The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-24 00:00:00

44
94: ,
;),,5/07 f
"
.4kkle
4 . Pr :"Alirirk:k` V 'Tr AlF.111`"
Ajo
•
40,T
1-5 014 •
.

,ONDON THURSDAY
No. 15,460. I
e "
44,
t$ •
, A
51 IA 74
111

MARCH 24, 1842

PRICE sd.

SUN is Published EVERY MORNING at FIVE O'CLOCK, in Time foe the EARLY TRAINS and TOWN DELIVERY ; a SECOND EDITION (Evening Sun) is Publi.shed in Time for the AFTERNOON TRAINS
and a THIRD EDITION at SEVEN O'CLOCK, for POST, containing PARLIAMENTARY and all other NEJV in LONDON yis to that Hour.
ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED in ALL THE TIIREE PAPERS, Morning, Noon, and _Night, thereby insuring a TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION, at ONE CHARGE.

NATIONAL LO kN FUND SOCIETY
FOIL GRANTING
LIFE ASSURANCES, DEFERRED ANNUITIES, &c.
No. 26, CORN HILL.
Capital 1:500,000.
Empowered by Special Act •f Parliament.
DIRECTORS.
T. LAMIE MURRAY, Eiq., Chairman.
J. Elliotson, M. D., F. R. S. John Rawson, Esq.
John Griffith Frith, Esq. i John Riddle Stodart, Esq.
Hunter Gordon, Esq. Clement Tabor, Esq.
George Lungley, Esq. Joseph Thompson, Esq.

BRITISH INSTITUTION
PALL-MALL.
The GALLERY for the EXHIBITION and SALE of th
WORKS of BRITISH ARTISTS is Open Daily, from 'ft,
in the Morning until Five in the _Evening.
Admission Is.—Catalogues Is.
WILLIAM hARNARD, Keeper.

