The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-29 00:00:00

No. 15,601

THE DEPOSED RAJA of zATTARA.

valued, addressed letters, in 1833, to the Honourable
Mountstewart Elphinstone and Captain Grant Duff, and
General Robertson, two of the Residents at his Court, re-
questing that they would state their sentiments upon the
point. These he transmitted to the Bombay Government,
and that Government forwarded them to the Court of
Directors. The Court, in September. 1834, returned
these letters, with an intimation that they did not de-
sire to be the medium of the Raja's correspondence with
gentlemen in England, though there was no objection to
such ; they, at the same time, applied themselves to a
consideration of the matter in dispute, and passed a de-
cision which might be interpreted in his Highness's favour,
though it was not so precise as to make it certain that
the Court had seized the material points of the case.
This decision was made known to the Raja in April,
1835, and the Resident, General Lodwick, received
orders to furnish Government with a list of the jagheers
to which this decision of the Court applied ; this was
done in July, 1835. Nothing followed upon this. The
Raja did not receive an acknowledgement of what he
thought were his rights, nor knew why he was kept out
of them. In the spring of 1836 his Highness had a meeting
with the Governor, Sir Robert Grant, and immediately
questioned him earnestly upon this subject, which he
had most deeply at heart. It is certain that the Go-
vernor informed his Highness that the matter had been
referred home, and it is equally certain that this was a
mistake, as this
,very- question; and the Resident's letter
of July, 1835, had not been brought to the Court's notice,
though the Governor thought it had; but a reference had, it
seems, been made regarding a jagheer in Khandesh, held
by a jagheerdar subject to his Highness as his liege para-
mount, which case might very well be imagined to ditlisr
materially from that of the jagheer of the Punt Suchew.
It is positively stated, by the Raja Vakeel, and I think
that I heard the thing stated in India long before the
unfortunate occurrences of 1835 and succeeding years,
that Balajipunt Nattoo had advanced considerable
sums of money to the Punt Suchew, the recovery of
which would, of course, be much facilitated, by the trans
fer of a portion of the Suehew's jagheer to the British
jurisdiction--should this be so, a pecuniary interest
would be superadded to the feelings of disappointed am-
bition, wounded vanity, and irritated sectarianism, to in-
duce him to use his best endeavours to effect that which
could not but de: ply mortify the Raja. The Raja
discovered or was persuaded, that the question had not
again been referred home, and felt deeply mortified. He
found himself curtailed in rights which lie much
valued, and after a decision in his favcur by the same
authorities, lie found even this apparently disregarded to
his disadvantage, and no intention shown to submit the
matter again to those authorities. If he knew his ene-
mies, and most men do, though fear or policy may often
prevent this being shown, he would not fail to attribute
his mortification to their machinations; but he fairly in-
timated to the Resident, that his confidence in the Bom-
bay Government was much impaired, and the Resident
himself fell under his displeasure, from an idea, doubt-
less, that the neglect which he experienced was, at least,
in part attributable to that officer. Finding, therefore,
that he could not recover from the equity of the Bombay
Government, the right of which he had, he conceived,
been unjustly deprived for four years, he resolved on
sendingan Embassy to the Court of Directors, a step
neither necessary nor wise; but certainly not indicative
of any treasonable intents; and I should say quite incon-
sistent with the idea that the Raja's mind could be occu-
pied with any such schemes. Treasonable plots, when
entertained, usually occupy a man's mind pretty corn
pletely. I should not expect to see an extensive political
intriguer engage in a Chancery suit. It was at this
perio, when the Raja's mind was agitated by a feeling
that he had been neglected and wronged, when
he was dissatisfied with the Government and the
Resident, and when the Governor felt displeased
with his Highness for saying that the Governor had nut
informed hirn that another reference had been made to
the Court regarding the jagheers, that the charge was
brought against the Raja of his having attempted to se-
duce the Soobtulars of the 23d Native Infantry from
their allegiance. It is not my intention to dwell at length
upon that case. I have stated that I think the Commis-
sion'.s proceedings cannot be considered as a hearing to
the Baja, and, independently of this objection, the evi-
-1 dence against his Highness seems to be weak in the ex-
' treme. The result was, as we know, that his Highness
was declared to be proved guilty, though the transaction
altogether was not deemed of so much importance as had
at first been thought to attach to it. " The attempt to
tamper with our native troops," says Sir It. Grant, in his
minute, 30th May, 1839, par. 3 (S. P. i., 235), " viewed
as an isolated act, appeared so monstrously wild
and extravagant, as to induce this Government
to think that unless some more distinct and intelligible
act of impropriety could be brought home to the
Baja, it would not be expedient to adopt extreme
measures against his Highness." However, while the
measures of Government in this matter were under con-
sideration a petition to Government, dated the 13th of
December, 1P36, was received in Bombay, by post. on
the 6th of March, 1837. purporting to have conic from
Girjabiue., the mother of the titular Dewan Govind
Row, then ;.n confinement, as a State prisoner, at Poona,
imputing various plots and conspiracies of a treasonable
naturs to t:.c Raja, and confessing to the guilt of her son,
as at, agent nder compulsion. A dark chapter follows:
—General idodwick was removed from the Residency in
a mantle: certainly betraying great disingenuousness. He
was told that he had not the Raja's confidence, and that
" a new person was required to ascertain whether he
might not succeed, by the reciprocities qf a free and
friendly intercourse, in winning from his Highness that
confidence which he had, however unreasonably or un-
gratefully, withdrawn from" the General; and then it
appears, that in the first instructions to the new Re-
sident, he is directed "to be distant and reserved in
all his communications with the Raja." The reason given
for the General's removal was not the real one. Others
appear in the Governor's minutes of the time, and in Sir
R. Grant's minutes of the 18th-June, 1837, paragraph 4
(S. P. i. 84, paragraph 4) it is stated that the delay
which had taken place in instituting an inquiry into the
matter of the petition of Gidabaee " originated in our
conviction that this inquiry could not with safety be
entrusted to the late Resident." Those reasons inti.

