o 
 o 
 
 Oi 
 1 i 
 3\ 
 8! 
 51 
 
 hort Narrative of the 
 Circumstances Attending the 
 Late Trials in the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature at Madras 

 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 A SHORT 
 
 NARRATIVE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ATTENDING 
 
 IN 
 
 Cfce Supreme Court of Junicatute v 
 
 AT 
 
 MADRAS, 
 
 FOR 
 
 FORGERY, PERJURY, AND CONSPIRACY TO CHEAT; 
 
 WITH 
 
 SOME COMMENTS ON THE UNJUSTIFIABLE ALLUSIONS 
 
 MADE TO THEM IN THE RECENT OFFICIAL 
 
 PAMPHLET IN DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 MADRAS GOTERNMENT. 
 
 LOJVDOJVt 
 
 PRINTED JOR J. RIDGWAY, 170, PICCADILLY, 
 OPPOSITE BOND-STREET. 
 
 1810. 3 
 
 W. Flint, Printer, Old Bailef .. f
 
 . , 
 
 > > , i > > j J ) i > > > > i .\ *!* 
 
 ' ' > /,,',>' > > A *% r 
 
 / J , ; if, >,* \>> > ,-> > >>> >>>> O'-*- i 
 
 ; ?!'! '"''' ']$ 1C 
 
 titj 
 CONTENTS OF THE APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 1. Memorandum of the claims returned by Rcddj 
 Row before the commissioners. 
 
 No. 2, 3, 4j 5, and 6. Correspondence between the com- 
 mi t tee of real creditors, and (he government of Madras. 
 
 \ No. 7. Application from the agent of Paupiah to the 
 ^, commissioners for copies of the proceedings on the claim 
 =E of Reddy Row. 
 
 ca 
 
 No, 8. Answer of the commissioners refusing the copies. 
 
 No. 9. Names of the grand jury who found the bill 
 against Reddy Row. 
 
 o 
 
 No. 10. Letter from Hussam Ul Mull; to the chief jus- 
 
 tice, relative to the trial of Reddy Row. 
 
 No 11. Letter from the agents for the creditors to the 
 CD Printer of the Madras Gazette, requesting him to obtain 
 3 permission to print the trials of Reddy Row, and Annunda 
 Row. 
 
 No. 12. Letter from the Chief Secretary of gorernment 
 to the printer of the Madras Gazette, refusing permission 
 to print the trials. 
 
 No. 13. Letter from tlie Agents for the Creditors to the 
 commissioners for the Nabob's debts in London, respect, 
 ing the forgeries of Reddy Row ; the interference of go- 
 vernment and the inti-rcst of the law officers in the trials. 
 
 No. 14. Letter from the agents to the creditors in Erig. 
 land, respecting the trial of Mr. 13 all t-y, containing the names 
 of the special jury.
 
 No. 15. Answer frcn the Ccmmlsdoners granting the re. 
 quest of the Committee of real Crtd;torc. 
 
 No. 16. Sabstance of a Letter from the Commissioners to 
 the Secretary of Government. 
 
 No. 17. Letter from the Chief Secretary to Mr. Roe- 
 buck, dismissing him from all his employments. 
 
 No. 18. Letter from Mr. Roebuck to the Chief Secretary, 
 requesting to know why he is dismissed, and petitioning to 
 be heard. 
 
 No. 19. Letter from the agents to the private creditors 
 in London, respecting the Punishment of the Juries ; and 
 the effects produced by the late trials, &c. 
 
 No. 20. Extract of Sir Benjamin Sullivan's argument.
 
 ' 
 
 . . '. .'i,< 
 
 :".: 
 
 : NARRATIVE, &c. 
 
 ' : . 
 
 IT is not possible that men engaged in political 
 life in the mother country, should attend to 
 every event which interests or even agitates the 
 feelings of their countrymen in distant colonies ; 
 and nothing can he more ill-judged than to 
 clamour for attention to remote transactions, 
 when they are not of high importance; but 
 busy as the political world is, and small as dis- 
 tant objects must naturally appear to it, it is 
 never disposed to pass over any remarkable 
 examples of oppression and injustice, without 
 severe scrutiny. However distant the country 
 in which an Englishman has suffered or perpe- 
 trated tyranny, there is the fairest disposition at 
 home, to hear and to redress the wrong. 
 
 It may be hoped then, that this narrative will 
 not be wholly overlooked ; and that those whose 
 
 B
 
 sufferings it relates, will meet with favour and 
 protection from thatnumerous class whose aver- 
 sion to the abuse of power makes them always 
 ready to advocate the cause of the oppressed. 
 
 It is scarcely possible to suppose,, that those 
 civil rights which are the birth-right of an 
 JEnglishman, can be maintained in our colonies 
 in the same state of purity they are enjoyed at 
 home. The immensity of the distance, and the 
 impossibility of immediate appeal to the wisdom 
 of superior tribunals in the mother country, 
 necessarily confer upon the supreme power in 
 our remote dependencies a greater share of au- 
 thority than is deemed compatible with the 
 existence of civil liberty at home. But though 
 our colonists have not all our rights, they have 
 some, and in proportion as they are few, they 
 become more important, being naturally such 
 as are barely sufficient to guard the distant sub- 
 ject from oppression, 
 
 Amongst other securities against the oppres- 
 sive hand of power in our East India settle- 
 ments, the establishment of trial by jury was 
 many years ago an anxious object with some 
 of the wisest of our legislators ; by them it 
 was regarded as a means of teaching the native 
 a more perfect system of justice, whilst it gave 
 to the resident the benefit of those laws to
 
 3 
 
 which he had been accustomed, and afforded 
 him the best shelter against the possible excess 
 of his governors. 
 
 The generous and humane motives that ac- 
 tuated parliament, as well as its wisdom in 
 extending the sphere of trial by jury, was uni- 
 versally admitted, and the benefits that have 
 practically ensued, have never yet been called 
 in question. Indeed nothing can appear more 
 beneficial than the introduction of such an insti- 
 tution in our eastern dominions : it not only 
 offers the atonement of civilization for the vio- 
 lence of conquest, but it sends the colonist 
 abroad with a more cheerful confidence in his 
 destiny, and leaves his friends and kindred at 
 home with the comfortable certainty that he 
 will always be sheltered from despotism and 
 injustice. 
 
 But to secure these advantages, an appeal 
 to a jury ought, as in the mother country, al- 
 ways to be open ; no man should be threatened 
 by the government for resorting to it; no man 
 should be banished or reduced to certainpoverty 
 for having made it. The juries to whom that 
 appeal has been made, should, when they decide, 
 be protected in life, fortune, and character. 
 The influence government may have over them, 
 ihould never be wantonly exerted for the per-
 
 4 
 
 version of justice ; far less should the eventual 
 want of success of such unwarrantable inter- 
 ference lead to the vindictive punishment of 
 those it has in vain attempted to mislead. How 
 far these obvious feelings have been respected 
 in the course of the prosecutions that have 
 lately taken place at Madras, it is the business 
 of the present short narrative to exhibit. 
 V A few years ago, when it was publicly known 
 that an adjustmentof the debts of the late nabob 
 of Carnatic was about to take place, a very con- 
 siderable amount of nabob's bonds appeared in 
 the market at Madras, and many of them were 
 daily hawked about at much lower prices than 
 paper of the same denomination was sold for, be- 
 fore it was known that any arrangement of this 
 debt was to take place. It was then reasonably 
 suspected, and it has since been proved, that 
 the durbar servants were principally concerned 
 in the fabrication of these spurious bonds, they 
 having enjoyed a greater facility of giving co- 
 lour to their claims, by connecting them with 
 the real transactions, in the records to which 
 they had free access. 
 
