THE SATTARA QUESTION.

OUR remarks upon the Sattara question have been honoured with a good deal of criticism by writers who differ from us in opinion, and who quarrel with our opinion because it is at variance with their own. One correspondent intimates a suspicion of the sincerity of our conclusion because it coincides with that formed deliberately by the general Government of India, the Government of Bombay (under two successive governors), the Governor of Agra, the Board of Control, the Court of Directors, and even the Court of Proprietors, where only ten persons voted the rajah innocent, one of whom purchased his qualification for the express purpose of so voting. It would be far more excusable to question the motives of those who pay no deference whatever to such a body of authorities.

Then we are challenged to produce proof of our assertion that the rajah had an opportunity of demonstrating his innocence and of confronting his accusers, and that he declined both. It is admitted that this opportunity was afforded him as to one of the charges, the principal; and it is clear that, although he was not formally invited to defend himself, he was never denied the opportunity of defence. It cannot be maintained, that if the rajah had claimed, as an innocent man, to be heard in his defence, to be confronted with his accusers, his claim would have been refused. His backwardness in this respect is remarkable.

Again, the irreverent manner in which we spoke of the Court of Proprietors is complained of, as if we had impeached the private characters of its members. All we said was, that the Court never was a good deliberative body; that any person who can command a few pounds may elect himself a member for any particular purpose, and that a resolution of the Court is a mere brutum fulmen. All these truths are quite reconcilable with the personal respectability and private virtue of any member of the Court.

We regret to find that our report of the speech of General Robertson has caused dissatisfaction to that gentleman, towards whom it was not our intention to evince any sentiment but that of respect. Our reporter, upon whose integrity and honour, as well as skill, we have full reliance, found great difficulty in following General Robertson-a difficulty which the ral recognizes; but having afterwards the means of supplying the deficiencies of his notes from those of other reporters, he prepared what he considered, and still considers, a report more than substantially correct. General R., however, disputed its accuracy, and (at the request of our reporter) wrote his own speech, not from notes, for he had prepared none, but from recollection, after the debate, which differed essentially from the other. Upon this, as upon other occasions, anxious only to secure the fidelity and impartiality of our reports, we objected, under such circumstances, to our report being withdrawn, and that so written by General Robertson substituted; but, in a spirit of courtesy, we inserted likewise his own summary of the topics of his speech.

* Misprinted deliberate, which has not escaped criticism.

THE BENCH, THE BAR, AND THE PRESS OF BOMBAY.

THERE would seem to be something in the social atmosphere of the island of Bombay which is peculiarly adapted to nourish and develop the elements of disunion amongst the higher classes of its community, and the soil wherein these seeds of irritation most readily germinate is that which of all others ought to be the least congenial to them, the Supreme Court of Justice. In the course of the last fifteen years, we have seen that Court, at different times, and under successive judges, the scene of contention with the local Government, with its own bar, with the press, and, in a great measure, with the whole European community; exhibiting, in short, an example of discord without parallel in the history of our colonial empire. On more than one occasion we have had to perform the painful and invidious office of investi gating these differences, and have been compelled to ascribe them, in great part, to a deficiency of temper and discretion in the judges themselves. Recently, a new collision has taken place between the Court, on one part, and the press, a portion of the bar and of the mercantile community at that presidency, on the other, arising out of a matter brought before the Court in its ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whilst the dispute was strictly confined to the legal merits of the case, we did not think it of sufficient importance to sacrifice a large portion of space in order to bring it fully before our readers; but it has gradually embraced so large a field, and involved so many points of moment, that we cannot be content with the meagre notice which has hitherto been bestowed upon a subject that almost engrossed the attention of all the Indian journals for some time. The character of individuals, as well as of the bench, being deeply implicated, there is no alternative between entire silence, and the bringing all the topics forward as fully as possible, in order that our statement of the case should lead to no misapprehension, and that readers may form correct conclusions upon a question which will not probably be permitted to sleep in its present state.

Mr. David Forbes, surgeon in the first regiment of Light Cavalry, on the Bombay establishment, died in camp, at the village of Kunda, in Affghanistan, on the 21st November, 1839, whilst the regiment was on its route from the Bolan Pass to Shikarpore. He made a will, dated" Kandahar, Sunday, June 16th, 1839," whereby he bequeathed the following sums of money, in the hands of his agents, Messrs. Forbes and Co., Bombay, viz.-to his father, Mr. David Forbes, of Newbigging, near Dundee, Rs. 30,000, and to each of his two sisters, Rs. 10,000, and should any balance of funds belonging to his estate remain in the hands of Messrs. Forbes and Co., after paying these sums, he bequeathed it to his father. He likewise appointed Mr. Farquharson, of the house of Forbes and Co., his "agent." This instrument was not attested, but was valid under the late Will Act, 1 Vict. c. 26, which exempts from its provisions the wills of soldiers in actual military service.