on their interview at the palace! I should- not think
that much faith can be reposed safely in Cosia Maloo.
I now proceed to lay before the Court such arguments as
'occur to me, arising from a general review of the fea-
tures of this case—why the motion for adjournment
and why a full debate on the caso
should not .be carried,
should be allowed. The deposed Raja of Sattara- was
raised to the throne by the British Government in 1819,
and from that time, to the year 1832, conducted himself
so admirably, that he was the theme of constant applause
to the four successive Residents at his Court, to the
Bombay Government, and to the Court of Directors, as
an able and benignant ruler ; while his finality its an
ally was so undoubted, that the Government of Bombay,
in the time of Sir John Malcolm, voluntarily relaxed the
provision of the non-intercourse article in his treaty, so as
to admit of his corresponding with the chieftains in his
neighbourhood, His administration was just, liberal, and
enlightened, but he had enemies, not from faults ta' his
own, but ita some measure in consequence of his very
excellencies. The first of these was Appa Sahib, his
unworthy brother. That this person was the Raja's bitter
enemy no one can doubt. Their disagreement' was a
matter of public notoriety,
though the Raja never failed
to treat Appa Sahib with kindness and attention. This
ungrateful man, early in 1835, and one:: previously in
the time of Sir John Malcolm, made an attempt to in-
duce the British Government to confer on him half of
his brother's raj, and we find him, by Balajipunt Nattoo's
evidence beforeAhe Commission,. (S. P. iii. 113)- giving
information ilionths previously, or about April,
1835, which no one can credit, that " His Highness had
written to his agent in Bombay, that if he fails to obtain
redress in England, (whither he was sending an
embassy)—he would go over to the Russians ; tell them
that his kingdom is.one of fifty-six crones of rupees ; that
they must bring an army and reinstate him in his raj,
and that he will ultimately repay their expenses by in-
stalments." Balajipunt Nattoo, his confidant, says, " The
Raja has seduced his brother's wife, and therefore they
they are on bad terms." I can only say, it' this were
true Appa sahib would be in my eyes an infinitely
greater wretch than I have believed him to be. Ile
lived in the.palace, and he lived in the employment, and
on the revenues of his brother ; and what should we
think of the enormous hypocrisy which he must have
practised while so living, if suffering under this cruel
wrong ? I must say, however, that I disbelieve the as-
sertion of Balajipunt Nattoo. Appa Sahib's elder wife,
who fled to the Raja, it was said, in consequence of Appa
Sahib's misconduct, is stated by the Residents to have
always borne an irreproachable character, and if she had
been treated by the Raja otherwise than it became him
to treat his brother's wife, I cannot imagine that either
through complaint from Appa. Sahib, or dissension
in the Raja's family, the thing should not have become
known to the Resident, who would scarcely have failed
to urge his Highness to terminate so disgraceful a con-
nexion. Is it to be credited that this person who so un-
generously strove on two Occasions to deprive the Raja
half his territories, would not have contrived that a
fact should come to the knowledge of our Government,
which could not fail to lower the Raja in its estimation ?
I think badly of Appa Sahib, on the ground of in-
formation placed on record when there could be
no object in misrepresenting him, but I do
not think so badly of him as I should if I believed the
evidence of his confidant Balajipunt -Natoo. The
second of the Raja's enemies was Balajipunt Natoo.
This person, a leading and bigoted Brahmin, of great
talet4 and art, canning, ambitious, and worldly-minded,
was possessed of considerable influence with all the
British authorities in the Deccan. That he was the
Raja's enemy is sufficiently apparent from his evidence
before the Commission, wherein he states that six months
previously he had reported to Mr. John Warden, that
the Raja contemplated, if he had not committed, a
breach of his engagements with the British Government
The same evidence shows him also to be Appa Sahib's
confidant, and the Willing hearer, if not utterer, of his
Slanders against his brother. We find, too, from General
Lodwick's letter to the Court of Directors, dated Oct. 9,
1840, that this artful enemy, in Nov., 1835, Observed
" that there were some rumours of a plot formed by the
neighbouring feudal chiefs subordinate to the British
Government. and particularly by the Chief of Sanglee
and the Raja of Colapore, and that the Raja of Sattara
might be talked over to join in it , but that he would
be enabled to establish the truth or fhlsehood of his
report of the Raja's being about to join in such con-
spiracy by his Highness intimating to me his intention to
join a hunting party on the borders of those states, or his
visiting those chiefs in his annual tour during the next four
months." "'ascertained," continues Gen. Lodwick, " that
this information came from the Raja's brother, and I at-
tached proportionately less credit to it." But what an
artful intimation was this ? Balajipunt had but to in-
duce the Raja to make one of the harmless excursions
above-mentioned, and then he was at once entangled in
a conspiracy ! His Highness, however, fortunately had
not made either of them, and the Resident, in conse-
quence, set down the information as false. The follow-
ing are proofs of the enmity existing between both
Chintamun Row and the Colapore Raja on the one hand,
and the Raja of Sattara on the other, and that enmity
must have been known to Balajipunt Nattoo :—Extract
of a letter from Mr. Dunlop, dated 12th April, 1837,
par. 6 With regard to Chintamun Row's friendly
intercourse between him and the Sattara Raja, it seems
to be highly improbable for several reasons. He is a
zealous, I may say, bigotted Brahmin, and feels extreme
enmity at the Raja for his encouragement of the Furbhoo
caste in the performance of Brahminical ceremonies,
which ha has taken up and written against in the spirit
of a polemic. The Sungleekur's long-established high
character should also protect him from suspicion, except
on strong grounds, neither do I think he would trust the
Raja if all their other motives were wanting." With
respect to the Calapore Raja the Chittavees is reported
when in confinement to have stated, "I believe that the
fact is upon record that, such was that Raja's feelings
against the Raja of Sattara, that he declined to receive
a visit which the latter wished to pay him, and that this
was in consequence abandoned." I observe ;hat my ex-
cellent friend, Mr. Willoughby, states that neither him-
self nor Colonel Ovans knew Balajipunt Nattoo pre-
viously to the assembling of the Sattara Commission.
I consider this much to be deplored, for I cannot but
think that if they had known him they could not have
considered him the Raja's friend, even though he should
have appeared such. The evidence given above, together
with his own evidence, seems to show that he was not
so, nor do I observe that he even states that he endea-
voured to reclaim the Raja from the dangerous course which
he represents that he was pursuing. So much towards
showing that he was the Raja's enemy. The following are
reasons why it might be expected that he should be so.
Ist. Because the Raja had rejected him as his Dewan, a
place which he was desirous of filling, and which he now
occupies under Appa Sahib. 2d. Because he was a leading
Brahmin, and belonged to a caste which was never at-
peace with the Raja, and because he was a connexion,
the son of the one being married to the daughter of the
other of Nilkunt Shastree of Poona, who, with
the Swamee of Sunkeshwur and Chintamun Row,
of Sanglee, was at the head of the Brahmin
league against the Furbhoo and other castes on
a question of religion, in which dispute, whether
rightly or the reverse, the Raja opposed the pretensions
of the Brahmins. The Raja's feelings towards Balaji-
punt Natoo I should imagine partook largely of fear ;
but if he thought him his friend. I should consider the
fact merely a proof how egregiously his Highness was
deceived by lila artful enemy. The third party hostile
to the Raja were the Brahmins generally. The Raja
himself did not disguise his dislike and distrust of the
members of this caste, and instituted schools avowedly
with the design of instructing Mahrattas, and by this
means destroying the predominant influence of the Brah-
mins ; and the violent religious dispute which arose be-
tweet' the Brahmins on the one hand, and the Furbhoos
and other castes on the other, and in which the Raja was
considered to wrong the Brahmins, engendered a feeling
of hostility on the part of the Brahmins towards the
Raja, the strength of which it is difficult to conceive.
The three heads of this league of religionists were the
Swatnee of SunkeshWur, Chintamun Row of Sanglee, anti
Nilkunt Shastree of Poona. These were all notoriously
hostile to the Raja on religious grounds. The first was
an "inveterate intriguer," as_described by Mr. Dunlop,
and proved by his having seals of the Peishwo. and
Guicowar in his possession ; and all of them were
bigots and polemics. Opposed as they have
always been to his Highness, we nevertheless
find it credited that the Raja engaged in in-
trigues with the Swamee, and that Chintamur Row,
in possession of evidence likely to be deeply detrimen-
tal to his Highness, evaded furnishing it to Government.
though it is admitted that such was his hostility to the
Raja, that he tried, by means of information which he
had, or pretended to have, to frighten his Highness into
his views in the religious feud between the Brahmins
and the other castes, which he did not succeed in doing.
These are the enemies, Appa Sahib, Balajipunt Natoo,
and the Brahmins, whose arts and unwearied malignity,
aided by tie too ready belief of the British authorities,
in charges against the deposed Raja, and their refusal to
give him a hearing, have occasioned the condemnation
and dethronement of that much-injured Prince. It has
been stated that up to the year 1832 the utmost har-
mony, cordiality, and confidetre. prevailed between the
Bombay GOvernment and that of his Highness. In that
year the Raja's jurisdiction over a portion of the jagheers
of the Punt Suchew, one of his Highness's jagheerdars,
was questioned on the ground that such portion lay be-
yond the boundary line of the Sattara, territory. I be-
lieve that I am right in saying that from 1819 to 1832
his llighness's jurisdiction over this tract had always
been exercised without dispute ; the claim to the juris-
diction on the part of the Company was, however, now
advanced by the deputy agent for Sirdar, in the Dec.
can, who in noticing it observes, " I am supported in all
I have said by the opinion of Balajipunt Natoo, who,
as Mr. Vphinstone's confidential native agent, soperin-
tended at Sattara the preparation of the treaty and
schedule, on which the Raja founds his pretension."
The Bombay .Government decided the question against
the Raja, who, theta:4l)re, like an holiest straightforward
man, deprived, as he considered, without just cause, of
that to which he was entitled, and which he highly