 Roya Reddy Row, Dewauny Peishcar, and 
 head Marhatta Sherestadar to the present na- 
 bob Azeeru ul Dowlah, was said to be deeply 
 engaged in these forgeries^but no communication
 
 was made to government on this subject, till 
 the beginning of the year 1808. The infor- 
 mation then laid before them, was referred to 
 their advocate-general, Mr. Anstruther cer- 
 tainly not the person to whose decision any 
 charge affecting the character of Roya Reddy 
 Row ought in preference to have been sub- 
 mitted, as it was generally known that lie, to- 
 gether with the company's solicitor, Mr. Orme, 
 and some other gentlemen, had speculated very 
 deeply in nabob's bonds, purchased from Reddy 
 Row, or by his recommendation. In conse- 
 quence of the advocate-general's advice, a com- 
 mittee was appointed to investigate the truth 
 of this information, of which he was himself 
 the chairman ; and the company's solicitor the 
 secretary. As might be expected, the conduct 
 of this enquiry was left chiefly to the two gen- 
 tlemen of the law, and the result of course was, 
 that the charges against Roya Reddy Row, 
 were judged to be wholly false and malicious. 
 
 About this time, the commissioners appointed 
 for investigating the Carnatic debts at Madras, 
 began to publish the claims preferred to them, 
 and the first advertised for investigation, though 
 by no means the first in the order given in, was 
 one on the part of Roya Reddy Row, upon a 
 bond purporting to be executed by Omdut ul 
 Omrah, in favour of Gopal Row, dated 26th
 
 6 
 
 July, 1798, for 38,500 pagodas ; the same 
 which has since been the subject of one crimi- 
 nal trial, and has given rise to two others, 
 which was well known to be the property of 
 the advocate-general, and other gentlemen con- 
 cerned with him. The claim was challenged 
 by Mr. William Light, the agent for Avada- 
 num Poupiah Braminy. The commissioners 
 examined witnesses for and against it ; during 
 which proceedings so strong a disposition was 
 displayed to support the bond, that Poupiah 
 was advised to subject its validity to the consi- 
 deration of a much higher and a more public 
 tribunal, and immediately commenced a prose- 
 cution against Roya Reddy Row, for a con- 
 spiracy and forgery. This appeal to the su- 
 perior wisdom, and the more perfect impar- 
 tiality of a court of justice, became the more 
 necessary from the enormity of Reddy Row's 
 claims, more than one half of which he stated 
 to have proceeded from loans to the nabob, in 
 the month preceding his death, and when he 
 was known to be past recovery.* If the pro- 
 perty of the real creditor was ever to be de-. 
 fended, this undoubtedly appeared the time for 
 doing it. Informations were accordingly lodged 
 
 * See Appendix, No, I. containing a memorandum ol 
 claims preferred by lleddy Row, before the commissioners.
 
 before the sitting magistrate, and the two ac- 
 cused persons were held to bail, to take their 
 trial at the ensuing quarter sessions. 
 
 The commissioners were immediately applied 
 to by the sitting magistrate, for the produc- 
 tion of the bond at the public office ; when in 
 reply they intimated that they believed the 
 prosecution to be the effect of a conspiracy, 
 against Roya Reddy Row, of which Avada- 
 num Poupiah Braminy, was the head, stating, 
 that they had recommended it to the governor 
 in council, to direct his law officers to inspect 
 their proceedings, with a view to a prosecution 
 against Poupiah and others for a conspiracy 
 and perjury ; though in fact this menaced pro- 
 secution never took place. 
 
 This attempt to obstruct the trial of Reddy 
 Row, was strongly supported by another of a 
 similar nature, which, however, was carried a 
 little farther. A few days after the prosecu- 
 tion of Reddy Row was commenced, informa- 
 tions were brought before the magistrates, by 
 the law officers, acting under the orders of go- 
 vernment, against Poupiah and three others, 
 for a conspiracy to forge a nabob's bond, of 
 which intimation had been given by the com- 
 missioners to the sitting magistrate, at the time 
 they gave notice of the aforementioned intended
 
 8 
 
 prosecution, for a conspiracy and perjury. The 
 parties were held to bail. A bill of indictment 
 was found against them by the grand jury at 
 the October sessions. The indictment was 
 traversed by consent, and the trial lay over for 
 the January sessions, at the commencement of 
 which Poupiah died ; but though the other 
 three persons were forthcoming, no notice was 
 given by the law officers of their going to 
 trial against them. 
 
 A third session came on upon the 8th of 
 May, when the Company's solicitor gave no- 
 tice to the solicitor for the defendants, that go- 
 vernment did not mean to prosecute the indict- 
 ment. The parties were accordingly brought 
 up, and their bail discharged. 
 
 If public justice had been the object in view, 
 in preferring this indictment, there was no 
 reason why the law-officers should not have 
 proceeded with the trial against the three sur- 
 viving defendants. Although one of the par- 
 ties was deadjthe ends of justice would have been 
 equally obtained,by the punishment and convic- 
 tion of the survivors. Combining, therefore, the 
 abandonment of this prosecution, with the abor- 
 tive threats of the other that has been already 
 stated, there can be little doubt that there was 
 no seiious ground for either of them ; and that
 
 both were adopted, as tending to put a stop to 
 the prosecution against Reddy Row, if not re- 
 sorted to for that express purpose. 
 
 The means, however, of thwarting the opera- 
 tions of justice, and of preventing the merited 
 punishment of RoyaReddy Row were not yet ex- 
 hausted* The persons who deposed to the actual 
 fabrication of the bond, Arnachetta Row and 
 Beemah Row, had been confidential servants to 
 Roya Reddy Row, and as such had beenemplo} 7 - 
 ed by him in many of his criminal transactions. 
 It became therefore of importance to Reddy Row, 
 as well on account of his approaching trial, as of 
 the other numerous forgeries that he had commit- 
 ted, to incapacitate these men from appearing 
 against him. Accordingly informations were 
 sworn to by him, charging Arnachetta Row 
 and Beemah Row with perjury, a?signed upon 
 some small variance in their evidences,a variance 
 that ought rather to have induced a belief,than 
 a doubt, of their testimony, and upon these in- 
 formations they were held to bail : and this pro- 
 secution was conducted by the law officers of the 
 Company, acting under the orders of the govern- 
 ment,atthe recommendation of thecommissioners. 
 
 Another effect to be produced by a pro- 
 secution of the witnesses by government, 
 and which it is obvious to every one the 
 least acquainted with the character of the na-
 
 
 to 
 
 lives of India, must have followed, wtfs art 
 intimidation and prevention of other per- 
 sons from coming forward as witnesses. And 
 as almost all information regarding claims 
 upon the nabobs, must be procured from na- 
 tives, it was evident that this measure would 
 frustrate all fair investigation, and leave the 
 fund for the payment of the real creditors at 
 the mercy of Reddy Row, and his creatures, the 
 Durbar servants, at least as far as the derision 
 of the commissioners in India could effect it. 
 
 Alarmed at the dangers with which their 
 interests seemed threatened, the bona fide cre- 
 ditors of the nabob of the Carnatic had 
 appointed a committee to watch over the 
 interests of the fair creditors, and to represent to 
 government the pernicious effects the cause of 
 justice must sustain from their interference. 
 But instead of obtaining any protection, or even 
 forbearance from government, the committee 
 were accused of acts of wanton obstruction to 
 the proceedings of the commissioners : they 
 were harshly reprimanded, and threatened with 
 the severest effects of public displeasure.* The 
 information which they had given to govern- 
 ment concerning the deep interest the advocate 
 general must necessarily feel in the protection 
 
 " See Correspondence betwixt the Committee of fair Cre- 
 ditors and the government of Madras. Appendix Nos. 2, 3 5 
 4> 5, and 6.
 
