The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-01 00:00:00

RAJA OF SATTARA.

The CHAIRMAN—I have also to acquaint the Court
that it is further made special, on the requisition of nine
Troprietors, to consider a motion relative to the ex-Raja
of Sattara.
The requisition, which has been already published in
this journal, was then read,
The CHAIRMAN said, it would be in the recollection of
the Court, that this subjeot had been repeatedly before
-the Court of Proprietors. It had undergone ,by them a
anost lengthened, laborious, and patient discussion, and,
a fter that discussion the *Court had decided that they
.ought itot to interfere in the business. Now, he con-
fesseeth at, out of respect to the opinion thus deliberately

.expressed, and consistently with that opinion believing
that no possible utility could. arise from the further dis-
cussion of this question and .perceiving that that very
night:Mr. Hume would present a petition to the House
of Commons on the subject of the liitja of Sattara, it ap•
pean 11 to him that they ought not to proceed with the
mpti on named in the requisition; and, therefore, he should
mcto a " That this Court do now adjourn."—(Hear,)
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. Cotton) said he
Kea ally seconded the motion. In his opinion the pro-
p os ed discussion could tend to no useful purpose whatever.

llr. Minmorr said, he must pr. test against the
mode which was adopted for producing some of the
Tapers then laid before the Court. The motion was
a-nade at seven o'clock in the evening, without any pre-
-vious notice that he knew of, and when there were very
ffew Proprietors present. And what end did they
answer ? Was it intended that they should judge the
judges—that they should decide on the conduct of the
Commission who sat in judgment on this case ? Here
were parties criminating each other, and it was clearly
impossible for that Court to decide on their difference.
The CHAIRMAN said it was no fault of his that the
papers alluded to had been granted. It appeared to
him that the parties to whom they referred were crimi-

_eating and recriminating ; and that, therefore, it was a
ease in which that Court could not interfere. He haw
so expressed his opinion when the motion for the papers
was made. He was sorry the Hon. Proprietor (Mr.
Marriott) had not, remained in his place on that occa-
sion, since, as there were so very few Members present,,,
the motion possibly might have been defeated.
General LODWICK said, he had given notice, by a lett ar
to the Court of Directers; that he meant to move for -,19
document alluded to. . ,
The CHAIRMAN said, the lion. and Gallant f j'fficer
had no right to give none in that way. In •
~c,iot of
fact, there was no regular notice .whatsoever.
Mr. LEWIS said, he ist..died.to know if it iv
A& the prac-
tice of that Court,when,the Court . was F Melia, S'rm-
mooed to discuss a motion, to move an stki."'"jou'rninleni of
ihe Court ?
The Citantara:e4tiiiPionipeteta tjr any Proprietor
at any time to mavesi•he'lluisx's-taournment. . • ;
Mr. Ltwas—leloolfe*P9r ..: thlia. as a JDOst disgraceful.,
combination betaimumtlaarten,,sbebind„the bar and a
few gentlemen near nr.fq, imiepiepsmimitsion'or this
most importa--.1 L qii4iiiWelinK,u--;-(crles 0 ' . Fag') . - '
The CrtArnatatsiE---rf 0 trtib ! proifiraioe,Thas.:Thada:
use ef the words-Pei-OW diegicful,'-ftilita-ibiiiation be
tween gentlemen lettjettlitiaei luvrland-corttiiit. rrePrie tors.
before it. IN.(' wenlenbeWitvie.:Abat, iiCA; ,0111.cia4)gte,TrSt",
prietor befor, thc . r yed.awn,,rn.Qt . tinc. an. ()iron y nci .'
1
jottrnment- -Met, 40,apd vi,..iy few lei& t'qu' et,
of Direct ~N knew t sil-Alf3tlticil; Notlern'itibilld' be nii.ideti)
--(f 'ea* , hear.) JrzfEer ffkl I34tiviilPiavrietor wilt. raw
t0,rp,,.• c Lt... ore-hoitoeutillifvkic• this r ,Coulpuay would
so fr r forget his-iv tity• -...'44-(Ccoela In it1.40,a cornliinatiouto
pre gent dieussiesast-fkikajo-ch,,,,i, „ , . .