that one of these gentlemen is present to hear the re-
marks which I have telt, and may feel myself, bound to
make. And here, I must observe, there is a fundamen-
tal objection to the proceedings of the Commissioners,
as being a trial, or hearing, of the Raja. Sir, this was
no trial, for one of the requisites of trial was wanting,
inasmuch as the person accusQd was not allowed to be
present from the commencement. I have seen many judi-
cial trials. I have heard of many military trials. I have
been acquainted also with miscellaneous trials by Com-
mission ; but I never yet heard of one of any kind what-
ever, in which the person accused was not allowed to be
present from the commencement; or, if he were a person
of rank who could not with propriety himself attend, to
depute some competent person to be present on his behalf
from the commencement. There may, of course, be secret-
Commissions for investigating supposed occurrences,
and ascertaining to whom they are probably at-
tributable ; and at this stage such matters may be
known to the Cummissioners alone ; but when the
trial, or hearing, of a certain individual for a certain
act is undertaken, I cannot but conceive that that indi-
vidual has a right to be present from the commencement.
Now such liberty was not given to the Raja. I find
that on the second day of the proceedings, General Lod-
, wick proposed that the Raja should be allowed to ap-
point a vakeel, or advocate, to conduct his uefence, as lie
w4-nild probably not desire to attend himself. This pro-
position was overruled by the other members of the
Commission, " as being premature, and inconsistent with
the instructions under which they act, end calculated to
defeat the object for.. which the .Commission is as-
iembled ;" and then the matter was allowed to rest for
the time, the General not requiring, I suppose, the im-
mediate transmission to Governrirent of the paper con-
taining his proposal ; and the Commission continued
their labours without making any communication to the
Raja, until the ninth day, when it was resolved by all the
three members, that the Raja must be communicated
with. and the reasons for that not having been done pre-
viously are stated to be, first that it would have been pre-
mature to make any communication to his Highness the
Ilaja of Sattara, until sufficient evidence- had been ob-
tained to criminate his Highness, and to render it ne-
cessary that the . Commission should call upon his
Highness for . a defence ; and, secondly because the
effect of acting on General Lodwick's suggestions
would have been to give iinmediate publicity to the Com-
mission's proceedings, and to have defeated the object
for which it was constituted by Government. I must
• frankly say, that these reasons do not appear to me by
any means conclusive. In truth, I cannot conceive any
reasons satisfactory for not allowing a person on trial to
be present at the trial from the commencement. The
Commission certainly had, on the very first day of its
asSemhtng, sufficient evidence to criminate his High-
ness, if it could be depended upon. They had before
them the whole of the papers contained in Appendix
A to their proceedings, which contain three statements,
by the Soobadar Sewgoolam Sing, and as many by
the Soobadar Gooljar Missur, to the general effect of
their e,yidence before the Commission. Surely, here
was evidence sufficient it' true to criminate his Highness.
If am -answered that these statements were not on
oath (of which point I am not sure, for though the word
"depose" is used in five statements out of the six, yet
there is no further intimation that the party was sworn),
and that it was requisite that they should first be so
taken, then I would say, the appointment of
the Commission to try the Raja was premature.
The depositions should have first been duly ,