 11 
 
 of Reddy Row was passed by unnoticed ; 
 their request to have a copy of his report 
 upon their letter was refused, and Mr. Roe- 
 buck, one ofthe committee, finding that this was 
 the only reward of his public spirit, withdrew 
 himself from all further concern in the business. 
 In order to conduct the trial of Reddy Row, 
 it was necessary for the other members of the 
 committee, who determined to persevere, to 
 procure from the commissioners several docu- 
 ments of which they had become possessed in 
 their late investigation of the charges against 
 Reddy Row. To an application from the so- 
 licitor for the prosecution for these documents, 
 a positive refusal was received,* nor could, they 
 be procured till they were ordered to bev given 
 up bythe court, on which occasion the conduct 
 of the commissioners was stigmatised by one of 
 the judges on the bench, as a scandalous ob- 
 struction of public justice. 
 
 As the approaching trials involved interests 
 of considerable extent, the greatest care was 
 very properly taken by the sheriff to select 
 persons for the grand jury, who were known 
 to have no kind of interest in claims upon the 
 Durbar ; only sixteen were sworn, and of these 
 fifteen were in the service of the company.* 
 
 * Appendii,No. 7. 8, 
 
 t See the names of the jurj, Appendix, No. 9.
 
 Their first act was to reject the bill against 
 Beemah How, and Arnachetta Row, though it 
 had been recommended by the commissioners, 
 advised by the law officers, and patronized by 
 government. Their next act was to find against 
 Roya Reddy Row and Annunda Row that bill, 
 which all these various powers had been active- 
 ly at work to defeat. 
 
 The quarter sessions of oyer and terminer 
 opened on the 10th of October, and upon the 
 plea of the impending dispatch of the ships for 
 Europe, was immediately adjourned for fifteen 
 days, being the first time the court ever evin- 
 ced such indulgent consideration for the con- 
 venience of the public, though the spring and 
 autumn ships were generally dispatched about 
 the period the quarter sessions were held. It was 
 not therefore till the 10th of November the court 
 proceeded to the trial of Reddy Row andAnnun- 
 daRow,against whom the bill had been found by 
 the grand jury. In this trial there were three is- 
 sues : viz. the justice of the claim upon which 
 the bond was alleged to be founded, the 
 presence of the defendant and Annunda Row at 
 the Durbar on the 26th of July, 1798, when it 
 was alleged he had written it by order of the 
 Nabob, and the actual fabrication of the bond, 
 two years after the death of the Nabob. 
 
 Against the j ustice of the claim., a variety
 
 13 ;| 
 
 /of circumstantial evidence was adduced on the 
 part of the prosecution. To prove the absence of 
 the defendant Annunda Row, in July 1798, 
 .eleven credible unimpeached witnesses deposed 
 that he had resided in the districts of Chillam- 
 brura and Manoorgudy from the year 1797, to 
 the month of May, 1800; three witnesses, ser- 
 vants of the late Colonel Barret, in whose office 
 at the Durbar it was pretended that Annunda, 
 Row had been employed, deposed that they 
 Jiad never seen -him there, although they were 
 in pretty constant attendance upon their master; 
 fourteen witnesses servants of the Durbar de- 
 posed likewise that they had never seen him 
 there during the time in question ; and the 
 third point at issue was proved by Arnachetta 
 Row and Beemah Row, who swore to the 
 actual fabrication of the bond some time in the 
 month of July, 1803. 
 
 On the part of the defence it was pretended 
 that the claim arose out of a loan made in 1797 
 fry Gopal Row to Anwar Ally KhanTrenter of 
 the Arcot district on account of the circar. 
 jOn the part of the prosecution it was proved 
 that Anwar Ally Khan remained in the renter- 
 sbip only fifty-seven days, that he was then 
 turned out by the nabob, and that Hussani 
 jtJl Mulk, the nabob's brother, was appointed
 
 io it; that it was customary in the Nabob's 
 country, when a renter -was removed be lore the 
 expiration of the year, for his successor to take 
 possession of all the accounts of the district, 
 and make up the account for the entire year, 
 as well of the management of his predecessor 
 as of his own. That Hussam Ul Mulk accord- 
 ingly sent Syed Moortaza Hussam to take 
 possession of all the accounts of the district of 
 Arcot upon the removal of Amwar Ally Khan, 
 and the prosecutors offered, and more than 
 once importuned the court to be allowed to 
 produce those accounts in evidence to prove 
 that there was no trace in them whatever of such 
 loan made by Gopal Row to Amwar Ally Khan 
 for account of the Circar, nor for any other ac- 
 count. 
 
 They also produced the two Serishtadars of 
 Hussam Ul Mulk, who made up, the accounts 
 in order to prove them, but the chief justice 
 would neither admit the production of the ac- 
 count or receive the evidence of the Serishta- 
 dars. Hussam Ul Mulk had himself been 
 summoned to produce the accounts, but he re- 
 fused to appear in court on the plea of ill 
 health, and in excusing himself from obeying 
 the summons, he wrote a letter to the chief 
 justice, Sir Thomas Strange, acquainting him
 
 15 
 
 that he had sent the accounts of the district 
 in which were included those of the manage- 
 ment of Anwar Ally Khan by his Serishtadars 
 who made them up, in which there appeared 
 no entry of the loan of Gopal Row.* 
 
 Notwithstanding this the chief justice per- 
 severed in refusing to receive these accounts 
 in evidence, though if admitted they alone 
 would have completely destroyed the foun- 
 dation of Reddy Row's claim. On the part of 
 the defence many documents were produced 
 from the Dufters in support of the claim ; and 
 some witnesses were brought to prove the ser- 
 vice of Annunda Row at the Durbar at the 
 time alleged, amongst these was Mr. John. 
 Batley. It was also attempted to discre- 
 dit and invalidate the testimony of Arna- 
 chetta Row and Beemah Row, by proving 
 the discordance of their evidence upon former 
 occasions, their being guilty of perjury 
 was even presumed, from government's having 
 ordered them to be indicted; a circumstance 
 upon which great stress was laid, notwith- 
 standing the bills had not been found against 
 them by the grand jury. 
 
 Upon the cross examination of the witnesses 
 for the defence, it appeared evident that the 
 
 * See the Letter of HussamUl Mulk fo Sir Thomas Strange, 
 with a memorandum to serve as an explanation thereof. 
 Appendix, No. 10.
 
 custody of the d ufters had been very loosely 
 kept, and that Reddy Row had had too free 
 access to them. Upon the examination of the 
 commissioners, it also came out, that when the 
 dufters came into their charge., some of them 
 were without locks and keys; and that after 
 they were in their custody, the keys were not 
 kept by themselves but left to the care of their 
 servants* 
 
 Excepting Mr. Batley, none of the principal 
 servants of the Durbar proved the service of 
 Annunda Row at the time in question : and 
 particularly Madaputy Tremal Row, a head 
 Serishtadar in the Dewaney department, and a 
 witness that the defence relied upon greatly, 
 and upon whose testimony the chief justice, in 
 his summing up, laid particular emphasis, 
 positively swore that he had never seen Annun- 
 da Row in Barrett's office in the Durbar: 
 With regard to the attempt to prove the pecu- 
 niary transaction between Gopal Row and the 
 Durbar, by means of copies of receipts from 
 the house of Lautour and Co. which Reddy 
 Row produced from the dufters, and by the 
 production, of the books of Lautour and Co. in 
 evidence, as the gentleman who was a part- 
 ner in the house at the time of the pretended 
 transaction, was still at Madras, and not called 
 upon to prove it : it appeared to be so weak a
 
 defence that the Chief Justice did not even 
 notice it in his summing up. And it is some- 
 thing remarkable that Mr. George Arbuthnot, 
 at present a partner in the house of Lautour 
 and Co. who was examined in the investigation 
 before thecommissioners in support of the clairn., 
 should not have been called as a witness upon 
 the trial ; because if his testimony went at all 
 to the support of the claim upon the former 
 occasion, it would have equally benefited the 
 defence upon the latter. 
 