~,,t
.1
Mr . -Fna.-n.Eaoiob . s •Onala)erideny the miser-
'Lion,y ft and lea/I %ay% ' , rlpti`eloi:,iia an'' honouiable
man reina f:--entretnan, o re rkellF,''-' ' ' "! •
61-. Lamas said he would riWitiOt'sldien he saw proper
re ason for retracting. The HAV"Chairnian said there
vat:: no combination betiveetk*ltileMen• behind the bar ,
and some of thatettiabrere--before it. That, however,
would not car„,.4efsi-iaticeo 'retract the expression he had
in,"le use of. th'delber'e was it disgraceful combination.
3le 'lust say thiitlVOthbination appeared to exist within
me bar, or %ttehlAfp)yould not have been taken to
prevent e,,jahosso.
Sir rs• Oastrn-zta, said the Hon. Proprietor spoke of a
conal'lnalion behind the bar. There was no such thing,
Ile Ovi'.- R. Campbell) was prepared to state that he was
not W. vare of the intended motion five minutes ago.
Nr r. Lewis—ls there any other member within the
ba' who disclaims the charge?
This appeal was' followdby a general burst of " All !
-all!" from behind the bar.
An Hos. DIRECTOR--The attack is most ungenerous
and illiberal.
The CHAIRMAN—I again say, That on!y five minutes
before the Court meal stated my intention to move the
nrijor..rnment. I did it on my own responsibility—(Hear,
hezu.)—because I think it the wisest and the most
riaalent course that could, under the circumstances, be
adopted.—(hear.)
Mr: No R nts-t-. The most discreditable course that could
be adopted.
Geical ROBERTSON denied that there had been any
combination behind the bar. Every man had a right to
adopt that course which he thought proper. When he
heard of the proposed adjournment he stated that he
would oppose.,it, and he adhered to that determination.
Colonel SYKES said, that ever) thing he had read, 4lld
•every thing he had heard, since the question of the ex-
Raja. of Sattara was discussed, confirmed the deliberate
conviction of his mind, that he had been unjustly con-
demned.—(llear, hear.) But, as he looked on the further
disewsion of the subject to be utterly useless, mischievous
and impolitic; he' fully concurred in the propriety of the
motion, that the Court do now adjourn.—(Hear.)
Sir 11. WlLLotbaint. said, they were specially sum •
mooed that day,, to,discuss a motion relative to the case
of the Raja of Sattara, and he came to the Court with the
full determination of expressiog his opinion on that case;
but, fully agreeing with the course taken by the Hon.
Chairman, founded on the total uselessness of such a dis-
cussion, he should abstain from uttering a single word on
the question.-7-(4ear, hear.) But, when an Hon. Gen-
tleman said that, there had been a disgraceful combina-
tion between?•parties before and behind the bar to pre-
vent discussibli, 'he was surely bound to prove on what
foundation his'-assertion rested.—(Hear.) Before he
made so grave, so serious, so ungracious a charge, ho
ought to be'aireit assured of the grounds on which he
brought it
_.fdW.:ifra::—(llear.) lie therefore called on the
Hon. Proprietor to, state the (*rounds on which he had
made the accusation.—(flear.)' ..
Mr. LEwis said the Court had only met for a few mi-
nutes, and the requisition had been read, when the Hon.
Chairman Immediately roseup and proposed the adjourn-
ment ; and the -manner in which that motion seemed
to be received by all the gentlemen within the bar,
certainly conveyed, to his mind the impression that
there was A combination to . prevent the discussion-
of this question: Such was his explanation of
the expression' that he had used, and he, confined
his retractation to
!that explanation. Ile. thodght the
only opininn. ahat' could be entertained in the public
mind when .that short discussion went forth was, that
the Court of Directors were afraid of discussing this
question. - Yes ; they were perfectly aware that most
atrocious wrong had been done in this case.—(Cries of
"No, no.") Let the Hon. Chairman withdraw the
motion for adjournment, and he would prove his state-
ment to the satisfaction of the Court. And let him as-
sure the Court of Directors, that, notwithstanding the
opposition Which he now experienced, it was his fixed
determinatiots to bring forward this subject for discus-
sion in that Court.
After fiome conversation, as to the proper mode of pro-
ceedine., ".
