The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

THE SUN,

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

A Quarterly General Court of Directors and Pro-
prietors of the East India Company was held on Wed-
nesday, at the Company's House, Leaden hall street.
James Shepherd, Esq., Chairman of the Court of Di-
rectors, presided.
The minutes of the last quarterly Court having
been read and confirmed,
The CHAIRMAN announced that certain papers, in-
cluding correspondence between the Government of
Bombay and the Government of India, relative to the
annexation of Sattara, ordered by the House of Com-
mons to be printed, were now laid upon the table.
The Hon. Chairman also informed the Court that a
Bill was about to be laid before Parliament, for the
purpose of awarding compensation, to the amount of
10,0001., to James Silk Buckingham, Esq., for losses
sustained by him in consequence of the acts of the
company.
Colonel DICKINSON then brought forward the
motion of which he had given notice, as follows :
" No. 1. That collectorate abstracts of the nndermen-
tioned items in Statement No. 7 of the Parlilmentary
Accounts for the year ending 1848 of the Annual Ter-
ritorial Revenues and Disbursements of the Bombay
Presidency, indicating such portions thereof as will and
may lapse to the East India Company, explanatory also
of their last year's increase, collectively amountirg to
rs. 33,37,971, be laid before the Court of Proprietors.
Allowances and assignments payable out of
the revenues in accordance with treaties or
other engagements, including those of the
ex-Paishwa and his Minister
Allowances to village officers and enamdars 93,31,642
" No. 2. That a statement of the undermentioned item
contained in the same account, indicating such portions
threof as are of a general more than a local charge, be
also laid before the Court of Proprietors, viz.—
Charges for civil and political establishments,
including contingent charges Rs. 35;83,565."
He thought it was most important that these accounts
should be placed in such a state as would be more
conducive to the character of the company. He re-
ferred particularly to the revenue and expenditure of
the Presidency of Bombay, and observed that although
the expenditure had considerably increased during
the last ten years, the revenue had also increased in a
still greater proportion, and would have been ade-
quate to afford a surplus but for the charges with re-
gard to the army in Affghanistan, in which Bombay
had been most unfairly dealt with. The Hon. Pro-
prietor entered into a variety of details connected
with the accounts of the presidency, for the purpose
of showing that it would be much more satisfactory
to the public if the items of expenditure were more
fully stated. He trusted the directors would have
no objection to supply the information required, and
if an improved system was adopted he had no doubt
the deficit now shown in the accounts would dis-
appear.
Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the motion. He had fre-
quently heard Bombay taunted with its deficit, but
nothing was more easy than by a particular arrange-
ment of the accounts to show that a deficit existed in
any particular presidency. The expenditure on ac-
count of the army could not fairly be charged to any
one presidency, but to the revenue of the Company
generally. He had seen accounts laid before Parlia-
ment so cooked and so spiced that it was impossible to
understand them, and hoped they would so be arranged
that it would be known what sum should be fairly
charged to each presidency.
The CHAIRMAN said, with a view of meeting the
motion of the Hon. and Gallant Member, he had given
directions to have abstracts of these accounts prepared
and laid upon the table. The Hon. Proprietor wished,
further, that some different system should be adopted
with regard to the accounts, in order that they might
ascertain what sum should be fairly apportioned to each
presidency. It was clear that the expenses of the
army and navy were for the benefit of the government
of India generally, and could not be distinguished or di •
vided among the several presidencies; and independently
of that, they were obliged to prepare the accounts in
the form prescribed by the House of Common. It
appeared to him that the system suggested by the
Hon. Gentleman would not be by any means an im-
proved one. As regarded the particular items the
Hon. Proprietor moved for, these abstracts would give
not only the items but the names of the parties. He
had no objection to the motion, but he could not con-
sent to have the accounts in future divided between
the different presidencies, as it would be utterly im-
possible to do so with anything like accuracy.
Colonel SYKES was glad the motion had been agreed
to, and he was satisfied of this, that the more the ac-
counts of the company were sifted, the more satisfac-
tory and accurate they would be found. He hoped
that in the course of the next year there would be a
large surplus to be appropriated to valuable purposes.
Colonel DICKENSON then moved, pursuant to notice :

" No. 3. That publicity will be given in the customary
newspapers of all notices of motion submitted by any
member of this Court in the week following that in
which they are presented, as well as on the third day
previous to the meeting of the next quarterly Court of
Proprietors for the consideration and disposal of all such
!notions."