 The defence was closed on the 28th of No- 
 vember, when Mr. Marsh, council for the pro- 
 secution, replied, and the Chief Justice inti^ 
 mated to the jury that it would be necessary 
 for him to adjourn the court till the 30th, 
 that he might arrange his notes for the sum- 
 ming up of the evidence. On Wednesday, 
 the 30th of November, the court was again ad- 
 journed till Friday the 2d of December ; on 
 which day it was again adjourned to Monday 
 the 5th. On Monday it was once more adjourned 
 to Wednesday the 7th, when the Chief Justice 
 came in prepared to sum up the evidence ; but 
 two of the jury being sick, the court was again 
 adjourned till the following day ; and from 
 that till Friday the 9th of November,' when after 
 a summing up that lasted seven hours and a half. 
 
 D
 
 18 
 
 the jury retired, and in about twenty minutes 
 returned a verdict of guilty. 
 
 As the advocate-general rested the de- 
 fence chiefly on the Dufters, or records of the 
 Durbar, it will be proper here to explain how 
 they are kept. All the accounts and transac*- 
 tions of the Durbar are kept and recorded upon 
 narrow strips of paper about fifteen inches long 
 and four inches wide : the papers relating to 
 the same account or transaction loosely tacked 
 together by a thread at the corner ; so that no- 
 thing is easier than to withdraw,, substitute and 
 Interpolate papers : in a word to falsify and 
 fabricate them, to make them correspond with 
 any spurious claim. Nothing can be more un- 
 like the records of European public offices, and 
 the books of a merchant's counting-house, to 
 which the advocate -general always compared 
 them in point of weight and authenticity. For 
 any one, the least acquainted with business, 
 knows that it is almost impossible to falsify 
 a merchant's books without detection. 
 
 It is important also to observe, that the Chief 
 Justice in his summing up stated, "that 
 <f the commissioners being appointed bythesu- 
 " preme government acting under the deed of co- 
 " venant executed by the East India Company, 
 " and the private creditors of the nabobs of the
 
 19 
 
 '' Carnatic,and sanctioned by act of parliament, 
 " ought to have the exclusive cognisance of all 
 " matters connected with the claims of which 
 " they have the investigation; that he had his 
 " doubts whether his majesty's courtsof judica- 
 " ture were competent to take cognisance of the 
 " forgery of a bond, which the commissioners 
 <e had investigated and had judged to be a good 
 " one ; and that whatever might be the verdict 
 " of the j ury, the commissioners were com petent, 
 :t and it was their bounden duty to recommend 
 '' the bond to the commissioners in England as a 
 :e good and just one, if they in their judgment 
 " deemed it to be so."* 
 
 The prosecutors on this trial had every diffi- 
 culty to contend against, that wealth, power, 
 and interest could oppose to them. The 
 wealth of Reddy Row was profusely scattered 
 in suborning witnesses. The power of govern- 
 ment was avowedly exercised in the defence of 
 the prisoners; as was the influence of the nabob 
 and of the commissioners ; the effects of which 
 upon some of the witnesses, was but too visible 
 during the trial. To the prosecutors every 
 aid was refused by the commissioners : they 
 resisted, as has been already stated, even the 
 production of the forged bond, until compelled 
 
 * Sec Appendix 20, Extract from Sir B. Sulliran's Speech, 
 in which he delivers a very different opinion.
 
 20 
 
 to it by the court; on the other hand, two of 
 them regularly attended the defendants upon 
 their trial, and took their seat near Mr. John 
 Battley, at the table with the law officers, in 
 order to assist them in conducting the defence. 
 The adjournment of the court for nine days 
 after the evidence on both sides had closed., 
 whilst the jury were dispersed, did not pass 
 without observation. The advocate-general 
 seemed to be aware of the impropriety of such 
 a procedure, and took an opportunity in court 
 to ascribe it in part to the indisposition of the 
 Chief Justice, which excuse was repeated by 
 his lordship from the bench, though it is singu- 
 lar that the Chief Justice was at a public en- 
 tertainment given by the Commander in Chief 
 upon the 30th of November; that in the inter- 
 val betwixt that day and Monday the 5th of 
 December, he had interviews of considerable 
 length with the law officers of government, 
 and that on that day, notwithstanding it was 
 very rainy and tempestuous, he came to his 
 chambers in the fort, situated at least three 
 miles from his country-house, and there tran- 
 sacted business with the law officers. 
 
 It must not be forgotten, that this same jury, 
 which determined upon the accusation against 
 Retldy Row, received at these sessions the 
 greatest commendation from the Chief Justice
 
 21 
 
 for their penetration and sagacity in discovering 
 the innocence of a prisoner who was unjustly 
 accused of murder. The consequence of their 
 acuteness and attention to their duty on that oc- 
 casion was, that the accusers themselves were 
 put upon their trial for the same murder, found 
 guilty and executed. They had none of them any 
 immediate connection with the fund upon which 
 the forgery was committed ; and if indeed they 
 could he suspected of any bias, it must have 
 naturally inclined to that side of the question to 
 which government, by their own activity, and 
 that of their law officers, evinced themselves 
 to be so well disposed. 
 
 From some glaring inconsistency which the 
 prosecutors had observed in the informations 
 given by Mr. John Battley, in the investiga- 
 tion of Reddy Row's claim before the commis- 
 sioners, and from the close connection that was 
 known to subsist between him and Reddy Row, 
 the prosecutors apprehended that he would go 
 great lengths to gftt his friend and confederate 
 acquitted. Mr. Battley, accordingly, attended 
 the whole of the trial, and being the last witness 
 examined, came fully prepared to support and 
 strengthen the weak, and fill up the defective 
 parts. In a word he appeared to be brought 
 uot to speak to one or two points, but to sup-
 
 ply every thing that appeared wanting* in.tlie 
 preceding evidence. AccoEdingly, although 
 he had been only in a very inferior and subal- 
 tern situation in the Durbar during the whole 
 of the reign of Omdut Ul Omrah, yet he knew 
 every thing., and gave testimony in support of 
 every part of the defence. 
 
 The consequence was that a bill of indict- 
 ment for perjury was preferred against him, 
 and found at the same sessions : the perjury 
 being assigned upon that part of his evidence, 
 which deposed to the fact of Annunda Row's 
 presence and service at the Durbar of the late 
 nabob. It appearing, likewise, from some of 
 the circumstantial evidence on the part of the 
 prosecution, that Mr. Battley and Reddy Row 
 had conspired to pass upon Venaigum Moodel- 
 liar a forged bond, purporting to be a nabob's 
 bond, another bill of indictment for a cheat and 
 conspiracy was on this account preferred and 
 found against them. 
 
 After the verdict upon the 9th of December 
 the court was adjourned till Monday the 12th, 
 during which time the defendants, by consent 
 of the prosecutors, vyere left at large upon 
 their recognisances. Immediately on the 
 court's meeting the advocate-general moved for 
 a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not
 
 be granted, upon the ground of the verdict 
 being contrary to evidence, and contrary to the 
 directions of the judge : and notice was at the 
 same time given, that he would move in arrest 
 of judgment. 
 