Mr. WEEDING put it to the good sense, to the cour-
teous feeling, and, the kindness of disposition of 'the Hon.
Proprioter,.not to press the matter further, but to ac-
quiesce
.
in the. adjournment. .
The CHAIRMAN said, he wished to recal to the recol-
lection of the Court a very short speech made by an,
Hon. Proprietor (Mr. D. Salomons) when an Hoti. Pro-:
prietor (Mr. Fielder) moved for certain papers relative
to Colonel Ovans and Mr. Willoughby, with reference to
their conduct in the ex-Rajah of Sattara's case. The
Hon.- Proprietor (Mr. D. Salomons) then said,- " Hp
hoped his Hon. Friend was not going- to disinter the,
. Raja of Sattara ; he trusted that that question was now
O
settled for ever. Now, he le Chairman)' did think
that the question was settled so far that there could be ,
no utility whatSeever in, still further discussing it in
that Court: They had no, power, as he had formerly
said, to set aside a proceeding which had been sane-
rtiro94,7,Manment of India, by the Board of
An trqrs.;apcir kretre,Court of Directors. The question,
,a irogigallb br, abae%ed, was now about to be brought
j*_:..- - ,
_trifoie---:ittidther and' a igher tribunal.- A motion- was .
1 --'!thal-Very Evening to b 0 'submitted to the House• of.--Com-
\'47 niOns; on the presentation of a petition from the ex-
Raja of Sattara. Eveh those who were most favour-
-. able to the ex-Raja would, he thought,Tbest consult his
‘ -
....interests by not. bringing questionagain before the
Cour!, where they could not enact a 014JoritY, after the

decisi .
em. whi h h -
c had taken place. Those who were most '
an. xi. sus for the cause of the ex-Raja, if they looked
wit:
dispassionately at the subject, would, he thought, agree
a him that the most prudent course would be to ac-
ce( le to the motion, " That this Court do now a-I;mm."
v.,
itit; DanaStedeotaololes said, that;when he made the obser-
s by the Hon. Chairman, the question
~;(esd in a different position from that in which it was at
1 4-esent placed. That observation he would have adhered
;0 110 w, had not the; circumstances been altered. But the
COttrt of Directors had not left the question as it was.
r cooking at the 'papers which had last been laid before the
i Court, he four.d that the Court of Directors had allowed
r certain of at eir servants in India to sit in judgment on
the acts of a Proprietor of that Court, and to give the lie
to whatwias advanced by members of that Court. When
this was the case—when they had those papers before
them—Lie did.think, that those who had been thus tra-
duced i n those papers should have an opportunity of
again ..reiterating those sentiments which they had for-
merly ' expressed, and which they conscientiously believed
to be r ight.
Mr. ASTELL said the whole argument of the Hon.
Proprietor who had last spoken was decidedly in favour
of the motion for adjournment. The Hon. Proprietor did
not want to argue the case of the ex-Raja of Sattara, but
he wished to have a discussion, because, as he said, the
Coure: of Directors had permitted their servants in
India to make observations on certain Proprietors. '
The Court of Directors had done no such thing.
They hail not permitted, and they could not pre-
vent, ind;.viduals connected with the Bombay Govern-
ment from defending themselves. But now, it appeared,
that that Court was to be made a tribunal to decide.
on the differences between General Lodwick, Colonel
Ovaree and Mr. Willoughby. This raising discussion
after discussion in that Court would do great mischief
to till.: Raja himself. The question on the last occasion
had !been discussed for five days, and they had now no
new facts before them. All the authorities competent to
decii le on the question had decided against the ex-Raja.
The, Government of India, the Board of Control, sad
the Court of Directors had coincided in opinion. The
Com t of Proprietors had also thought proper to confirm
theii - judgment. They had come to this resolution, that
the .ex-"Raja was most properly removed.—(" No, no.")
-He in silted that the fact was so. The Court of Di-
rectors decided that he was properly removed, and so did
the. Court of Proprietors, with the exception of two or
theses,. gentlemen who would not be convinced by fact or
ar gu ment. Were they then to go on ? Were they to
le tve , five days' more discussion ? and if they did, what
g. xx t effect was likely to be produced ? He did not
tl tin k that those who had signed the requisition had
ti et .ted the Court with respect. Of nine gentlemen who
si gi ted it, there were he saw only four present.
