (the Deputy Chair-
man) seconded the motion.
Mr. Hustle, in reply, appealed to the Court of Pro-
prietors, as the responsible governors of India, to vote
for the re-opening of the inquiry. In the case of
the Raja of Nagpore, the Government of India and
the Court of Directors had reversed, after five deci
sions against the Raja, the case set up. Why, there-
fore, should not the same course be followed now ?
Those who supported the case of the ex-Raja of
Sattara were prepared to prove that the deposition
was illegal and unjust. The Hon. Proprietor at con-
siderable
length addressed the Court.
The Court then divided on the question of ad-
journment, when there appeared—for it, 63 ; against
it, 26.
The CHAIRMAN declared that the motion for ad-
journment was carried; and on the question the Court
was declared adjourned.