of the Company. A resolution was accordingly passed, that all
the persons who had been in the actual service of
the Company for five years antecedent to the month
if August, 1633, were entitled to compensation. Now.
the case of Captain Charretie turned upon the question whether
e was in the service of the Company in August,',lB2, and it
was to show that he was, that he (Mr. Salomons) now ad-
lressed the Court, and appealed to its judgment and decision.
he the time that Captain Charretie was in command of the
•hip Pombay, he became the subject of a Court of Inquiry it
India, in consequence of some disagreement having taken
iilace on board that vessel between some of its officers anti
officers of the army. The result of the inquiry was the
honourable acquittal of Captain Charretie. When he re-
urned to th:s country- questions similar to those upon
ditch his acquittal had been pronounced in India were
,aised, and notwithstanding that honourable acquittal, an in-
luiry into his conduct was also established in England by the
Court of Directors. In so doing the Directors were no doubt
right. They owed it :to their high character and station to
<atisfy themselves that their officer had not acted improperly.
Pending this inquiry it was understood that Captain C. could
not take the command of a ship, and he was not finally declared
eligible to a command till February, 1829, six months after the
period which was fixed as the commencement of the time en-
titing an officer to compensation. When he claimed compen-
sation the Court of Directors inquired into all the circum-
stances of the case, and the result was, a recommendation from
them to the Board of Control to have Captain Charretie re.
warded, inasmuch as he had, in their opinion, made out a case for
compensation. The Board of Control did not think proper to allow
his claim. A second application was made by Captain Charretie .to
the Court of Directors, and a second recommendation, in conse-
quence, was made in his behalf by them to the Board of Con•
toil, but that Board declared that as no new statement of facts
had been brought under consideration, they could not alter
their decision. The consequence of all this was that Captain
Charretie's prospects were blasted, in a great degree, by his
connexion with the East India Company, as he afterwards
lound it very difficult to get a ship. He (Mr. Salomon 3)
would lay before the Court a paper which would enable them
to enter into the facts of the case much better than he could
state them. He would first, however, read some extracts from
the " Report and Resolution of the Committee and Court of
Directors awarding compensation to Captain Charretie, as a
special case." The first extract to which he would call their
attention was as follows :
" The claim of Captain Charretie has already been twice be-
fore the Committee and the Court, and rejected on the ground
that he was not in employ within the term of five years antece-
dent to the 25th August. 1833, the period when he ceased to
be employed being determined, agreeably to the decision com-
municated in the letter of the President of the India Board on
the Bth December last, by the date of the ship's clearance.
" It appears that the ship which Captain Charrictie corn-
mai,ded was cleared on the 14th of May, 1828, and that the
usual investigation into the Commander's deviations and ac-
counts terminated in December following, but that, in conse-
quence of its being deemed necessary by the then Committee
of Private Trade to examine the proceedings of the Court. of
Inquiry, which took place in India, regarding the conduct of
Captain Charretie towards the military on the outward voyage,
his eligibility for a future command was not determined until
the 25th of February, 1829.
" Captain Charretie now alleges, that but for the time con-
sumed in the Committee's inquiry, which operated virtually as
a temporary suspension from the service, tie wiatid have ob.
tained the command of the Vansittart, abet would consequently
have been employed within the prescrioed term of five years,
reckoning from the 28th August, 1833.
" In support of his claim, Captain Charritie has enclosed a
certificate from the managing owner of the Vansittart, Mr Hare,
' that early in January, 1829, the command of the Vansittart
was offered to Captain Charritie, and that the command of
her remained open until about the:middle cf February 1829, at
which period Captain Charritie not being released from the
position in which he was placed by the Court of Directors, the
owners were under the necessity of appointing another com-
mander, as the period of the ship's floating was approaching.'
The time fixed for the floating of the ship was the huh March."
The next extract was—" Your Committee having called upon
Captain Charretie for further explanation, he has forwarded a
letter from the managing owner of the Vansittart (Mr. Here),
from which the Committee find that 'the resignation of Cap-
tain Dalrymple had been determined upon between him and the
owners at a much earlier date than that of his actual resigna-
tion ;' and that it was decided by the 20th February, that
Captain Scott should sacceed him, ' the delay in the presents.
tion of Captain Scott being occasioned by the Court not
having previously accepted Captain Dalrymple's resignation.'
He has likewise forwarded a certificate from Messrs. Scott,
Fairlie and Co. (who held a majority of shares of the Vansit-
tart, and by whom Captain Scott was presented) stating, • that
when Captain Charretie was in treaty for the command of the
Vansittart in the season 1829, it was to the best of their
knowledge and belief, his decided intention to have proceeded
to sea in her ;' and that " they are not aware of any other cir-
cumstance having prevented that negotiation being pressed to
a close by Captain Charretie than the situation in which he
was placed, by the Court of Directors having suspended his
eligibility to command.'
he resolution to which he (Mr. Saloreans) asked their con-
currence was as follows :
" Your Committee being of opinion that the circumstances