On the 9th January, 1840, Messrs. Forbes and Co., of Bombay, announced to Mr. Forbes, of Dundee, the decease of his son, annexing a copy of the will, as furnished by Captain Liddell, of the First Light Cavalry (who, they stated, had not forwarded the original), acquainting him that Mr. Farquharson, who was thereby appointed “executor," could not act, as he was about to return to Europe; and they suggested that Mr. Forbes should obtain letters of administration of his son's estate from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, transmitting a duplicate or exemplification to them, or any other parties at Bombay he might prefer, accompanied by a power of attorney, which should

contain an authority to administer the estate, with will annexed, "to supersede the administration of the ecclesiastical registrar of the Supreme Court there, should he administer before the power arrived," or to obtain from the registrar payment of the balance of the assets.

On the 17th June, 1840, letters of administration (with copy of the will annexed) of the personal estate and effects of the deceased Mr. David Forbes were granted by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury to Mr. Forbes, the father. The letters set forth that whereas it had been alleged that the deceased having, at the time of his death, property in divers jurisdictions sufficient to found the jurisdiction of the Court, and having executed a will, whereby he appointed Mr. Farquharson sole executor, who had renounced the probate; that the deceased had died a bachelor, and did not in his will name any residuary legatee; that his father had, on the 16th March, received from Messrs. Forbes and Co., of Bombay, a copy of the will, the original of which was in the hands of Captain Liddell, of the first regiment of Bombay Light Cavalry, or on record in her Majesty's Supreme Court at Bombay; that it was necessary for the due administration of the estate and effects of the deceased that an administration (with the copy of the will annexed) should be had without waiting for the original-the Court decreed letters of administration (with the copy of the will annexed), limited till the original will or a more authentic copy be brought into the registry of the Court, to David Forbes (the father of the deceased), on giving the usual security. The property in the province was sworn under £20.

By a power of attorney, dated at Dundee, 22nd June, 1840, Mr. David Forbes, the father and administrator, appointed Messrs. Charles Forbes, John Bowman, and John Grant Malcolmson, co-partners in the firm of Forbes and Co., of Bombay, his attornies in the matter of the estate of his son, with authority to act therein on his behalf, as his son's executor and administrator. The original will, sent by Captain Liddell to Messrs. Forbes and Co. in September, 1840, was deposited in the registry of the Supreme Court of Bombay on the 14th October, and a petition was presented to that Court, a copy of which, as it was the fons et origo mali, is subjoined, with the affidavit :—

To the Hon. Sir John Wither Awdry, Knight, Chief Justice, and the Hon. Sir Henry Roper, Knight, Puisne Justice, of the said Court.

The humble petition of Charles Forbes, of Bombay, European merchant and inhabitant,

Showeth, That the said David Forbes died in camp, at Kunda, in Affghanistan, whilst with his regiment, en route from the Bholan Pass toward Shikarpoor, on or about the 21st day of November, 1839, having first made and published his last will and testament in writing, bearing date the 16th day of June, 1839, whereby he appointed Andrew Farquharson, of the house of Forbes and Company, his agent, which will is now deposited with the ecclesiastical registrar of this honourable Court, as appears by his certificate hereunto annexed.

That by the exemplification of the letters of administration extracted from the records of the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, under the seal of the said Court, hereunto annexed, it appears that David Forbes, the father of the said deceased, is appointed administrator, with a copy of the said will annexed, of all and singular the goods, chattels, and credits of the said deceased, limited until the original will, or an authentic copy thereof, shall be brought into and left in the registry of the said Court.

That by the power of attorney, hereunto annexed, your petitioner, John Bowman, and John Grant Malcolmson, are jointly and severally appointed the attornies of the said David Forbes, to take all necessary steps for the collecting in and receiving the

monies, debts, and demands, due to the estate of the said David Forbes, deceased, in Bombay.

That the said deceased died possessed of the sum of Rs. 29,000, standing to his eredit in the books of Messrs. Forbes and Co., merchants, and of the sum of Rs. 30,000 invested in Company's paper.

That the said John Bowman and John Grant Malcolmson are not anxious to take upon themselves the burthen of administering to the said estate.

Your petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that the usual citations may issue to the next of kin and creditors of the said deceased, to show cause why letters of administration to the said estate and effects of the said David Forbes should not be granted to your petitioner; for the due administration whereof, your petitioner is ready and willing to give his security, as this hon. Court shall require.

Charles Forbes, of Bombay, European merchant and inhabitant, the petitioner abovenamed, maketh oath and saith, that the several matters and things stated in the petition of this deponent, hereunto annexed, are true and correct, to the best of his knowledge and belief.-CHARLES Forbes.

Sworn at Bombay aforesaid, this 15th day of October, 1840.