Mr. LEwIN seconded the motion, and as the object
of all the proceedings in that Court was to give pub-
licity, he did not think that there could be any objec-
tion to it.

The CUAIRMAN observed that there was a private
room in which any gentleman who felt interested in
the subject could at any time see what was the busi-
ness to be brought forward. There was also a notice
given in all the daily papers three days before the
meeting, and he did not think it advisable to incur
any additional expense. He hoped the motion would
not be pressed.
After some conversation the motion was withdrawn,
on the understanding that the motions when given
should be read in open court.
Mr. LEWIN then brought forward a motion for the
production of papers relative to the removal of a
translator from a Government office in Madras. He
admitted the right of the Company to remove him,
but he complained that aspersions bad been cast upon
the character of the individual which had the effect of
depriving him of all means of obtaining a livelihood,
without any investigation having taken place. The
poor man was left totally without remedy, as the
Company refused to prove the aspersions cast upon
him in a court of law, by appealing against the juris-
diction of the court. He thought the individual, wbo
had received the highest testimonials as to his charac-
ter and conduct, was entitled to an investigation;
and that was all he asked for.
Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the motion.
The CHAIRMAN observed that the case had been

twice brought before the Court on previous occasions.
In the first instance it could not obtain a seconder;
and on the second occasion the explanation was given
in the fullest and most satisfactory manner. He
hoped, therefore, the Court would not assent to the
motion.
'The motion was then put and negatived.
TERRITORY OF SATTARA.
PROVISION FOR THE FAMILIES OF
DECEASED RAJAS.

Mr. SULLIVAN, in rising to bring forward the mo
tion of which be had given notice, said—Mr. Chair
man, I am about to make an appeal to your justice,
and simply to your justice, on behalf of the family of
the deceased Raja of Sattara, who, from want of that
justice, have been reduced to a state of comparative
destitution and distress. I wish to ask you, Sir, to
restore to them that which I think I shall be able to
prove you had no more right to deprive them of than
and into my pocket and
You have to put your h
carry away all the money it contains.—(Hear, hear.)
As a preliminary observation, I may here say
that with regard to native princes in India who are
despotic sovereigns,
and have uncontrolled dominion,
it is not the usual practice to make a distinction be-
tween public and private money ; but whatever may
have been the general practice, it has no reference to
the case of the
Raja of Sattara, because, from the
first constitution of that State in 1819, under an
arrangement made by Captain Grant, the then Resi-
dent, whose advice,
you will remember, the Raja was
by treaty bound to follow, a distinction was made be-
tween private and public money, between the money
of the state and the purse.
Raja's own
An arrangement was entered into by which
a sum of 3,12,000 rupees was allowed annually for
the private expenses of the Raja and his family.
This sum formed his private purse, and was kept in
a separate treasury, under a separate treasurer, and
under the control of the Raja himself. This arrange-
ment was made by Captain Grant, under the fallow-
ing instruction of the Bth April, 1818 :
" The personal expenses of the Raja and his family
opuerghotofooormth. e
Iplrieeiconmtptlooybmeonatb
of this
threeoug hl
tact
o b() l
s of rupees
ft to
his Highness, with no other check than may be neces-
rgry to prevent his exceeding the amount allowed him."
Here you see care was taken on the first constitution
of the Sattara territory to make a distinction between
the private expenses of the Raja, and the public
money of the State; you see caution given that the
private expenditure of the Raja should not encroach
on the public expenses of the State. Now, Sir, the
arrangement made by Captain Grant was commu-
nicated to Sir James Carnac, the Governor of Bomba's ,
by Lieutenant Ovens on the 28th of September 1839 :
" It appears that when affairs here were in Captain
Grant's hands a sum of 3,12,000 rupees annually was
allowed for the private expenses of the Raja and his
family, and at that time also 2,00,000 were given to
build the new palace in the town; and afterwards, when
the management of the country was made over to the
ex-Raja, 4,00,000 rupees was the annual sum allowed for
this purpose, and 1,00,000 more were annually set aside
for extraordinary State expenses."
Now the Raja, Pertaub Singh, being a good mana-
ger of his resources, accumulated during the 20 years
he was on the throne of Sattara property to the
aniount or extent of 25 or 26 Lacs of rupees. Now,
when the Governor of Bombay deposed the Raja of

S Mara, ii y September, 1839, he made two distinct
promises to him—that in the event of his peaceful
submission. to the British Government, a liberal al-
lowance shi)uld be made to support himself and fa-
mily, and that all bona file private property should be
restored to him :