The following is the powerful, argumentative, and
eloquent speech delivered by Mr. Charles Norris at
the India House, when the treatment of this unfortu-
nate Prince came under the consideration of the Pro-
prietors. It is of great length, but those interested in
the affairs of India will find many facts deserving their
attention :
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of offering to the
attention of the Court various reasons which eresent
themselves to me-why the motion of adjournment should
not be carried, and why a full debate on thecase of the de-
posed Raja should be allowed to take place. In doing so, I
mean in the first instance, to refer to the Report and
proceedings of the Commission which have already been
largely commented upon by the Proprietor who has
just sat down (Mr. Thompson). Upon this branch of
the subject, there are one or two points on which I am
desirous of offering a few observations. First with respect
to the pawn (betel nut given on occasion of taking
leave), which the two S.obadars declare that they re-
ceived from the hand of the Raja, after their treasonable
interviews with his Highness ; they both positively
swear that they did so receive it, and they sent
the pan which they stated they had so
received, to their officer, by whom it was sent
to General Lodwick. It seems to me- most remark-
able that the Commission in mentioning in their Report
what they considered proved with respect to the inter-
views of the Soobadars with. the Raia,alo not-include
,phis '.,presentation or-fian. .The Soobadars, as I
have said, swore to it, and they forwarded to their
officer the which they said they had re- '
ceived. There is therefore no possibility of mistake
here. The evidence of the Soobadars on this point
is either true or absolutely and wilfully false. The Com-
mission do not include the presentation of pan among
the circumstances proved, and I suppose there-
fore they considered that it was not established. The,
evidence against the Soobadars on this point is that of
Balajipunt Nattoo, who positively declares that the
Raja with. his own hand never gave a single packet
of pan to any one, while the Soobadars declare
they each so received it;-and that of General Lodwick who
in a letter, (Appendix
,E to the Commissioners' pro-
ceedings, pp. 152 and 153, vol. iii. Sattara Papers), also
declares that the Raja never presented a single packet
of pan to any one ; and further declares that the
packets sent to him by the officer to whom the Soobadars
had delivered them were three times the size I
of those given at the Court of the Raja, and
were "not loose (as was usual at the Court) but made up
with particular care." "At the time (he says) Lieut.
Stock gave them to me, I attached no great importance
to these circumstances, and from the perishable nature
of the leaf, I did not attempt to keep them. The leaves
were fine, and even sup,eior in appearance to those
above submitted, but the peCuliar circumstances attach-
ing to them consisted in the great size of the bundles
and the extreme nicety with which they were done up ;
and to the best of my recollection, this was contrived
without being tied with plantain leaf, as in those before
the Commission" (then produced by the General, as
having been received by him the'night before, Oct. 17,
1836, at the Palace). I must say I consider this evi-
dence as prodigiously strong against the averment of the
Soobadars, and I presume that the Commission so con-
sidered it, inasmuch as that averment is not stated by
the Commission as established ; yet how so ma-
tt vial a circumstance, regarding which there
could be no mistake, cculd be disbelieved without
utter destruction to the credit or the Soobadars,
I find it difficult to conceive. For my part I must say
that if I believed the rest of the story of the
Soobadars, I should really, I think, feel myself
constrained, difficult as it would be, to believe-
also this assertion so positively made by the Soobadars,
and confirmed by their transmission of the pan to
their officer. However, lam in no such difficult situa.
tion. I consider their evidence utterly unworthy of credi
on other grounds, and believe that their assertion re-
garding the pan is only one falsehood among
ninny. To place a parallel case before gentlemen who
have not been in India, let us suppose a person who
might not be expected to enjoy that honour, to declare
to us that he had had an interview with the Queen, and
further, that her Majesty had presented him with her
portrait ! We might surely be expected to doubt the
truth of his statement. But then let us suppose him, by
way of proving the truth of his assertion, to produce a
portrait of Madame Vestris ! Then, surely, the only
question for us to decide would be, whether such person
was a madman or an impudent impostor. Such is the
condition in which the Soobadars seem to me to stand, and
I consider them to have wilfully given fidse evidence.
There are other points also in which their evidence ap-
pears to me to be beyond measure weak and unworthy of
belief. First, with respect to the important point of the
spot where the treasonable interviews with the Raja
took place. We find the Soobadar Sewgodim Sing
saying (p. 92, vol. iii., Sattara Papers), 4! Going on a few