 As Mr. Marsh had left the presidency to at- 
 tend a court-martial at Bangalore, Mr. Ga- 
 hagan, on the part of the prosecution, ac- 
 quainted the court, that not having been em- 
 ployed in the trial, and not being master of so 
 voluminous a subject, he was not then prepared 
 to argue the question : on which it was agreed 
 to postpone the argument upon the motion, until 
 the ensuing sessions of oyer and terminer ; the 
 Chief Justice declaring that such motion should 
 be maintained in sessions and not in term. Mr. 
 Gahagan, on the part of the prosecution, con- 
 sented that the defendants should on this occasion 
 continue at large upon their recognizance, the 
 Chief Justice at the same time declaring, that 
 he did not require his consent to such a mea- 
 sure, but should order it of his own authority. 
 
 In this stage of the business, the prosecutors 
 dreading that misrepresentations inight be 
 spread abroad, were desirous that the trial 
 should be published, in order that all might 
 judge of the justice of the verdict. Accord- 
 ingly they sent an advertisement to the Madras 
 gazette, giving notice to that effect, which was
 
 expunged by the chief secretary to govern- 
 ment., who at Madras is ex officio licenser of 
 the press. They then applied formally to go- 
 vernment, and they were informed in reply that 
 the governor in council deemed it inexpedient 
 to sanction the proposed publication*. Al- 
 though the reply given was somewhat ambigu- 
 ous, and was evidently meant to be so, yet to 
 the editor it appeared that it was most distinct- 
 ly to be regarded as a prohibition, and Mr. 
 Marsh, who afterwards applied to government 
 for the same permission, met with a similar re- 
 fusal. This gentleman indeed applied in the 
 course of the next term to the supreme court 
 for their permission to publish both trials, 
 which was refused by the Chief Justice, 
 without any reason assigned, though Sir 
 Benjamin Sullivan readily granted his as- 
 sent, and assigned such reasons for it, 
 as every Englishman must honour and reveref. 
 The publication, however, was suppressed by 
 the casting vote which the chief justice possesses 
 under the constitution of the court, there being 
 only two judges present. The next quarter 
 sessions were fixed for the 4th of January, 
 
 * See Appendix, Xos. 9,10.. 
 
 f See Appcndix_20, containing Sir Benjamin Sullivan'* 
 Speech, on this subject.
 
 1809. In the interim great exertions were 
 made by the defendants and their supporters 
 to meet the approaching trials. 
 
 Prior to the first trial of Reddy Row, the law 
 officers of government had applied to Mr. Raven- 
 shaw the collector of Arcot,through the board of 
 revenue upon the subject of AnuundaRow, who 
 on enquiry found that Anuunda had in fact re- 
 sided in the district at the time stated on the 
 part of the prosecution, and reported the same 
 .accordingly. There is not perhaps in the ser- 
 vice a more honourable and upright man than 
 Mr. Ravenfchaw, none more completely uncon- 
 nected with the creditors of the nabob ; indeed 
 when he received the order to make the enquiry 
 he had not the most distant suspicion of the 
 purpose for which it was set on foot.* As his re- 
 port,however,was not favourable to the defence, 
 it was of course suppressed,, though the counsel 
 for the prosecution, who had become acquainted 
 with the transaction,publicly challenged the law- 
 officers of the company either to contradict the 
 story or to produce Mr. Ravenshaw's letter. 
 
 On this second trial, however, it was de- 
 termined to make still greater exertions-; 
 with this view Mr. Wm. Saunders,a servant of 
 the company was deputed by government at 
 the suggestion of their law-officers, to the dis- 
 * See Appendix, No. 19. 

 
 26 
 
 tricts where it had been proved, upon the trial, 
 that AnnundaRowhad residedduringthe whole 
 time it was alleged he was lit the Durbar at Ma- 
 dras. His instructions were, to procure informa- 
 tion upon the subject, and to send to Madras 
 such persons as might appear tohim tobe neces- 
 sary upon the trial. Veneatta Row, a witness for 
 the defendants upon their trial, and employed 
 as their agent upon this occasion, was dispatch- 
 ed beforehand to the same village to prepare 
 the inhabitants for his reception. Nay, even 
 the defendant Annunda Row himself left the 
 jurisdiction of the court where he was under 
 recognizance, and with the knowledge of the 
 law-officers repaired to the same place. 
 
 The parties met at Manoorgudy, and fifteen 
 or twenty miserable wretches were dispatched 
 to give evidence upon the trial of Battley,, 
 whom Veneatta Row and Annunda Row pro- 
 duced to Mr, Saunders, prepared to declare to 
 him, that they had never known the defendant 
 Annunda Row. It 'is not the least extraor- 
 dinary circumstance attending this strange pro- 
 ceeding, that Mr. Saunders should have gone 
 to Manoorgudy in preference to Chillambrum, 
 in quest of the desired information, considering 
 that in the late trial it had been proved that An- 
 nunda Row had resided some years at the lat- 
 ter place, and only a few months at the former.
 
 27' 
 
 The commissioners still contributed their 
 aid, in concert with the law officers, to up- 
 hold the defendants, Reddy Row, Annunda 
 Row, and Mr. Battley; for instead of ac- 
 knowledging their error, with regard to the 
 integrity of the two former, they wrote a pub- 
 lic letter to government, animadverting Upon 
 the verdict of the jury, and upon the finding 
 of the bills of indictment by the grand jury 
 against Mr. Battley, recommending that the 
 whole should be defended upon their trials by 
 the law officers of government. 
 
 Upon the 9th of January, Mr. Marsh, for 
 the prosecution, was heard against the motion 
 for a new trial in sessions, and particularly be- 
 fore the same judge that presided at the trial; 
 he argued also against the new trial, upon the 
 ground of the jury being the only true consti- 
 tutional judges of the facts, and of the credi- 
 bility of the witnesses, stating that there was 
 abundance of witnesses in sup port of the facts, 
 not one of which had been impeached. He 
 moved the court at the same time, for the com- 
 mitment of the defendants. On these subjects, 
 the chief justice, after eight days consideration, 
 ruled " that it was competent to the court to 
 entertain the motion for a new trial in sessions, 
 but that as an appeal had been made to his de- 
 licacy, he having presided at the past trial
 
 28 
 
 he would hear it argued in term." He at the 
 same time argued his right to exercise his dis- 
 cretion as to the commitment of the defendants ; 
 and he ordered them to be left at large upon 
 their recognizances.* 
 
 Upon the 20th of January came on before a 
 special jury, summoned upon the motion of the 
 counsel for the defendant, the trial of Mr. John 
 Battley, for forgery, which lasted eight days. 
 The evidence on this trial on the part of the 
 prosecution, was the same as was adduced to- 
 prove the issue in the former trial, with 
 the addition of ten or twelve fresh witnesses 
 from Chillarabrum and Manoorgudy. The evi- 
 dence on the part of the defence was likewise 
 the same as they had brought formerly 
 with the addition of the fruits of the Ma- 
 noorgudy mission. These witnesses preva- 
 ricated and contradicted themselves so much, 
 that their perjury, manifest to the jury, as 
 well as to a numerous audience, served only to 
 encrease the confusion of the defence. 
 
 It is important here to remark, that Mada- 
 puty Tremal Row, a witness for the defendants^ 
 the same that has been particularly mentioned 
 in the account of the former trial, again most 
 
 * See Appendix, No. 13, bring an account of these pro- 
 ceedings, given by the agents for the creditors to the com- 
 missioners appointed to examine into the nabob's debts, re- 
 in London.
 
 29 
 
 unequivocally swore that he had never seen 
 Annunda Row in colonel Barrett's office, at 
 the Durbar, at the same time that NarrainRow, 
 a witness that had been called to prove all the 
 papers in support of the defence upon the 
 three trials, and who was proved to be in the 
 same office at the Durbar, with Madaputy Tre- 
 mal Row, as positively swore that he used to 
 see Annunda Row there. 
 