You will be careful to provide in the most efftctual
manner for the personal comfort and convenience of the
Raja and bis family, and to require the Sattara Govern-
ment to furnish everything that may be necessary for
their accommodation. He is in fact to be regarded and
treated as an object of sympathy and not of punishment.
You will inform him that he will be permitted to reside
within the Honourable Company's territories, at such
place as may be selected by the Right Honourable the
Governor-General of India, and that an allowance will
be assigned from the Sattara revenues for the support
and respectability of himself and those members of his
family who may choose to accompany him. Further,
that all property 'belonging to him. bona fide private and
not appertaining to the State, will on his peaceable sub-
missiv not be interfered with."
Now, here is a bargain between two parties—the
R ija, on his peaceable submission to the British Go-
vernment, was to have his private property restored.
The Raja did make that peaceable submission, but
his private property was not restored. What, then,
were the reasons suggested for this breach of a most
solemn engagement ? They were two—first, of all,
it was said there was no private property, that all the
property was the property of the State. This, Sir,
was the dictum of the Court of Directors, for in a
letter to the Bombay Gdvernment, they say—
" We think that his claim to the treasure and jewels
in the palace, as private property distinct from the pro-
perty of the State, was untenable; such a distinction not
being ordinarily recognised in native states."
This decision of the Court of Directors, you per-
ceive, is in the very face of the declaration, avowal,
and admission made by Sir James Carnac, that the
Raja had private property, and that that property
ought to be restored to him. It is, moreover, in the
face of the admission of Appa Sahib Maharaj, the
individual who had the strongest possible interest in

.., .
proving that there was no private property ; for if
there was no private property, the whole property
would devolve on him as the successor of his brother.

In the 11th paragraph of the Resident's-letter, which
I have just quoted from, the writer says—
" The whole of this property is claimed by the ex-
Raja, but Appa Sahib Maharaj (his successor) main-
tains that about 5 or 6 lacs of the money is State pro-
perty and private property belonging to him, as also
about 2 lees worth of jewels, and that the remainder
only belongs to the ex-Raja and the, ladies of his
. _ .

Here, Sir, we have the express admission of the
validity of the ex-Raja's claims by the party who
had the strongest possible interest in contesting them.
He admits, beyond all doubt, that about 2 lacs of
hard cash and 6 lacs worth of jewels was the private
property of the Raja. Now I have shown that on
the 13th of August, 1839, Sir James Carnac made a

distinct avowal thai the Raja was possessed of private
property. On the 11th of November, three months

afterwards, he repeated the same opinion. However,
it is very true that Sir James Carnac turned round
on himself, and declared on the 21st of November that
the Raja had no property. He said on that oc-
casion—

" The lion. the Governor deems it only necessary to
state it to be his opinion that the whole of the claims
therein advanced by the ex-Raja of Satter& should be
declared inadmissible; that the property which he claims
shall be considered as appertaining to the State, and as
such be made over to the present Raja."
Now, was this extraordinary revolution in the
opinions of Sir James Carnac produced by any fresh
facts that had come to his knowledge in the interval
between the 30th of August, 1839, when he an-
nounced that the Raja had private property, and that
it should be surrendered to him, and the 21st of No-
vember, 1839, when he denied that the Raja bad any
private property, and stated that all his property
would be confiscated to the British Government ?

He had no new facts or information of any kind, and
he proceeded precisely on the same simple fact which
he was in possession of in August, 1839, viz., that a
privy purse was set aside for the Raja, out of which
he managed to accumulate the property an question.
It might be said that Sir James Carnac
was absolutely unqualified to make the promise which
he did on the 30th of August; but, supposing a pro-
mise of that kind was made on his own responsibility
and authority, to have broken it would have been an
act in the highest degree indecorous. I find that in

November the aid of a superior authority was called
in, and that the claim of the Raja for a private purse
was submitted to the Governor-General in Council.

But was it submitted with any data which could
enable the Governor-General to form an opinion
on the merits of the case? Did he acquaint
the Governor-General with the fact that from the

first constitution of the Raja's private purse a positive
promise and pledge was given to him that his
private property should be restored? Not a jot
of anything of the kind. The Governor-General
acquiesced in the opinion of Sir James Carnac in abso-
lute ignorance of all the evidence ; but when the Raja,
seven months afterwards, made an appeal to that de-
cision, the Governor-General ordered the Governor
of Bombay to institute an inquiry into the claims of
the Raja :
" I am directed to request that the three memo-
randums put in by the Raja may receive the attention
of the Governor in Council with reference to the several
demands, claims, and requests therein set forth."