taro information as to the writer of that letter, as also on
other points connected with that affair.
" 12. In order, however, to dispel the illusion as to
Govind Row's release, which threatens to throw such
serious obstacles in the way of this important inquiry, I
beg most respectfully to propose that the Dewan be sent
immediately, under guard, to Ahmednuggur, and placed
in strict confinement there: that he only be attended by
his own servant, and that all other intercourse with him
be for the present prohibited.
" 13. It is to be hoped that this measure, if adopted,
may serve to show that the rumours of Govind Row's
return are without foundation ; and, this being felt, his
mother and his other friends may be induced to come
forward and disclose all they know, as the only means
of assisting him. But whatever may be the result, the
effect of this step should certainly be tried without less
of time."
Goyim' Roy was accordingly removed on the sth of
July, 1837, from Poona, to be transferred to the gaol at
Ahmednuggur. On the 7th .July the Resident reported
that he had been visited by the Baee and two persons
in her confidence, and that having read to them the
papers purporting to have been sent by Girjabaee, they
all agreed that the contents were true, though none of
them knew the writer. On the 21st July the Resident
sent up a statement of Sukaram Bullal, uncle of Govind
Row (one of the two friends of Girjabaee above alluded
declared that he had caused the petition
to be written by the hand of Mandoo Fugree, who Col.
Ovens stated was " a Brahmin living in their own
house," viz., that of Govind Row. Sukaram Bullal, how-
ever, in an additional paragraph to his statement, says
that he had come as a visitor, and that then he went off
immediately to a distance. Madhowjee Gungadhur, the
Race's other confidant, on the 25th July, made a declara-
tion to the same effect. On the 30th July, Sukaram
Bullal being pressed to produce the person who wrote
the petition, said that he was an Oomedwar (candidate
for employment), and that when he left the house he
said that he was going to Hindostan (the northern part
of India), and that it was on this account that he was
employed to write the petition for fear of the Maharaj.
On the 24th July. the Government, at the recommen-
dation of the Resident, that the Judge of Ahmednuggur,
be instructed to admit Sukaram Bullal to Govind Row,
who Balajipunt Nattoo, in his evidence before tho
Commission, says, " is not a very wise man, and will do
as he is bid," directs the Judge to admit accordingly any
agent whom the Resident may depute. And on the 4th
August, Colonel Ovans reports that Sukaram Bullal left
Sattara die day before to visit his nephew, Govind Row.
The Resident at the same time states that he has re-
ceived a petition from Girjabaee, requesting that her
son, Govind Row, may be released from the gaol of Ali-
mednuggur, and allowed to occupy quarters in the
town ; and he suggests that this step " should not
be taken until the arrival of Sukaram Bullul
at Ahmednuggur, and that he should be con-
sulted as to the proper time for granting this
" indulgence," and corresponding instructions were ac-
cordingly issued to the Judge of Ahmednuggur on the
16th August. Now, surely here was a great mistake, if
we allow that the Bombay Government could desire
true evidence only—if we allow that the Resident could
desire true evidence only—if we allow, and it would be
more than I think could reasonably be asked, that
Balajipunt Nattoo could desire true evidence only, there
can be no doubt about the situation of Sukaram Bullal.
He had declared that Govind Row had admitted the
existence of the Raja's intrigues;, therefore, when he is
sent to confer with Govind Row, what is this but to
strive to constrain Govind Row to eorfirm the statement
of Sukaram Bullal, whether it were true or
_lobe? fir it
cannot be supposed that that individual would consent to
Govind Row's- making any statement which conflicted
with his. And when we find as above that Govind Row's
liberation or continuance in a strict imprisonment was
made to depend upon Sukaram Bailers pleasure, the
case becomes worse still. Surely no value can be placed
on: evidence so got. nor on any procured in an inquiry
upon which such things are done ; for the effect of this
step could not b.• limited to Govind Row, it would
spread all over the countri, and there would
not be wanting agents without orders to take
care that it did so. I beg explicitly to state, that I have
no desire to cast any imputation upon Colonel Ovens,
beyond that o; error in judgment, in suggesting. the steps
above mentioned, which, it will have been seen were
fully approved by the Government ; but an error I think
it was, and one that could not but shake far better evi-
dence than has been produced against the Raja. The
next papers in this history, are the following letter from
the Acting Session Judge of Ahmednuggur, dated the
7.214r:1; rcACTING August,
aAsvl.
hEeB:3;h7:
the honour
dNhannoujcniguoga,rn
si.
ttiocodl
IdF AI NiGoGt4:olll:BeT3co7:pvt.
WATISEN, ESQ., CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
awlat,
—I
of your letter, dated the 28th ult., and to inform you
that, by desire of the Acting Resident at Sattara, Suka-
ram Bullal, uncle to Govind Row, the State prisoner now
in my charge, has for many days had free access to his
nephew ; and that I have also, at Sukaram's solicitation,
permitted his, Govind Row's (younger) brother, to ac-
company him in their visits. -Their object has been to
induce hint to disobse what he knew regarding the lite
proceedings of the Sattara Court, in which they have
been successful.

taken, and then the trial have commenced Ybe
fore the Commission, the Raja having the privilege of
atter.ding or s,,nding a substitute from the beginutdg—
fur no reason of this kind should have arisen to deprive
the person accused of so essential a right. The second
reason alleged, viz., the desire of keeping their proceed-
ings secret appears to me, I must say, in like manner,
quite inadequate to justify the departure from an obvious
principle of justice; nor am I at all clear that the secrecy
ifsugge.ted to the Raja would not have been maintained
—fir, I think, that he would have lost far more than he
gained by the publication of the fact that he was under
trial for treason to the British Government. I must
clearly express that I do not consider the Commissioners
to blame, as regards the Government, by whom their pro-
ceedings were entirely approved ; but it is clear that the
Raja's rights, such as they were at this crisis, could not
be justly affected other by the Commissioners or by the
Government; and I consider that they were most seriously
infringed by his not being allowed to be present per-
sonally or by substitute during the whole of the
proceedings of the Commission for trying him.
In principle he was deeply injured, as I conceive, by
this proceeding, and in fact so deeply, that I am inclined
to attribute to this circumstance alone, the condemns-
.

tion which the Commission passed upon him. Ills
Highness attended, when first permitted to do so. on the
13th day; a difference of opinion, which required a refer-
ence to Government, having prevented until then the
communication which it was resolved on the 9th day to
make to his Highnes. How momentous to him were
these twelve days. During this period the examination
of the whole of the witnesses against him, with the ex-

paces, we arrived at a narrow stairjase:w hick w; ascended.
The Dewan went first, Untajee second, I third, and
Gooljar fourth, and entered a good sized room, where
we saw the Raja sitting, and smoking a hooka with a

ception of lour questions put to the Soobadar Goober
Missur, and further examination of the worthless wretch
Untajee, had taken place, andall the discrepancies, inn-
herencies, and improbabilities of the evidence of the
principal witnesses had been disposed of, got over, well
or ill, and certainly without being subjected to such
scrutiny as would have been applied by a bold and
talented advocate of the Raja, British or Native. I
firmly believe that if his Highness bad had the advantage
of the attendance of such an advocate during this period,
the result would have been the detection of the collusion
which I believe existed, and the perjury of the Soobadars.
I now return to the few remarks which I have to make
on the evidence of the witnesses, On the lath day of
the proceedings Setegoolam Sing is cross-examined as
follows :