their Council in India, requesting them to use every means,
short of actual force, to prevent it, such means would, no doubt,
Ibe attended with success. He knew it was in their power to
recommend anything ; and he considered it to be one of the
1 duties of a parental Government to call on them to put an end
to such inhuman practices.—( Hear. ) He thanked the Hon.
Gentleman for bringing forward his motion, and he was sure
her Majesty's Government would lend them its aid in suppress-
Mg this practice.—(Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN said that, in several of the native States,
including Sahara, Nangpore, and others, Suttees had been
entirely abolished at the desire of the Government.—( Hear. )
btr J. Bits-Asa. said that, from information which he had
,•eeeived from a Hindoo gentleman of high rank, he was happy
to state that Suttees were nearly abolished in many of the states
in India, and he trusted and believed that the time was coming
when they should look on Suttees merely as a matter of history
—a thing which had been, but which existed no longer. Sir
J. Carnac, a name known to and honoured by that Board, had
tddressed a remonstrance to several States on this subject. and
'n answer had been received from a Raja staticg that he should
rake means to prevent Suttees and bussing alive. He thanked
he Proprietor fur his motion, and he thought Sir Williem Ben-
tinck was also entitled to thanks for his exertions.—(Hear.)
The motion was then carried.
THE EX-RAJA OF SATTARA.
Mr. FIELDER. said that, in rising to refer the case of the ex-
Raja of Sattara, he believed that he owed some apo-
logy to the Board ; but he did not mean to enter now
at any great length upon the subject. He regretted
the strong expressions which had been- employed
in the last discussion on this matter ; he regretted that It had
taken place, because he believed it had occasioned the painful
necessity of bringing this matter again before the Board. He
was unwilling to go into the merits of the case, and to provoke
discussion now; he only wished that all the facts of the matter
and all the papers which the Directors had received should be
laid before the Proprietors. He therefore moved that the while
of the further documents relating to the case of the ex-Raja of
Sattara, and lately submitted to the Court of Directors, be laid
before the Proprietors.
General Lonwrox said he rose to second the motion, that
there might be no difficulty thrown in the way of the produc-
tion of the papers. He was then proceeding to explain at
some length certain charges against him which had appeared
in the Bombay Times, when
The CHAIRMAN called the speaAer to order. He said the
motion before the Board was for the papers; he thought it was
unseasonable for the Hon. and Gallant General to enter into
ny statements in defence of his conduct until those papers
were produced.—( Hear. )
General Lonwataz said the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Fielden)
had founded his motion upon what had appeared in a llombay
paper, and he ( General Lodwick) believed he had a right to
reply to it. He knew there was an Hon. Proprietor in that
Court who would call for a letter written by him on the 9th
I ktober, 1840.
The CHAIRMAN said it was quite premature on the part of
the Gallant General to enter into this discussion now. After
the papers were in the hands of the Proprietors, then would he
the time for the Hon. Proprietor.
Sir J. LAW LUSIIINGTON said he could not but consider
that it was premature to enter into any discusion now, or for
the Gallant Proprietor to enter into any defence which he
might think his conduct required. The question before the
Board was only for production of papers ; and they were not in
the habit of taking for granted everything that they saw in the
papers. If the Gallant General had any other motion to make
it would be quite distinct ; but at present he could only say,
that if these papers were granted, then the Gallant General
could enter into a vindication of his conduct, which might be
attacked in these papers.
Mr. Hume said he thought that the Gallant General had a
most undoubted right to answer a charge made on his character
at any time.—( Hear. ) He was warranted in doing so, nay, if