 In this trial the chief justice summed up 
 immediately after Mr, Marsh had finished a 
 very able reply. In the course of the observa- 
 tions he directed to the jury, he dwelt greatly 
 upon the weight due to the testimony of the 
 witnesses that had been procured by the go- 
 vernment mission to Manoorgudy ; the jury, 
 however, after two hours consideration, re- 
 turned a verdict of guilty, recommending the 
 defendant to mercy,, on account of his former 
 miimpeached character.* 
 
 The court was then adjourned to the 6th of 
 February, when the chief justice declared, 
 " that the jury having recommended Battley 
 to mercy, and his case being connected with 
 that of the other two defendants, he should 
 make his report upon all three to his majesty, 
 and in the mean time leave them at large 
 upon their recognizances/' This verdict, liow- 
 
 * See Appendix, No. 14, Letter from the agents of thtf 
 Creditors transmitting a lilt of the jury.
 
 30 
 
 ever, which entirely confirmed the former, 
 had the effect of inducing the advocate -gene- 
 ral to abandon his motions for a new trial,- and 
 in arrest of judgment. 
 
 A circumstance happened on this occasion, 
 which perhaps more than any other displays 
 the strong bias that throughout influenced the 
 measures of government. At the conclusion of 
 the trial, an application was made to govern- 
 ment by Mr. Robert Ornie, and recommended 
 by the commissioners, for the payment of 1300 
 star pagodas, expended in the Manoorgudy 
 mission, to defend a man convicted of perjury. 
 This sum was immediately ordered to be 
 paid, and charged upon the funds set apart for 
 the benefit of the private creditors, though 
 Sir George Barlow treated with contemptuous 
 silence an application for reimbursement on 
 the part of those creditors who at a great ex- 
 pence had successfully detected these forgeries 
 on the common property. 
 
 To give a true picture of the scenes that 
 occurred., it is also necessary to relate, that pre- 
 vious to the commencement of this trial, it was 
 proved upon the oath of Mr. John Tulloh, that 
 his house had sold one-seventh share of the 
 bond proved to be a forgery, to Mr. Aristru- 
 ther, the advocate-general ; while on the former 
 trial it had been proved on the evidence of Mr.
 
 31 
 
 Brodie, that the bond had long ceased to be 
 the property of Reddy Row. Astonished at 
 these facs, recollecting that Reddy Row had 
 deposed before the commissioners, that it was 
 his pro, erty, not knowing what subornation 
 to suspect, or how dignified the suborners might 
 be, the prosecutors on the day after the con- 
 viction, allied to the commissioners for copies 
 pf certain informations taken by them in the 
 ijivestjgationof Reddy Roy's claim. To which 
 request the commissioners expressing their de- 
 ference for the verdict of the special jury im- 
 mediately acceded. Though three days after-, 
 wards when the prosecutors applied for further 
 papers which the commissioners had intimated 
 to them through their writer, they might have, 
 tjiey were refused, without any reason being 
 assigned for it.* 
 
 It will naturally be imagined that something 
 very extraordiary must have intervened to oc- 
 casion this sudden transition from the high 
 respect for the verdict of a special jury, which 
 the commissioners entertained on the 3d of Fe- 
 bruary to their reducing that identical verdict 
 below the level of their own opinion upon the 
 7th of the same month ; and to induce them 
 JBO suddenly to depart from their acquiescence; 
 
 * See Appendix, No, 15.
 
 ill granting the copies of the papers that were 
 required. 
 
 In fact the decision of the chief j ustice took 
 place on the 6th of February, and a 'conference 
 was immediately afterwards held between the 
 commissioners and the advocate general. It is 
 probable therefore that to the decision, and to 
 what passed at this conference are to be 
 ascribed this sudden alteration in the line of con- 
 duct which they had adopted. Indeed, embol- 
 dened by the language which fell from the 
 bench, and probably urged by the advice of 
 the advocate general, the commissioners on the 
 same day made a formal complaint to the go- 
 vernor in council against Messrs. Roebuck, 
 Pany, Abbot and Maitland, for the impedi- 
 ments and interruptions they had thrown in the 
 way of their investigation, of which the very 
 letter they had before replied to with so much 
 cheerfulness and good will, is made the foun- 
 dation, though they took no notice of their own 
 letter of the 3d, which they had written in re- 
 ply.* 
 
 The January sessions were adjourned upon 
 the 2d of February to the 23d, on account of 
 the term, and again from the 23d of February 
 to the 2d of March : in this interval the de- 
 
 * See Appendix, No. 16.
 
 32 
 
 fendants Mr. Battleyand Reddy Row, attempt- 
 ed to elude the trial upon the prosecution of Ve* 
 naignm Moodeliar by buying him off ; a com- 
 promise was actually made between them ; 
 and a warrant of attorney given to another so- 
 licitor, Mr. Fownes Disney, the brother in law 
 of Mr. Anstruther, the advocate-general, au- 
 thorizing him to withdraw the indictment. 
 
 An affidavit to these facts was filed in the 
 supreme court, upon the 22d of February by 
 Mr. Abbot and Mr. Light, and in consequence 
 a rule to shew cause why an attachment 
 should not issue against Mr. Battleyand Reddy 
 Row was granted. This measure alarmed the 
 parties, and put a stop to any further proceed- 
 ings upon the compromise. The trial accord- 
 ingly came on before a special jury, sum- 
 moned upon the motion of the defendants on 
 the 2d of March, and on the 6th, the jury re- 
 turned a verdict of guilty against both defen- 
 dants. 
 
 In this trial it was proved on the part of the 
 prosecution, that at the time of the late na- 
 bob's death, Reddy Row owed to Venaigum 
 Moodeliar the sum of 15,500 pagodas, that 
 Venaigum pressed him for payment, and could 
 not obtain it, that two or three months after- 
 wards he brought an action of debt against
 
 34 
 
 him in the supreme court, and took out a capias; 
 that in order to avoid this process, Reddj Row 
 sout himself up in his house, and remained in 
 that state of confinement about nineteen months, 
 during which time he had seen Venaigum once, 
 and sent frequent mes>ages to him imploring 
 him to withdraw the process against him ; that 
 at the end of this time Venaigum was sent for 
 to Mr. Battley's house, and that Mr. Battley 
 begged l.-im to allow Reddy Row to come there 
 without molestation, to which he agreed : that 
 Reddy Row accordingly came there : and 
 that Mr. Tattley produced to Venaigum 
 a Persian paper, said to be a nabob's bond 
 for pagodas l.>,500 in his own name, which 
 they pretended Reddy Row had procured from 
 the nabob ; that Mr. Battley assured him that 
 the bond was a good and true one ; that he 
 knew it to be so, and advised Venaigum to take 
 it in satisfaction of Reddy Row's debt ; that the 
 bond was translated by Mr. Battley into En- 
 glish ; that it set forth that the money lent 
 by Venaigum to Reddy Row had been applied 
 as follows : viz. that 4500 pagodas had been 
 paid to Mr. Fitzgerald the nabob's physician, 
 on account of his tunkahs, and 11,000 pagodas 
 to the payment of the Company's Kist, and 
 that some days after two English receipts, 
 written by Mr. Fitzgerald, for the amounts be-
 
 S3 
 
 fore mentioned were given to him as vouchers ; 
 but that the receipts bore dates prior to 
 loan from Venaigum to Reddy Row; andtl 
 when Venaigum remarked this, it was explained 
 to him by Reddy Row, " that he had previously 
 " borrowed money from other persons to pay 
 " Mr. Fitzgerald, and had afterwards applied 
 " the money borrowed from him to replace 
 " those sums." 
 