:Mr. FIELDER said that he, as an honest man, had
in raved for the papers which had been alluded to, because
t' aey contained the defence of Colonel Ovens and Mr.
1 Villoughby against language which had been used in
t hat Court, and which it:was a disgrace to hear within
i hose walls.
'Mr. M. MARTIN contended that, as some of those
I Rapers contained false accusations against members of
1, hat Court, particularly against an Hon Baronet (Sir C.
?orbes), who was as just, honest, and honourable a man
is ever lived, it was proper that a discussion should take
place upon them.
The CHAIRMAN highly eulogised the character of Sir
C. Forbes, and denied that the Bombay Government had
made an attack on him.
Mr. WIGRASL said, if the Court of Proprietors chose
uselessly and unnecessarily to discuss questions of this .
uattire' after they had been solemnly decided, they
Would find, should they be on any occasion called on to
!assist the Court of Directors in resisting any attack on
their privilege, that their opinion would not carry so
much weight with it as it they adopted a different course.
Mr. NoRRIS contended that the case of the Raja of
Sattara had not yet been properly discussed. Until the
present time the papers produced had been defective.
They had now before them the commission, and the evi-
deuce on which the Raja was dethroned. These they
were nsat previously in possession of ; and, in their ab-
sence, it was impossible to decide fairly on the case.
Thei:efore, it was proper that the discussion should be
?en ewes. As to the majority which, on a former °c-
ea sion, decided the question against the Raja, he set no
V alue on it, beeause it was composed of Directors.
Mr. WEEDING did not conceive that the Hon. Pro-
prietor, who had last spoken, had shown good judg-
moo*, in speaking of the opinion of the gentlemen-
he'aind the bar as good for nothing. For his own
part, he thought that the opinion of those whose time
was passed in providing for the good government
of India ought not to be so lightly spoken of.
He had before declared his conviction, and he still ad-
' hered to it, that the condemnation of the ex-Raja was
`just. The only fault he found with those who had re-
inovedhins was that they had treated him too well. They
sad allowed , him to carry off 50,0001., and given him
A2.00Qi.:. a.year, which would enable him, by his intrigues,
s .
tolw i the eountryin a state of alarm.
Sir' TI.- WILLoUGHBY was proceeding to descant on
certain 'attacks . which had formerly been made in that
(COurs An Mr; Willoughby, when
ss 'The' en.On.NAN .interfered. They could not decide
on matters of crimination and recrimination, of which,
its fact. they knew nothing. The Court of Directors and
the Court of Proprietors, had no right to -do more than
lad been done: A statement had been made on one
,ide's and ntranswer had been given to it. It was now for
rthi public' and. the perties to settle the matter.—(Hear.)
es '1,r..,... Tau- at rser said, he was exceedingly surprised
‘,74 Ozt,son
.se that' had heen taken. A series of paper had
been laid ercire theni preparatory to discussion, and they
f
Vere Mini klietiely ' feet 'by a motion for adjournm,nt.
:trlie,-;'dliChnients which had been last produced were
tessentially' necessary to the right understanding
of the case ; but even the papers that were for-
. merly laid before, them, garbled as they were, furnished
.. to his ' mind sufficient proof that an innocent man
had been depOseds and that an individual had been sent
into exile who at that moment ought .to be seated
oe the throne of Sattara. They bad now obtained the
evidence laid before the commission, and the report of
the Sattara commissioners founded on that evidence, and
he would say, that being in possession of these docu-
ments, the 'Court was emphatically called on to recon-
sider the case. This was one reason for not adjourning
thO:Cdurt without discussing this question. Another
reason was, that he had looked into the papers connected
with the Raja's case, that had heen laid before the House
of Commons. and he believed that as surely as the house
in which they were then sitting had an existence, so
surely did those papers afford an unanswerable refusa
tion of every charge that had been brought against
the Raja. But not only had he procured documents
from the Journal-office of the House of Commons, but
he had procured other documents of a most important
nature. He was prepared to state what they were, what
was their history, what was their nature, and what svas
the conclusion to which they must inevitably lead. That
conclusion was, that the Raja had been dethroned by
the foulest machinations that were ever practised against
any human being. He would give them a sample of the
evidence, even on the question of adjournment, to prove
that they were bound to go on with this discussion. The
evidence which he held in his hand would convince every
impartial man that the Baja was unjustly dethroned,
and consequently that the discussion
.should proceed.