he had not done so, he was sure there were individuals who
would say it was a shame that he had not attempted to do so.
He (Mr. Hume) hoped, therefore, that the Gallant Proprietor
might be allowed to go on.—( Hear. )
Mr. WIGRAM said he thought that the Gallant General had
first taken the proper course in seconding the motion for the
production of the papers ; but there, in his (Mr. Wigram's)
opinion, he should have rested.—( Hear.) Why did he go
farther, and enter into what had been said of him by a Bombay
paper, when the Court had no power to interfere with that paper.
The Proprietor had asksed for certain papers, and the Directors
had no objection to produce those papers—(Hear, hear)—but
he must submit to the Court that it would be better to wait for
the production of those papers berme they entered into any dis-
cussion as to the correctneas of the statements in the Bombay
newspaper.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Lewis said, would the Court allow him to say that the
mover of the resolution had just gone to a certain point, and had
there stopped, that point being the most offensive? He said he
would not read that ; but attention had been drawn to it, and
he thought it was right for the Gallant General to answer it.
Mr. WEEDING said that in his opinion every accused person
should be allowed a fair hearing._( Hear.)
General LODWICK said he should say nothing more on the
subject at present, but he hop d the Court would take his case
into consideration, and that he should have an opportunity of
replying to whatever might be said against Hear.)
An HON. PROPRIETOR said he was glad to hear Mr. Weed-
ing advocate, in such decided terms, a hearing for an accused
person.—( Hear.) He only regretted that the ex-Raja had not
been allowed a hearing.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Hume said he considered that there was a great deal
of injustice in not allowing General Lodwick to vindicate his
conduct.—(hear,) He was glad, however, to hear Mr.
Weeding say that he would give every man a hearing ; but he
would put it to that gentleman, whether the ex-Raja of
Sattara had ever been allowed a hearing before the secret
Commission ?—(Hear. hear ) And he would ask whether all
the papers on the subject had been laid before the Proprietors?
He thought eney had not.—( Hear.) In looking into the
papers which had been been produced he found a groat many
wanting. He would mention only one, which was of great
consequence. Allusion had been made to the discrepancies
in the evidence which had been taken before the Commission
in the case of the ex-Raja. After the unfortunate man,
Govind Row, had heels sent to prison, because he would not
make such a confession as the Commissioners required, he was
removed to the felons' gaol, where he was detained in close
em,finement.
The CIiAIRMAN said he really thought that this was quite
irrelevant to the motion before the Court, and he would beg
to remind the Hon. Proprietor that there was a great deal of
business yet to go through.—( Hear. )
Mr. Hoax said, yes, he dared to say that the Chairman
becanse he knew what he (Mr. Hume) was going to say, had
called that irrelevant which he (Mr. Hume) called relevant.—
( Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN explained that he judged of what Mr.
Hume was going to say by what he had already said.
Mr. Hume continued—Gevin Row was taken then to Ah-
mednugger, and sixteen questions were put to him ; and it
was said that there was no hope of obtaining anything from
him unless he was subjected to solitary confinement. He (Mr.
Hume) therefore
beforewishedthe c
tooukrntowwerwe thosehtehtehearnswers to those
e
srs
N
sixteen questions, given when the man was in " durance vile,"
and when what he did was to save his life?—( Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN said, that all the papers which had been
utimehe had
received by the Court of Directors had been laid, and in fu-
tu
re would be laid, before the Court.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HOME then gave in a memorandum of those papers
which appeared to be wanting.
Mr. SALOMONS moved that the whole of the papers con-
nected with the Commission should be printed.
Mr. TwieisiG said, how many thousand pounds would it
cast ?