 Throughout his examination in chief, and 
 upon his cross examination the prosecutor 
 emphatically declared that he accepted the 
 bond upon the assurance given him by Mr. 
 Battley, that he knew it to be a good and true 
 bond. 
 
 During the time that Reddy Row was con- 
 cealing himself, Chinniah Moodeliar, a na- 
 tive of the first respectability, and having 
 no interest whatsoever in the nabob's debts, 
 proved that he had interposed his good offices 
 between him and his creditors, and that when 
 he advised the former to satisfy his credi- 
 tors, by giving them security of nabob's or 
 Rajah's bonds, he unequivocally declared that 
 he had no such bonds. 
 
 Tremal Row proved an interview at the 
 Durbar soon after the death of the nabob, 
 \vhcn it appeared that Reddy Row had no
 
 bond from the nabob, nor any security, but 
 
 assignment upon the crops which had been 
 umed by the company. Mr. W. D. Brodie, 
 proved that he had acted some years as agent 
 to Mr. Fordyce in collecting and transmitting 
 to him the claims of creditors upon the nabob 
 of the Carnatic, that a claim of Reddy Row's 
 for pagodas 87,703, 23, 20 upon a balanc 6 
 of an open account current had been prefer- 
 red through him in July 1802 ; that he un- 
 derstood that Reddy Row had no claims upon 
 bonds at that time ; and that it afterwards ap- 
 peared to him that the same balance was 
 claimed a second time in the form of bonds. 
 
 On the part of the defence, the truth of the 
 bond was attempted to be established by the 
 evidence of other Saucars who had lent money to 
 Reddy Row, and who had at different periods 
 subsequent to the death of the nabob, accepted 
 bonds similar to that preferred to Venaigumin 
 satisfaction* of their demands ; and by the evi- 
 dence of Narrain Row, the same witness that 
 proved the dufters in the former trials, who in 
 like manner attempted to prove in the trials, 
 several documents produced from the duf- 
 ters in support of the bond. It appeared., 
 however., very clearly upon the cross examina- 
 tion of the Saucars that they by no means ac- 
 cepted the bonds from a conviction that they
 
 37 
 
 were good and true nabob's bonds, but because 
 they thought their debts desperate, and thai 
 this was their only means of recovering any part 
 of them. One of them after having prosecuted 
 Reddy Row received a considerable portion of 
 his debt in ready money : and all but one took 
 written engagements from Reddy Row, to in- 
 demnify them in case their nabob's bonds should 
 not be passed. All too betrayed very great in- 
 consistency in their depositions; and that of 
 Veneram Dave in particular was a tissue of 
 the most glaring contradictions and preva- 
 rication from beginning to end. In a word 
 it appeared manifestly that they were interest- 
 ed in the acquittal of Reddy Row. 
 
 Upon the second day of this trial an objec- 
 tion was taken by the advocate general to the 
 wording of the indictment, which described 
 the prosecutor as Sadras Venaigum Moodel- 
 liar, whereas the bond described him simply as 
 Venaigum Moodelliar. The question was 
 argued but not much at length, and the 
 chief justice postponed the decision of the 
 court upon it until the ensuing day, when 
 he declared his opinion that the objection 
 taken by the counsel for the defendant would 
 be fatal to the indictment, but that it was not 
 the proper stage of the trial in wliich to move 
 it, unless the counsel for the prosecution would 
 
 ,'i. r >478 j
 
 38 
 
 consent (o quash the indictment they were try- 
 uig, and send in a new bill ,to the grand jury. 
 Mr. Marsh being confident that the objection 
 was futile, did not adopt the suggestion of the 
 chief justice, and the event justified his dis- 
 cernment. The trial went on, the advocate ge- 
 neral indeed gave notice that he should move in 
 arrest of judgment after the trial, if the ver- 
 dict should be against him. The verdict was 
 against him, he did not however move in arrest 
 of judgment. 
 
 When the verdict was pronounced, the 
 counsel for the prosecution moved for the 
 commitment of the defendants. The advocate- 
 general opposed the commitment upon the 
 ground of the notice which he had given that 
 he should move in arrest of judgment. After 
 a few moments consideration,, the chief justice 
 declared that he must commit the defendants, 
 unless the prosecutors consented to their re- 
 maining at large : this was refused, the 
 defendants were committed ; and the court was 
 adjourned to Wednesday the 8th of March. 
 
 From the commitment of the defendants, 
 the prosecutors and the public were led to be- 
 lieve that a third verdict pronounced against 
 the same parties had determined the chief 
 justice to carry the law into execution against 
 them. He had however a long interview with
 
 39 
 
 the governor, Sir George Barlow, on Tuesday, 
 the 7th of March: and 011 the following day when 
 the defendants were brought up, the chief 
 justice pronounced his resolution to refer this 
 verdict, as he had done the two former ones, 
 to his majesty, and to leave the defendants 
 in the mean time at large upon their recog- 
 nizances. 
 
 Such was tlie effect of these three verdicts 
 upon the mind of the chief justice, the judge 
 could not agree that this triple conviction 
 ought to abridge the liberty of lleddy Row, 
 so neither did the commissioners admit that it 
 ought to diminish his credibility. He conti- 
 nued after three solemn verdicts against him 
 to walk the streets of Madras in triumphant 
 defiance, attended as usual at the office of the 
 commissioners, and disposed by his evidence of 
 that property against which he had directed 
 the united efforts of perjury and illegal com- 
 bination. It was for some time doubtful whe- 
 ther the bond itself would not have been left 
 in the hands of the commissioners ; and by 
 them recommended for the sanction of the com- 
 missioners in England : the chief justice con- 
 tended that notwithstanding the verdicts of 
 juries the commissioners were bound to recom- 
 mend the bond as a good one, if they in their 
 judgment deemed it to be so. Sir Benjamin
 
 40 
 
 Sullivan, the other judge, delivered a totally 
 opposite opinion, and to his opinion the chief 
 .Justice at last subscribing, the bond was taken 
 out of the custody of the commissioners and 
 delivered up to the court* 
 
 Thus the government of Madras embarked in 
 three law suits in which they had not natu- 
 rally the most distant concern, and after every 
 influence of expence, intimidation, and irre- 
 gular agency, had been tried in vain, found 
 themselves defeated in all points ; but the 
 government of Madras was not so constituted 
 as to endure the fair restraints of justice with 
 patience ; and the most severe and unheard-of 
 revenge was prepared for those, who had been 
 the instruments by which these restraints vver e 
 imposed. The first victim to the irritated pas. 
 sions of the government, was Mr. Benjamin 
 Roebuck, mint- master, and military paymaster" 
 general in both of which situations his conduct 
 had been more than once highly commended by 
 the government. This gentleman, near 60 years 
 of age, who had served the company honour, 
 ably for thirty-five years, was suddenly order- 
 ed from Madra, where he had resided during 
 the whole of his stay in India, deprived of 
 both his offices, and sent up to Viza- 
 
 * See Appendix, Nc. 20.
 