When was any inquiry made to carry out the
positive orders of the Governor-General ? None
whatever, and the only result was an assertion that
the claims were unreasonable. Did the dictum of
Sir James Carnac pass unquestioned at the time ?
Sir H. Maddock says—and 1 beg to call your par-

titular attention to this passage, as it has been
quoted by a gentleman of high authority on such
questions :
" The distinction between the public and private pro-
perty of princes of India is much too indefinite to have
admitted of me fairly concluding that all this money,
upwards of 7 hies of rupees, and much of the other pro-
perty made over to the present Baja, was of the nature
of State property. The cash balance was clearly nothing
more than the aggregate amount of what the itija had
saved out of his yearly income, instead of devoting it,
as he might have done, to objects either of public utility
or private gratification. In case of his death he might
have bequeathed this money to any other person as well
as his heir and successor."

Now, if a person uninformed of the facts of the
case thought it dubious whether all this private pro-
perty was not the Raja's, what would have been his
opinion if he had been made acquainted with the
whole circumstances, that there had always been a
distinction between public and private property at
Sattara, and moreover, that a solemn pledge had
been given by Sir James Carnac to make over the
private property to the Raja ?—a promise which was
reiterated three several times, and in distinct and se-
perate documents. Colonel Carpenter says—
" It is very true that Lieutenant-Colonel Ovans sti-
pulated at th© time of the Raja's deposition fur a dimi-
nution of his pension to the extent of 1,000 rupees per
mensem on the demise of the elder Ranee, although the
Raja strongly objected to the arrangement; bat it is
equally true that the same officer at the same time passed
his solemn pledge in writing, now in the possession of
his Highness, to hold sacred to the Raja's use the whole
of his private property, which in violation of this assu-
rance was subsequently made over to his brother,
whereas if the property had been surrendered to the
Raja, the contemplated decrease of his pension would
have been a matter of minor importance, instead of the
very reverse under existing circumstances."
—(Hear.) These are the facts ; and I ask again, if
Sir H. Maddock had been apprised of all of them,
would he not have given an unqualified opinion that
the whole property was the bon& fide property of the
Raja? I will now refer to the decision of the Court
of Directors, that such a distinction between public
and private property is not ordinarily recognised in
native states. With regard to this decision, I will
observe that the Court has completely annulled it,
because we all recollect that during those long
debates on the annexation of the Sattara territory
it was admitted that the adoption of a son without
the consent of the superior power was perfectly valid
as far as regarded the private property of Appa Sahib.
I find the Commissioner appointed by the British
Government to take an inventory of Alma Sahib's
private property stated that it arose from accumula-
tions out of his private purse, and amounted to 26
lace of rupees. Now, Sir, you will recollect that
when Sir James Carnac made a positive promise to
Pertaub Sing that his property should be restored to
him, he was labouring under some apprehensions, for
he writes on the 20th August, 1839 :
"Although under my present information I do not
apprehend that the Raja will openly resist, still, in order
to place at your disposal a force sufficient to overcome
all opposition, I have, according to your suggestion, di-
rected that the troops noted in the margin should imme-
diately march to Sattara, as a reinforcement to those al-
ready under your command.
you will therefore defer carrying into effect my
present instructions until the arrival of this reinforce-
ment. It is needless to observe how anxiously I desire
to avoid collision and bloodshed, but should this unhap-
pily become unavoidable, you will be pleased to adopt
every prccaution in your power to prevent injury to the
peaceable and well-disposed, and to guard against all
mthiscepawratsofthe troops.
made in August there was
'pe
onr promise
io n —then the property was the pro-
Raja, and was to be restored to him, but
November the Raja peaceably submitted
does Mr. Willoughby sa Sahib regard to the
it\l'h:Vhenriimihs;esyhuielelill(Paf:;Plaillrttanhei''dte then he had no private property. What
holeaisnalybsr:Lught in by Appa ?In May, 1848,
right to adopt, but this can only affect the succession of
" It may be admitted the Raja ofSattara possessed, the
private property.''
Again, on the 15th Dec., 1849, he observes :
"It is proposed to consider the whole of this pro-
perty as the private property of the Raja. On this I
would remark that, strictly speaking, a very large por-
tion is undoubtedly the property of the State."
Here is an unequivocal admission, on the part of Mr.
Willoughby, that he has no doubt whatever that the