11, F. PALIAN, or S. J. BARTRAM, the Wit
nesses to the Will of MARY MEAD, late of 83, Cow-
cross-street, West Smithfield, in tae county of Mid ilesex.
Widow, deceased, and which Will is dated the 14th day of May.
183 i, will apply to Mr. William Etherington, of 43, Cowcross-
street, ateresaid, Last and Boot.tree Maker, they will hear 01
something to their advantage; or any person who can give in
ferma.ion to the said William Etherington, where the said
F. Milian or S. J. Bartram can be found, will be rewarded for
their trouble.

thus detailed constitute a special case, recommend that, subject
to the approbation of the Board of Commissioners for the affairs
of India, Captain Charretie be admitted to the benefit of the
cntopensation,and allowed an annuity of 2001. per annum from

22d April, 1834."
Since that resolution was passed in August, 1835, nothing
had been done in the case, and many circumstances had since
arisen to strengthen his case. He need not say that he entirely
concurred in that resolution, and he trusted the Proprietors
would support him in the course ho was now adopting.
He begged leave, before he proposed the motion, to hand into
the Court the testimony of several officers and shipowners, as
to the opinion they entertained of Captain Charretie. The
lion. Proprietor then read the following motion :—" That,
considering the resolution of the Court of Directors, held on
the 2d of September, 1835, in favour of the claim of Captain
Charretie to maritime compensation' this Court do fully concur
in the view taken by the Court of Directors of Captain Char-
retie's claim, that as a special case he is entitled to maritime
compensation."
Mr. FIELDER said that be had great pleasure in seconding
the motion. He had only to refer the Court to their own
papers and Bye-laws to show that Captain Charretie was en-
titled to a compensation of 2001. a year. It was not the fault
of Captain Charretie that he did not spend the whole time in
the Company's service, which would entitle him to compensa-
tion.
But there was in addition a prospective provision aris-
ing from annuities, which was appropriated to officers who
did not come under the general rule for compensation.
The reason that Captain Charretie did not serve ten years
did not arise from any fault of his own. He would not
rely on the circumstances connected with the unfortunate
gentleman's case, though he knew that he .had lost various
sums of money, and that his whole life was not a " comedy,"
but a tragedy of " errors;" but, looking to the proceeding of
the Court of Directors, and the investigation which had taken
place before the Committee into the circumstances, he consi-
dered that Capt. Charretie was entitled to 2001. a year from April
22,1834. He did riot wish to say anything disrespectful of thelioard
of Commissioners, but lie was sorry to see that they .gave no
r 'anon for the decision they came to, which was a practice at
variance with what took place in every department. of the
country. lie would not take up the time of the Court, feeling
the strength of the case, and he had therefore great pleasure
in seconding the motion
Mr. WEEDING said;ll at he considered the delay in the case
originated with the Court, for which Captain Charretie could
not be made responsible. Ho therefore thought he was entitled
to full compensation.
An Hoe. PROPRIETOR said that every military man was enti-
tled to his rank and pay while his trial was proceeding and, as he
might say that Captain Charretie was placed on his trial, he
thought he was entitled to his allowance..
Sir T. CAM TELL considered that Captain Charretie was
equally entitled to compensation.
Mr. TWINING had great pleasure in giving his concurrence
to the motion, because he considered that Captain Charretie
had, under adverse and trying circumstances, displayed the
greatest resolution and judgment, and had secured the pro-
perty which others committed to his care, under the most diffi•
cult circumstances. Seeing that he had never wavered in the
Company's service, he thought him entitled to compensation.
The CHAIRMAN said the Court of Directors had no wish to
oppose the motion, which was then put seal carried unanimously.
SU I.TEES.
Mr. MARRIOTT said that the motion of which he had given
notice was founded on a statement taken from the United Ser-
vice Gaze/I'e of October, and which afterwards appeared in
the Asiatic Journal for December, p. 344. The Hen. Pro..
prietor then read the extract, giving an appalling account of
the destruction of a suttee in olna. ' Court had heard
enough of those horrid practices, and they were aware that
since the Administration of Lord William Bentinck
they had been abolished in their own dominions,
but they still continued in the territories of the t
native princes, and he believed it only required strong repre-
sentations on the part of the Court of Directors, to nave them
abolished in the dominions of those princes also. —( Hear, hear. )
The lion. Proprietor below him (Major Oliphant), was well
acquainted with those horrid practices which he strongly con-
demned; and it had been observed by Mr. Twining that they
should be put an end to at once. The practice of
the Suttees was very common formerly, as appeared
by papers in possession of the Court, which gave the
names and castes of 666 of those unfortunate beings
who devoted themselves on the funeral pile. The Hon. Pro-
prietor then referred to the publication of Nil. Grant on the
subject, which was written in the year 1792. There was no
question now as to endangering their empire by an extensive
circulation of the Bible, because there were various sects of
Christians in India, and the Suttee system had been abolished
in their own territories. We must regret that Lord Auckland
seemed desirous to bind on them for ever the payment of a tax
for the support of the Temple of Juggernaut. He did not
anticipate any objection to his motion, and, therefore, he would
net occupy the time of the Court. The Hon. Proprietor then
moved _ .