This petition was presented on the 18th October, when Sir Henry Roper, the puisne judge, sitting in chambers, directed the application to stand over. On the 22nd, it was again brought before the same judge in chambers, who read aloud, in the presence of several persons then attending in chambers, the following observations, which he had previously written on the petition :—

The slovenly manner, in which the petition and the petitioner's affidavit have been framed, would alone be sufficient to preclude me from granting this application. The petition states that the deceased, by his will, appointed Mr. Farquharson, of the house of Forbes and Co., his agent. Query.—Was it intended to have written, “Andrew Farquharson, of the house of Forbes and Co., his agent, to be his executor?" However this may be, with reprehensible carelessness on the part of Mr. Forbes and his proctor, Mr. Forbes swears in general terms to the truth of the facts mentioned in the slovenly petition. Independently of this, a general affidavit of this kind will not be considered by me as sufficient, without strong authority to prove it so. In general, where probate or administration is duly granted by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, this Court will grant administration or probate to the same person who has obtained the prerogative grant, or to his attorney, if it be duly applied for. In this case, however, I cannot but suspect the grant of administration, with the copy of the will annexed, has been improperly obtained, and by means of some malpractice. In the first place, I am not at present aware of any instance in which administration, with a copy of a will annexed, has been granted, unless where the original will has been lost, and a copy has thus become admissible as evidence of the original, or where the original will has first been duly proved in one Court, and such original being deposited in that Court, a copy duly authenticated has been transmitted, in order to probate, or administration with such copy annexed, being obtained elsewhere. In this instance, according to the tenor of the will, it would seem that all the property of the testator was in this country; therefore, the will, which was at Bombay, or in India, should have been proved here in the first instance, and then, if a prerogative probate became necessary, an authenticated copy might have been transmitted to England. As already observed, it would seem that the testator had all his property in India, and yet the prerogative grant of administration recites, in the usual form, it had been alleged that the deceased in his lifetime and at his death had goods, chattels, or credits, in divers dioceses or jurisdictions, sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Prerogative Court. If all the assets of the son were in India at his death, I cannot comprehend how the proctor could reconcile such an allegation, though almost mere form, with his conscience, unless, indeed, Forbes and Co., of Bombay, had remitted to London the assets of the deceased, which they had in their hands at

his death, without having proved the will or taken out administration, and unless the proctor, in ignorance or false reasoning, had construed such circumstances into sufficient ground for the jurisdiction of the Prerogative Court. In any further application on behalf of Mr. Forbes regarding this will, I shall expect that these matters be cleared up, and that it be expressly shown whether the assets left in the hands of Forbes and Co. have been at any and what time transmitted to England; whether any authority was given by Forbes and Co., to their correspondents in England, to pay to the legatees, or any of them, any and what sum or sums of money on account of the administration of the deceased's estate.

Another badge of ignorance or malpractice in this matter is, that the grant of administration from the Prerogative Court states it is alleged the deceased did not, in his said will, name any residuary legatee; whereas, according to the annexed copy of the will, he expressly names his father as residuary legatee, and such residue would be considerable, it being pretty clear that the Rs. 30,000, stated in the petition to be invested in Company's paper, was considered by the testator as in the hands of Forbes and Co., they no doubt having the notes or paper in their custody. Looking at all these circumstances, I strongly suspect the prerogative grant of adminis tration was obtained unduly and by malpractice, through the inattention or connivance of the officers of the Court, and without the facts having been brought to the notice of the Court. This application is for administration generally, not for administration with the will annexed, and is therefore altogether erroneous. As the original will is here, it must be proved. We can have nothing to do with the copy, or with the copy of the copy obtained from the Prerogative Court. The executor renouncing, or being out of the jurisdiction, the registrar would be entitled to administer; but the father of the deceased is next of kin and residuary legatee, and thus, were he present, would be entitled preferably to the registrar; though not present, he has sent a power of attorney, authorizing the petitioner, not indeed to take out administration with the will annexed, but to act on his hehalf in collecting and administering the estate. The statute, 55 Geo. III. cap. 84, gives a discretionary power to the Court, the words being, "or any other sufficient authority to be shown to the satisfaction of the said Court." Therefore, I think, in this instance, if an application be duly made, administration with the will annexed may be granted to Mr. Charles Forbes: whether the Court would allow him to take commission, must depend upon circumstances, viz. the conduct of Forbes and Co. in this matter. The decision on that point will not rest with me, but must be determined by the full Court.

This application was, accordingly, refused. On the 3rd November, Mr. Crawford, counsel for Mr. Charles Forbes, moved the Court, that the usual citations might be issued to the next of kin and creditors of the deceased, to show cause why letters of administration, "with the will annexed," to the estate should not be granted to the petitioner; whereupon the judge ordered that the application should again stand over, for affidavit, that the deceased was a surgeon in the service of the East-India Company, and on actual military service, at the time of his decease. On the 9th, Mr. Crawford, fortified with the required proofs, again moved the Court, and the motion being granted, on the 21st December, it was ordered that Mr. Forbes be sworn as administrator, and that thereafter letters of administration, with will annexed, should be granted to him.

Here ends the first stage of the case. But the original petition still remaining of record in the Supreme Court, containing on the face of it an expression of suspicion, entertained by the judge, injurious to those to whom such" malpractice " was attributed, and which suspicion, it was supposed, must have been removed, from the grant of the prayer on the second application, with the concurrence of both the judges of the Court; Messrs. Forbes and Co.,