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

Baja, for Mr. Forbes, in his dissent of the Bth April, 1840,
(S. P. i., 361) says—" The universal impression at the
India House, confirmed by his own known opinions on
the subject, was, that the new Governer was empowered
not only to suppress all further inquiry, but to consign
the entire question to complete oblivion. One vote, at
least, in the Court of Directors was cordially given to

the candidate for the vacant Government, one voice was
raised in congratulation, that among many grounds of
qualification Sir James Carnac felt for the wrongs of the
Raja, and was resolved to stay his protracted persecu-
tion." And Mr. Lyall, the chairman, said in the Court
of Proprietors on the 14th July, 1841 :—" He (Sir
James Carnac) left this country determined, if possible,
to save the Raja, but, when he got out to India,
and became better informed of his conduct and his pro-
ceedings, he changed his opinion." Since then his opi-
nion was changed ; it follows that it was previously fa-
vourable. No information, however, as to the guilt of
the Raja was acquired, which was not in England before
Sir James Carnac left this country. Matters remained
in the state to which we have traced them until Sir James
Carnac's arrival in Bombay, nothing having taken place
in consequence of the Governor-General having deter-
mined on first making another reference to the Court.
The new Governor at first intended to address a letter
of remonstrance, or rebuke to the Raja, and forgive him,
and surely every one must deeply regret that this was not
done. In truth, the Rajah scarcely deserved rebuke, and
least of all, from the Bombay Government ; but this much
respect to authority and the British name seemed indis-
pensable ; but when the letter which he intended to send
was submitted to the Governor-General, his Lordship,
in his letter of the 11th July, 1839, stated that he
thought it too harsh, and especially as the ob-
ject was to preserve harmony ; and as, besides,
if the Raja replied in a tone of offensive defiance,
and refused to let the subject drop, the strong mea-
sure of his dethronement, if necessary, must be sanctioned.
The Governor-General suggested that as amity was to
depend upon the reception of this letter great care
should be taken in the preparation of it. One would
have thought that, considering the great importance of
having this letter suitably worded, it would hardly have
been a superfluous precaution to have sent the Governor-
General a revised draft for approval. Not only was this
not done, but the letter itself was swamped, at least so