The Cita AM N said, it would he a great expense.
Mr. said, he thought that the expense, when the
character of the Gallant Officer, and the character of the Com-
pany were considered, was a mere nothing.—( Hear, hear.)
A DIRECTOit said, he thought it would be proper that the
question, as to what papers should be laid before the Pro-
prietors, ghoul, be settled in the usual way—that was, to say
that the most particular and important documents should be
printed. He thought that if the whole of the proceedings of
the Commissioners should be printed, the compilation would,
probably. he just so much waste paper.—(Hear, and a laugh,)
31r. Hosts: thought that in a case of so much importance,
the papers ought to be produced. Let two parties on either
side meet, and determine which should be printed.
Mr. LEwts said, he did not rise to oppose the motion of the
Hon. Proprietor; on the contrary:, he thought that he had
acted with great zeal in bringing forward his motion. But he
would. ask, how was the previous conduct of the Court to be
reconciled with an accordance to this motion. When
the Baja of Sattara applied to be allowed to vin-
dicate hie conduct he was refused on the ground that he
was premature.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Lewis) rejoiced
that the Hon. Proprietor had made this motion, because it re-
lated to the conduct of the Commission at Sattara ; and he was
sure that the more the public became acquainted with the facts,
whether they concerned the conduct of the Gallant General,
who did everything to defend the unfortunate Raja, or whether
they concerned the evidence, consisting, as it did, of perjury,
taken when the witness was under duresse, or the conduct of
the Commission, the Raja would appear to be much ill-treated.
—( Hear.) He rejoiced, therefore, that this motion had been
made, and he trusted that properly to carry the motion into
effect, every letter which had been written to the Board of Di-
rectors, whether from Mr. Willoughby, or General Lodwick,
or Col. Ovans, would be presented to the Court. He would
therefore move, or lie would rather submit, that the Hon. Pro-
prietor—lover of justice and no party-man as he was now—( A
laugh)---should add to his motion, that a letter to the Board of
Directors, datei December, 1837, and another dated October
' 9, 1840, from General Lodwick, should be laid before the Court.
The motion was then carried.
Mr. G. Tnompsox said that, as the motion before the
Court referred to the production of papers, he begged leave to
mention one document which he deemed essential to the com-
pleteness of the case of the dethroned Raja. The document
he alluded to was the defence of the deposed Prince, from his
own pen, sent hither by the hands of his accredited agents,
which, singularly enough, had never been printed, although
the Hon. Director (Mr. Warden) had said that all the papers
necessary to a right understanding of the case had been laid
before the Proprietors.—( Hear. ) He repeated it, it was most
surprising that when compiling a body of papers, purporting to
be a complete and impartial record of the facts of an important
'case, affecting the honour and fealty of a native prince, who
had been deprived of his throne on the alleged charge of infi-
delity to his treaty with the British Government, they should
omit the statement which the accused himself had furnished.
This, be (Mr. Thompson) was willing to admit might be an over-
sight, and if it was, the Court of Directors would he eager to
supply the omission. The hiatus caused by the omission of the
Raja's defence was not however the only one. He must be
permitted to ob.erve that in his opinion a more garbled assort-
ment of evidence was never published than that which seas
contained in the first blue book.—(Hear, hear.) Had the
Directors done their duty honestly in the first instance,
the necessity of motion after motion for other papers
would not have existed._( Hear, hear.) Muds had been
said of the justice of letting absent parties speak for them-
selves, and he therefore trusted that those who had de-
posed the Raja would not deny to the injured victim
of their arts an oppi orturity of placing his own explana-
tion before the public. The document sent by the Raja
was in every respect worthy the attention of the Proprietors,
and would amply repay the most serious attention.
Something had been said about the expense of printing these
documents; bid let it be borne in mind that, out of the money
of which the Raja had been plundered, the whole of the six-
teen folio volumes of manuscript evidence lying in the Parlia-
mentary State Paper Office might be put into type, for the
edification of those who were celled upon to pr9notince a ver-
dict on this question. The property of which the jiaii

" That the Honourable Directors be requested, in the case
of the Suttee which was lately permitted a the territory of
the Nizam, and in all cases of a similar nature, to recommend
to the foreign rulers the immediate abolition of that inhuman
and sanguinary rite, as the same has already been effected in
the dominions of the Honourable Company."
Major OLIPIIANT said that as his name had been mentioned,
he would make a few observations in seconding the motion
of the Honourable Gentleman who had just spoken.
He had been in India eighteen years and he could
safely say that he thought it would be most desirable
to have those practices alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman put
an end to. He had no doubt that if a strong representation had
bin n made to the Nizam, it would tend to the abolition of the
inhuman custom practised by the Suttees. When they wanted
any benefit for themselves they were able to obtain it, making
strong requests, but when the object was to put a stop to a
most inhuman custom, they did not put forth any requests at
all. He believed the Hindoo women themselves were most
anxious to get rid of the custom if they did not think they were
acting in opposition to the Brahmins. He thought the Court
should make every exertion to put an end to the practices of the
Suttees.
Mr. WEatartc said that no sooner was a resolution come to,
condemnatoryof Suttees, than the Governmentof India and the
Council of India, in 1829, declared it to be culpable homicide,
to encourage Suttees in any shape.
After that, he thought it
was impossible that this Court could refuse to accede to the
motiort of the Honourable Proprietor, and he could not but
imagine, therefore, that, if tie J3oard were is send orders to