As a reason for opposing the adjournment of this debate,
ho should proceed to show that the Reja had been the
victim of a guilty conspiracy, proceeding even to the
extent of forging the handwriting of the Raja's Mi-
nister, and procuring by large bribes the use of the
Raja's seals. The first document he would refer to was
a letter from the Raja to this agent, in London, dated
' Benares, April 3, 1842 ; and having named the Vakiel
of the Raja then sitting near him, he would say that
never had a more upright, laborious, self-denying, or
devoted man appeared on behalf of a fallen sovereign.
Ho was a pattern to all placed in similar circumstances.
The Raja, with the letter referred to, sent documents,
copies of which had been given to Sir James Carnac
when at Sattara. The first was the deposition of Bapuji
Anund Rao. "In the course of last year (1837), after the
Secret Commission had set at Sattara, Haibat ltao,
Atmaram Luksuman, and Vishwanath Rao, the last
being the head of the Raja's jamdarkana, or household
treasury, and myself, formed a conspiracy for the purpose
of bringing down the wrath and power of the Bombay Go-
vernment on his Highness the Raja of Sattara. To effect
this,' we resorted to the fabrication of papers and letters,
by means of which we had no doubt that we should be
able to accomplish our purpose. Our proceedings, however,
having been prematurely discovered, I deemed it prudent
to wait on the Raja Bhosley Sennaputtee, Commander-in-
C hief of his Highness's forces, and make an open confession
of all we had done, soliciting at the same time forgive-
ness for the past.—Barun ANUND RAo." Thelsecond
was the deposition of Haibat Row, a person employed in
the Raja's Household Treasury ; taken at Sattara on the
16th November, 1838:—" Some time in 1837, Balajipunt
Natoo, and Balajikasi Kibey (the Resident's head na-
'tive, and Natoo's intimate friend), sent for Atmaram
Luksuman and myself, and taking us to a• private
apartment, asked if we were willing to forge some papers
in the name of his Highness the Raja of Sattara, promising
us a jageer of ten thousand rupees (1,0001.), besides a
. lac of rupees ready money (10,0001.) We agreed, and
shortly after we forged and took the papers to them.
Balajikasi Kibey took a copy of them. These papers
were letters we wrote in the name of the Raja,
and only' required 'his Highness' seals to be affixed,
(to make 'them appear genuine.) Balajipunt Sato°
and BalajikasiiKibey then directed us to get the letters
sealed ; but before this was done, they took us to the
Resident, Colonel °vans. The Resident addressed us
and said, that if we would consent to the terms proposed
by Balajipunt Natoo 'and Balajikasi Kibey, he would be
responsible for the payment of the money. On this as-
surance being made by the British Resident, we returned
and got the seals impressed upon these documents by
Janoo Bandaree, the jaindar (or keeper of the Raja's
seals, called Sikkah and Mortub).—HAJBAT RAo."
The CHAIRMAN—May I ask you, are those papers
before the Court ?
Mr. FIELDER—Not a syllable of them.
Mr. G. THOMpSoN—Let the requisition be real.
The requisition was then read, which referred to " the
papers ' recently laid before the Court of Proprietors,'
relating to the case of the Raja of Sattara, in connexion
with ' those previously laid before the Court.' "
The Cnainstait; wished to know whether the papers
now referred to bylhe Hon. Proprietor were before the
'Court ? '
', Mr. THO3IPSON would not answer the question at that I
moment. 'He would now show cause why the Court
should notadjourn. He had these papers and documents
of a most important kind, and he would state them. By
s so f
the the h
charges
a Rragt
voting for.the amendment of the chairman it was saying
to the public that they
were. afraid to go into the papers.
.wasrrhe inleneocp econt ,• " itchtaiot nheupwoans hultstemrli;d guiltless that
attributed to . him, and which were medethteground.s
of his deposal ; and lse firmly believed 4t if he
had had those means of "vindicating himself, - which
were within the reach of persons in these more fa-
voured realms, he would have come forth with unspotted
reputation.—(Heax.) lie had devoted no small portion ,