far as we see ; and, instead of its transmission, a measure
was adopted which undoubtedly was exactly that which
the enemies of peace and of the unfortunate Raja would
hove desired: The Governor, after proceeding to
Sattara, at an interview with the Raja placed
before his Highness for his signature a memorandum,
admitting his guilt on all the charges, far more
offensive than the letter which the Governor-General
thought too harsh, and beyond measure more degrading,
as requiring to be signed by himself. It was presented,
too, at an unfortunate moment, when the Raja became
first aware that he whom he thought his friend, and
from whom he expected to have the hearing which he
had been so long denied, was about to treat him as others
had done. And why was it, unless free and full pardon
was granted, that the hearing was not given ? Objec-
tions as to the Raja's sovereignty, and as to the servants
of Government composing a tribunal for the trial of a
case in which the Government was in fact a party,
occurred, and further, " that such a Commission
as has been recommended would appear quite in-
expedient, unless we were quite certain of the result."
The Raja in vain protested his innocence of all dis-
loyalty, and solicited to be heard, and again and again
offered to abandon his territories for a time, until inves-
tigation was made, and the confidence of the British
Government was restored. His conduct, I should say,
showed not only that he was conscious of innocence—it
showed that he felt it impossible that on fair inquiry any
one could be found to condemn him. He was answered
by the Governor that " had he (the Governor) come to
Sattara to inflict the penalty incurred by these violations
of the treaty of 1819, further inquiry might perhaps have
been considered expedient, but as he had come to over-
look and not to punish, this was quite unnecessary."
Compare this with what followed, and is it not wretched
sophistry ? What right had the Governor, because
what he thought was an advantage was declined by the
Raja, to make the Raja's situation worse than it would
have been, as he admits, had he come to punish and not
to pardon ? Repeated efforts were made to induce the
Raja to sign the memorandum, but in vain ; and he was
therefore, on sth September, 1839, dethroned, in
consequence, it was stated in the proclamation, of its hav-
ing been conclusively established to the conviction of
the British Government, that "he had for a series of
years held clandestine communications, contrary to the
stipulations contained in the fifth article of the treaty,"
that " he had cherished ambitious designs, hostile to the
British Government ;" that he had advanced claims
and pretensions incompatible with the letter and spirit of
the treaty ;" and that "he had conducted himself in a manner
subversive of the alliance formed between the two States."
It has been said that his Highness objected to additional
articles to the existing treaty, which were, however,
merely to the effect of those then in force. He cer-
tainly might very properly have done so; for how could
he tell that he might not thus be called upon to sign a
new engagement every year to abide by the treaty, and
thus furnish at least a disagreable inference against him-
self; but, if the Government had desired to show
that his objection did not arise from his being obliged to
admit his guilt; and, if they were willing to waive so
wanton an insult to his Highness, they might have ex-
punged all that was offensive in that way. As to the
preamble, it was evidently most offensive, and "was cer-
tainly not drawn up in a spirit of friendship, but in that
of conquest. Had it, been otherwise, the Baja's sup-
posed designs, which it must not be forgotten had
never been proved, might have been alluded to
as " unfortunate 'disagreements," or by seine similar term.
Nor do I see that it was at all necessary to alluded to the
conviction of the British Government that his Highness
had been guilty of intriguing ; and considering how that
conviction was produced, I cannot but think that the
British Government would have been more a gainer than
the Raja by all omission of it. Remarks have been
made that without some special provision in the treaty,
the persons who had given information against the Raja,
and whom we were bound to defend, could not have
been protected. Those who say so cannot surely bear
in mind sufficiently the control over the Raja which the
British Government had the means of exercising, through
the advice article and our superior power ; for although
I think Colonel Ovens' construction of that article is too
comprehensive, still there can be no doubt that it war-
ranted every interference that could be thought in the
least reasonable on the part of the British Government.
It is merely requisite further to mention, that, when de-
throned, he received a pledge that his private property
should be respected, provided he submitted peaceably ;
that he did so submit, and that in breach of that pledge,
a quantity of his property was made over to his brother,
the present Raja, because "the distinction" between
the private and public property of a Sovereign was " one
not ordinarily recognised in native States," although
it was recognised in his State, and with the
knowledge, and by the advice of the British Government.
The same reluctance is observable in this third act of the
drama, to subject the evidence procured against the
Raja to fair scrutiny, as in the two former ones. Is
there any wonder at this ? We have seen what that evi-
dence is. Look at it in the Sepoy-tampering case, filled
with !lied discrepancies on, the part of the only two or
three witnesses wbo depose to anything of consequence.
Look at it in the Joiidpoor case, .full of nothing at all,
and yet that nothing told us by interested witnesses.
.And look at it in the Goa case, a mass of absurdities sup-
ported by witnesses so unworthy of belief, and altogether
so incredible' and so little aft', cting the Raja, that the
Right Hon. the late President of the Board of Control
will not submit to have it said that he believes it.
And upon these charges the Raja has sot been heard in
his defence, for it is impossible to call a hearing the
process by which he was declared guilty of the first
charge. The Court of Directors, in glaring inconsistency
with the letter of the Secret Committee of 22d January,
1839, entirely approved all the proceedings of the Bom-
bay Government of September, 1839, and this without
expressing a cause for their change of sentiment. Such
cause, indeed, it would have been difficult to produce,
because every feet and information relative to the Raja
was in the East India House previously to the 22d of
January, 1839, when the Committee stated it to be their
opinion " that it would be not only a waste of time, but
seriously detrimental to the character of our Govern-
ment, to carry on any further inquiry in the
matter." We have heard it often observed
that the Government must be the judge in
political questions like the present. one. All
will agree in this ; but surely it will not be contended
that it is necessary for the Government to decide on one-
sided evidence only, as has been done in this instance.
It has been said that the Raja's conduct evinced obliquity
of intellect. Let us shortly review the proceedings of
the authorities, and see what they display. The Govern-
ment sanctioning a conviction, when the person tried
was not allowed to be present at the trial, until all the
evidence against him had been taken. Sir Robert
Grant and the Bombay Government expressing their
full persuasion of the Raja's guilt, while expecting to
try him, and the Governor recording minutes to that
effect, amounting to nearly 600 paragraphs, and flattering
himself that he would be likely to conduct such trial im-
partially ; the refusing to the Raja copies of the
evidence against him, on the ground of secrecy, as if any
evidence given on a trial could be secret from the person
accused ; the procuring of evidence by deputing per-
sons who had given evidence against the Raja, to their
friends in gaol, expected to give similar evidence ; the
evading, on every occasion, the grant of a fair hearing
to the Raja, and'then at last, dethroning him, because
he would not admit his guilt ! Where shall we find
obliquity of intellect, if we are not to look for it here ?
Then, the Governor-General, first discouraging further
inquiry ; next, in imitation of the Bombay Government,
recording his full persuasion of the Raja's guilt,
while expecting to try him, and then approving
the Raja's extraordinary dethronement ? And,
finally the Court of Directors, first strongly disapproving
further inquiry, and then, without any new fact or in-
formation against the Raja, sanctioning that remarkable

• .
step, by which a Prince, who had borne for sixteen
years the highest character, and was untried, and, with
scarcely less certainty, innocent, was hurled from
his throne, because he would not make him-
self unworthy of it, by falsely signing himself
a traitor—where shall we find obliquity of intellect
if we are not to look for it here ? The Raja's principal
misfortune, at this moment, is the number and magni-
tude of the faults of his adversaries. Against this array
of faults, what do we find the conduct of the Baja ? It
is simple and consistent throughout, and totally incom
patible with guilt. When accused, and throughout the
inquisition to which he was subjected, he summoned and
sent to the ' Residency persons accused with himself,
and witnesses as required by the Resident. Far from
shrinking from inquiry, he perpetually courted it, and
repeatedly offered to surrender his territories temporarily
into the hands of the British, provided 'only a full
and fair inquiry into his alleged offences were
made ; and, finally, when unable to obtain a hearing,
this man, who had not shown the least desire to screen
those supposed to be joint offenders with himself ; who