long snake, and a woman on his right—hand. When we
entered, the Raja smiled, and told us to be seated."
Gooljar Missur again (Sattara Papers, vol. iii., p. 97) says,
" We passed by some servants sleeping in a room, and
first turning to the right, and then to the left, we came
to the apartment of the Raja, who was sitting
on a cushion, smoking a hooka. He was not
in an upper room." (The witness is here spe-
cially asked whether, they ascended a staircase, and replies,
No.) Now, first, I would observe that the natives of
India have a great aptitude for remembering correctly
places, directions, and any peculiarities in their path ;
but, secondly, these men had been deputed by their offi-
cer to this visit under special orders to observe carefully
in order that they might report correctly, and I do there-
fore think it impossible that such a discrepancy as this
could have occurred in their story, had it been a true
one. The Commission, in a subsequent part of their
Report (S. P. iii., 112), most justly call this " a dis-
crepancy of importance," and say that it " at the time at-
tracted the attention of the Commission." I do not wonder
at that. I am only surprised that the utmost distrust
of the veracity of the Soobadars was not at once
engendered in the minds of the Commissioners, and
tf;at they did not instantly take measures for
kee..,)ing them strictly separate, and proceed to that
furtlor cross-examination of them which would, in all
probability, if they had wilfully sworn falsely, have pro-
duced a disclosure of still wider and more desperate dis-
crepancies Indeed ! Let us reflect, where was this
Commission sitting? At Sattara, within, probably, three
• quarters of a miie from the Raja's palace. Why might
not the one Soobadar have been required at once to
conduct one 0Y the members of the Commission to the
upper room, whe.-e the treason, lie said, wai committed,
and the other their, in like manner, have been required
to point out the low.Or room, which he. alleged to be the
scene of the treason ? Nothing, however, of this kind
was done ; on the contrary, facility to falsehood was
given. That important discrepancy, -vhich at the time
attracted the attention of the Commission, occurred on the
sth day of the Commission's sitting, and on the 9th
day we find that the Soobaklar Gooljar Missur, when
called before the Commission to be confronted with

" 2. I had an interview this morning with Govind Row,
at which, after explaining the circumstances under which,
he was, as he describes it, reluctantly led to take part in
them, he presented me with the enclosed, written, as he
assures me, with his own hand, and which I had previ-
ously given him the means of preparing.
•` 3. The interview the Raja and himself herein
described as having had with the Soobadars, took place,
ho says, in Shrwun Vud, between 27th August and
11 th September, 1836, but the exact date he does nut
remember.

" Q. Did Gooljar Missur keep a journal of the events
you have referred to?—.A.: I do not know whether he
did or not. He never told me that he did.—(The wit-
ness corrects himself, and states, Gooljar did deep a me-
morandum, and that he has himself seen it.)
Q. Did you after each interview compare notes with
Gooljar Soobadar, and arrange beforehand what was to
be written down ?—A. We met together after the first
interview with the Dewan, and wrote down what had oc-
curred. We frequently conversed together on the sub-
ject. lam not certain, but I think we wrote down what
had occurred at the interviews with the Raja."
On the same day Gooljar Missur is cross-examined
as follows :

" 4. Every attention has been paid to Goyim] Row's
comfort since he came here. He now seems willing to
communicate to me all he knows, and I have no doubt of
being able to obtain from him ♦NY INFORMATION THE Go-
VERMENT MAY DESIRE.

" 5. A copy of the 'enclosed confession will 'be for-
warded to the Resident, together with a note that has
been intercepted between the attendants of Sukaram and
Govind Row. but to which I see no reason to attach any
importance.—l have the honour, Eze.
" B. HUTT, Acting Session Judge.
" (INCLOSURE IN THE ABOVE.)
" Translation of a Yad (statement) from Govind Row
Wittul, as delivered to the Acting Session Judge of
Ahmednugxur ; dated 24th August, 1824.
" I make the following representation, that the cir-
cumstances (therein contained) may become known to
the (British) Government, that Untajee Wagh did bring
the two Soobadars of the Pultnn (Native Regiment) to
me. They were once taken to Alabaraj (the Raja of
Sattara), and the Maharaj taking them privately aside,
did speak to the Soobadars about (forming) friendship,
and other matters. These communications they (the
Soobadars) have also already revealed to the Sahib (the
Resident or the Commission). The reason for my not
at first representing those proceedings to (the British)
Government was, that it was my wish to preserve the
friendship between the Mabaraj's Government (Raja, of
Sattara) and the Company's Government inviolate, and
no obstruction should happen to it ; for this reason, I
did not make any intimation. When I may have a meet-
ing with the Resident, Ovans Sahib (Lieut.-Colonel
Ovans), then I will make a detailed statement of the
whole of these matters. lam (was) a servant, and it is
(was) necessary to act according to orders. It now rests
with the Company's Government in every way kindly
to save me (meaning to protect him from the Raja's
vengeance)."

mated that the General had fallen under the displeasure
of Government, and the concluding paragraph of Sir R.
Grant's minute of the 27th April, 1837 (S. P. i. 183),
wherein be states that he considers two only, out of
the three Commissioners, entitled to an acknowledgment
"that Government are in the highest degree satisfied
with the zeal, judgment, ability, and activity which they
evinced in the prosecution of the highly important and
equally delicate investigation entrusted to their charge,"
confirms that impression. Whatever were the causes, I
cannot but consider the removal of General Lodwick,
who was undoubtedly inclined to take a more
favourable view of the Raja's case than either of
the other Commissioners, at the moment when
further inquiries into the Raja's alleged treasons were
to be institutod, as unfortunate. Ad who was ap-
pointed to succeed him ? Colonel Ovens, who had
taken decided views of his Highness's guilt. I confess, I
cannot but think this astrong measure. And who was placed
in that officer's full confidence, with the view of assisting
him in unravelling the supposed intrigues ? Balaji-
punt Nattoo, whom for so many reasons I believe to have
been his Highness's implacable enemy ; who, by his own
evidence before the Commission, was shown to have
been the ready bearer of every slander against the
Raja ; the confidant of Appa Sahib, the intriguer
against his brother, and who betrayed, by that evidence,
au evident desire to injure the Raja. I am bound to
say, that I do not think that this step can be defended.
I am not surprised at what followed, and which appears
to me much to be regretted. A system of espionage—
or, more properly speaking, a political inquisition—was
established in Sattara. Liberal rewards and indemnities
for evidence touching the Raja's supposed intrigues, had
been offered on the receipt 0 Girjabaee's supposed peti-
tion. (Page 76, par. 9. Sattara Papers, vol. i.) This
system continued to be acted upon ; evidence was
pree.ured in various ways ; some gave it at once ; others
more unwillingly. Nor could any person, from what
occurred, fail to draw the inference, that to be a witness
against the Raja was to have a title to the favour of the
Bombay Government. Detentions were resorted to in
cases where parties refused to give the evidence which it
was supposed they could furnish, and after no very
long time, the Resident summoned and imprisoned
the Raja's subjects and servants in the Raja's
capital, without his Highness's intervention. But
I shall be asked, may not Government take
the necessary measures for procuring true evidence
touching the intrigues of traitors ? I would answer that
considerable risk must attend the measure when a Go-
vernment, so vastly superior as the British, has recourse
to these steps to procure information as to the supposed
treason of a Prince so weak and powerless in comparison
as the Raja of Sattara. People will form the opinion,
and in India more readily than in most places, that the
matter under inquiry is one in which Governnient is a
party, and that its interests are on the side of the con-
viction of the accused, and will expect to be benefited
or injured according to the evidence which they furnish.
But, in regard to Sattara at the time then in question, there
could be no mystery in the matter in the mind of any
native. That Balajipunt Natoo was the enemy of the
Raja, and the confidant of Appa Sahib could not be un-
known ; and if it were, Balajipunt would have himself
promulgated it, and all who had any hatred to gratify or
who wished to procure the favour of the British Govern-
ment, would enlist themselves as witnesses against the
Raja. I have said that this would be the case, however

" Q. Did you and Sew,goolam Sing compare notes to-
gether after each interview ?—A, We have conversed
with each other on the stikect, in order that we might
recollect whatever occurred, but we never met fur the pur-
pose of writing it down together."
On the 14th day the same person is further cross-exa-
mined us lollows

" Q. Describe how your journal was kept.—A. I wrote
it by order of the Adjutant. The account of the first
interview with the Dewan waz. written the morning after
it occurred. The second interview, and the meeting of
the Raja was also written on the following morning. I
wrote it when quite alone."
The discrepancy between the statements of the two
wwitnesses is obvious. The witness then continues—. Se-

goolum Sing was at his own house. I have frequently
conversed with Sewgoolain on the subject, but. I never
read it to him. I used to show it to the Adjutant, and
he told me to write in English, in order not to excite

Govind ltow, "repeats generally, and with great mi-
nuteness, what he had b4ore stated to the Commission,
and corrects, if his own accord, a discrepancy of import-
ance between his and Sewgool tin Sing's evidence, which at
the time attlactedthe attention of the Commission, by stat-
ing, as Seagoolam had, in the first instance, done, that the
meeting with the Raja occurred in a room up stairs !"
There is no mention of any precautions taken to prevent
these men from communicating with each other freely,
from the sth to the 9th day; and I find on the other
hand, that in page 3 of General Lodwick's letter to the
Court, dated 13th June, 1842, it is stated that the senior
Soobadar (Sewjoolarn Sing) " was allowed full liberty to
communicate and compare notes with the other native
tlficer, until the limited and imperfect cross-examina-
tion that was gone into did take place," and this cross-
examination, we find from the proceedings, did not
take place until the 16th day. Under these circum-
stances, I would ask; what is this voluntary correction of
his evidence by Gooljar Missur worth ? In my opinion,
nothing---indeed I am disposed to consider it an addi-
tional ground, for suspecting the collusion; it would have
looked better, I think, had he made no voluntary cor-

suspicion, and this gave me great trouble."
" Q. Why did you, on a former occasion, state that
you had merely noted down the dates. and not the par-
ticulars of the interview ?--A. I did not understand the
question.

I thought I was asked whether I had described

persons; in fact, I mistook the word tufted' fur

tusweer.' "

N'ow, did Sukaram Bullal, whom we have seen
vestedhis e% thidenuese‘,vimthakpeolhveimr
steolfmaaltretieGodeviponsclitil(lz c m
lie
did not. When ho went to Ahmednuggur, to constrain
Govind Row to give evidence similar to his, he went with
lies, important lies in his mouth and in his evidence ; at
least he himself so declares, for on the 12th May, 1838, he
admits that instead of his getting the petition written
in Govind Row's house, by Mandoo Fugree, or a candi-
date for employment, that petition was written by
Krisbnajee Sadasew Bhidey, a Brahmin of Punderpoor,
(a special seat of Brahmin bigotry) in the Gosavaspoora, at
the instigation of Lukshumun Punt Bhagwut ! and that
it was not put into the post at Poona, as he had stated
on the 17th July, but at Punderpoor ! On the 20th
September, 1837, Krishnajee Sadasew Bhidey stated to
Colonel Ovans that he wrote the petition at the desire
of Lukshumun Punt Bhagwut, and with the cognizance
of Wittul Punt Anna, and that when people were ap-
prehended, in consequence of the petition being sent to
Government, he was to receive 1,000 rupees, though
he 'insisted on having 1,200. Re does not mention the
name of Sukara:n Bullal in his statement. These papers
were transmitted by Colonel Ovans to Government
on the 16th of August, 1838. So much for this
affair. Such measures produced the fruits that
might have been expected, and information of vari-
ous plots, including a multitude of small States, was
received, but of these none were considered apparently
worth pursuing; except alleged intrigues with A ppa Sahib,
ex-Raja of Nagpore, then a prisoner at Joudpoor, and
with the Viceroy of Goa. The discoveries were reported
from time to time to the Government of India, from
which a letter of rather a discouraging tendency
was received, bearing date the 7th Aug., 1837. After
alluding to the Raja's desire to employ Dr. Milne in pre-
paring a statement of his case to be laid before Govern-
ment, which the Governor-General was inclined to sanc-
tion, the letter proceeds thus :

Now, turning back to the tenth day (S. P. iii., p. 116),
we find Gooljar Missur cross-examined as follows
" Q. How are you able so particularly to recollect the
dates of the several interviews deposed to in your examina-
tion ?—A. I impressed it on my mlinory, knowing that it
was a business in which the Government were con-

cerned. I wrote down the dates of the interviews, buino
particulars. My memorandum is at my house ; it is
written in Hindostanee."

It is evident that the witness could not have thought
that he was asked whether he had described " tusweer "
(persons), or whether he had written "tufseel" (particu-
lars). He was asked simply how he came to remember
dates. He answers the question very intelligibly, and,
if he made a mistake in saying that he did not write
particulars, Wien he meant to say that he did not de-
scribe persons, the mistake is his own, and is rather sur-
prising in a person speaking a language with which he is
familiar. However, the journal will be found not to be

rection at all. Before quitting this topic, I would state
that Govind How, who subsequently confessed, under
cireuntstauces to which I will hereafter allude, that he

was a party to the treasonable interview with the Raja
(if it did occur), states, that it took place in the "choh"
14f the palace. In S. P. vol. iii., p. 28, there is a plan of
the palace by Colonel Ovans, from which it will be seen
that Govindßow's account of the scene of this mysterious

deficient in descriptions of persons. The evidence of
the SJobadar, in regard to the two interviews at the

Dewan's house, is stated by the Commission to be cur-
rosorated almost in a providential manner by Cosia
Alaloo, the Dewan's slipper-bearer. I most say that I
think this person requires himself to be corroborated by
Providence, which has not yet interposed in his favour.
His evidence before the Commission is nothing to boast
of, but, such as it is, he has subsequently entirely de-
stroyed it. In his evidence before the Commission (S. P.
iii., 105), he says, after relating the second interview at
the Dewan's house—

treason, differs from both of those given by the So-obadar,..
I must seize this opportunity of observing, that though
I take the liberty of commenting freely on the Report and
proceedingt, of the Commission, nothing in the world is
further from my intention than the design of imputing
to the meinGers of the Commission, all of whom I believe

to be men of honour, and one of whom is my most
valued friend, of I cannot just now mention how
many years' standing, anything but honest and
well-intentioned error, if error shall be thought to
have hen committed. It is also far from my
intention to separate the three Commissioners. It his

" When I kft the house (of the Dewan) to return home,
THEY WERE STILL IN THE SLEEPING-ROOM, and MY

HOUSE IS A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE FROM THE DE-

WAN'S 101 SE."

given me muchconcerniojeetliZdifferences brought
so prominently forward; consider them to be such
only as might arise fromastlti
they
eleassociation of three men of
hoaohr, circumstanced They commenced
the inquiry, all of them believingw:reh.lat there was ground
for suspicion that the Raja was t • ; as the inquiry
advanced, two of them found theirg uoitplonstrengthened,
the third found his weakened. It
Iprobableh that they
did not succeed in truly representings other the
~,tato or &lir minds—differences becameo ge:•l7-ater without
b,:ing comprehended, and the difficulty of accounting f u
them consLantly augmented. With these few words .
shall take Jeuxe of this :subject. In commenting upon the
Rrport wid proce2dings of the Clunmision, I must view
it ~i, eoul•se a„, the production of the three gentlemen
wh,);e sig4uture4 it bears, and it is a satisfaction to me

And in a deposition made by him on the 22d of Sep-
t, 1837, anti transmitted to Government by Col.
Ovans on the 24th of November, 1837, we find him
stating, in direct contradiction to the foregoing--
" Afterwards (after he had, as he said, admitted Abba
Mhareek at the second interview at the newan's)
Rao Sahib went into the Kira (liaja's palace); after him,
having called the Gharia (Bratmn Untajce) and the
Soobadars, I took then, into the !VG) a."
And then follows a detail orwhat he saw at the palace.
He had doubtless disnovered, subsequently to the sitting
of the Com aission, that he had limited his evidence very
; and it is fur from improbable that, by this
time, he has remembered that he was a witness to the
whole of what passed between the Raja and the Soobadars

carefully the Government and the Resident might guard
against procuring any but true evidence. But even this
does not always appear to have been done. On the 24th
of June, 1837, Colonel °vans recommended the removal
of Govind Row to Ahmednuggur in the following terms:
" 11. As it was no doubt under the impression that
the release of her son could only be accomplished by
making the disclosures alluded to, that the letter (Girja-
haee's petition), if it be genuine, was written, it follows
that it his release by any other means appears possible,
this statement will not be acknowledged. Considering,
therefore, that the impression of Govind Row's release is so
generally and firmly credited here, I have refrained at
present from having any direct communication with his
mother ; but I am doing all in my power quietly to ob-

, .
Par. 6. " Iri conclusion I am directed to state the
anxious wish of his Lordship in Council to learn at the
earliest moment possible, what prospect there may be,
under present circumstances, of throwing new light upon
this subject by further investigation ; and, if the Go-
vernment should be in danger of becoming involved in an
indefinite and inconclusive inquiry, in what mode it may
best be advisable to terminate the proceedings, rather
than continue them under the inconvenience which the.
lapse of time, political intrigue, and the uncertainty of
Indian evidence, combined with the obscurity of the case,
in regard to its extent and importance, must give to
them."

Notwithstsn ling this caution, the Bombay Govern-

. ,
•
THE SUN is Published EVERY MORNING at FIVE O'CLOCK, in Time for the EARLY TRAINS and TOWN DELIVERY; gli.,sEcro.ND EDITION (Evening Sun) is Published in Time for the AFTERNOON TRAINS
and a THIRD EDITION at SEVEN O'CLOCK, for POST, containing PARLIAMENTARY and all other NEWS in LONDON up to that _Hour.
ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED in ALL THE THREE PAPERS, Morning, Noon, and Night thereby insuring a TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION, at ONE CHARGE.