 41'-' . 
 
 gapatam five hundred miles from Fort 
 St. George, with a salary reduced from 1009 
 pagodas per month to 350. The manner in which 
 this cruel transaction was carried into effect, 
 is so very characteristic of the proceedings 
 of the Madras government at that period ; 
 and the letter of the unhappy man (who fore- 
 saw his approaching death ), so simple and 
 respectable, that both the mandate of Mr. 
 Buchan and the last petition of Mr. Roebuck, 
 before his decease,are well deserving of the most 
 serious attention.* 
 
 It seems natural to English feelings to sup- 
 pose that the humble appeal of an old and ho- 
 nourable servant of the East India compa- 
 ny, might have met with some attention, and 
 that it could not be considered as derogatory 
 to the dignity of any colonial government to 
 assign a cause for punishment, and to afford 
 the opportunity of excuse and explanation 
 before that punishment was inflicted. No 
 answer was given to his petition, Mr. Roebuck 
 was hastened away to Vizagapatam (and as 
 every body foresaw would be the case) soon 
 fell a victim to a broken hearf,occasioned by the 
 severity of the treatment which he had thus un- 
 justly experienced ; a death too sudden and too 
 truel for an English gentleman who had been 
 
 Vide Appendix, No.17, 18. 
 G
 
 guilty of no other fault, than an appeal to the 
 law in defence of his property, and who had 
 ven receded from that appeal the moment in 
 which he had found it to be obnoxious to the 
 government. 
 
 After the death of this truly amiable man, 
 the next victim singled out was Mr. Parry, 
 a respectable merchant who had resided 
 above twenty years in Madras, and who as has 
 before been stated had been selected by the bonS 
 fide creditors of the nabob in common with 
 Messrs. Roebuck, Abbot,andMaitland to watch 
 over their interests, and prosecute any forgeries 
 upon the fund set apart for the benefit of those 
 who had really lent their money: if a merchant 
 can in any manner be ruined, it must be by a 
 sudden and peremptory exile from the scene 
 of all his speculations and engagements ; 
 Mr. Parry was accordingly ordered to embark 
 on board the first ship that sailed for England, 
 and this without any cause assigned, and with- 
 out the slightest opportunity afforded of bring- 
 
 
 
 ing Sir G. Barlow to any explanation of so vio- 
 lent a proceeding ; it is necessary that a licensed 
 resident in our East India colonies shouldreceive 
 a year's notice before he is sent home ; it so hap- 
 penedjiowever^thatan order for the return ofMr. 
 Parry had been sent out nine years before from 
 the government at home : but as this had ori-
 
 43 
 
 ginated entirely in misconception, it had never 
 been acted upon and had been long since revok- 
 ed. The pretence of its existence, however, was 
 the plea upon which this order amounting to 
 his total ruin was issued to Mr. Parry. 
 
 Mr.Maitland was immediately after deprived 
 of his office of justice of the peace,Mr. George 
 Strachey and Mr. I. A. Grant who had served 
 upon the grand jury that found the bills against 
 Reddy Row and Battley, Mr. Oliver, and 
 Mr. Keene who had served upon the special 
 juries that tried these defendants, Mr. Wood 
 and other civil servants] who had attended 
 the trials, or expressed opinions upon them 
 were all deprived of their situations at Ma- 
 dras, and banished to the most remote parts 
 oflndia,nor could the most .earnest prayers and 
 entreaties of theso unfortunate gentlemen break 
 through the silence of the government. In a 
 moment they were mysteriously deprived of their 
 station and their subsistence; the object seemed 
 not only to punish but to goad with every spe- 
 cies of mortification, and the alarming specta- 
 cle was exhibited of an English government 
 not calmly inflicting pain for the restraint of 
 evil, but vindictively delighting in the amaze- 
 ment of its victims.* 
 
 * See Appendix 19. Letter from the agents to tfe* com- 
 misioaerg in London,
 
 As it appears impossible to justify this dis- 
 turbance of public justice, and this system of 
 juridical resentment upon any common princi- 
 ples, recourse has been had by the agent of the 
 Madras government (sent over for the express 
 purposeofdefending the measures of Sir George 
 Barlow) to the supposition of disaffection 
 among the civil servants : and the whole of these 
 trials are represented to have been a combina- 
 tion against the wishes of Sir George Bar- 
 low, an organized conspiracy of the civil ser- 
 vants of the settlement to defeat the ends of jus- 
 tice^and to bring the government into contempt. 
 The difficulty in this supposition is to 
 find any possible motive for such a com- 
 bination. The conspirators (if any) were 
 the bona fide creditors who were in the propor- 
 tion of one to seven, to the ostensible creditors : 
 the minority against the majority, the investi- 
 gation of the guilt of Reddy Row was com- 
 menced on the part of the prosecutors with the 
 certain knowledge that some of the first peo- 
 ple in the settlement were holders of forged 
 bonds (purchased by them as real ones) to the 
 amount of sixteen or seventeen lacks of pago- 
 das. If ever there was an improbable ground 
 'or a conspiracy it was a declaration to the 
 community at large that six sevenths of a spe- 
 cies of property widely diffused among them
 
 45 
 
 was worth nothing at all, nor is it possible to 
 understand how such a diminution of men's 
 hopes, and such a destruction of their supposed 
 property could be made rallying points for the 
 disaffection of the settlement. 
 
 If indeed the unhappy disposition of the 
 government to interfere, when they had 
 no natural interest, had taken an opposite 
 direction ; if they had defended the interests of 
 the small number of real creditors against the 
 widely extended forgeries by which the value 
 of their property was diminished, there might 
 then perhaps have been some risk of public 
 irritation : but in these trials government 
 took the part of the many against the few, 
 and succeeded in turning mens minds to the 
 side of justice, only because such interference 
 of government, in any degree was deemed 
 unjust and (as it was conducted) intolerable. 
 
 If every thing which took place in these 
 trials was the consequence of disaffection, 
 why was Mr. Batley recommended to mercy 
 by the jury? Why was the bill found against 
 Poupiah ? Why did the second grand jury find 
 another bill presented by the government offi- 
 cers ? Six bills only relative to these concerns 
 were presented to the grand juries, three by the 
 law officers, and three by the agents for the 
 private creditors. The law officers succeeded
 
 46 
 
 in two bills and failed in one. The private 
 creditors succeeded in all three. It does not 
 appear from all this bow there could be a 
 disposition to refuse justice to the side espous- 
 ed by the government, nor does there appear 
 in such a statement sufficient reason why 
 grand jurymen acting upon oath should be ex- 
 posed to those vindictive punishments by which 
 they were afterwards attacked. 
 
 The sentiments of the petty juries were never 
 put to the test bygovernment,for of the two bills 
 of indictment found, which were psesented by 
 their law officers, neither was prosecuted any 
 farther. These trials, however,might have been 
 made a mere pretence, and if the disaffection ex- 
 isted, any cause, however trifling and insigni- 
 ficant, might have been sufficient todevelopeit; 
 a general system of economy recommended by 
 the East India Company had been pursued by 
 Sir George Barlow, and the discontent which 
 this is said to have occasioned, has been repre- 
 sented as the cause of that supposed disaffec- 
 tion which is said to have displayed itself in 
 the trials. It is remarkable, however, that of 
 all the civilians displaced by Sir George Bar- 
 low, and who must therefore be presumed to 
 have been the most eager in this imaginaiy 
 opposition, not one had sustained, or was
 
 47 
 
 threatened with the slightest diminution of his 
 income, or had the most trifling grievance of 
 this nature to complain of. After this plain and 
 indubitable fact, we ought to hear no more of 
 disaffection produced by economy; of this econo- 
 my, on the contrary, there was a very candid 
 approbation in the settlement, proceeding from a 
 conviction of its absolutenecessity. If Sir George 
 Barlow had conducted himself with the same 
 temper and discretion upon all other points as 
 he did in carrying into effect the economical ar- 
 rangements of the Company, Madras would still 
 have been the same flourishing and happy set- 
 tlement in which it was before its prosperity 
 was consigned to his care. 
 
 The conduct of the government in these trials, 
 wants some extraordinary circumstances for its 
 justification,the agents of thatgovernment clear- 
 ly feel that unless they can set up some un- 
 usual pretext for the extraordinary violence 
 of which it has been guilty, that it must 
 attract public attention, and recoil upon the 
 heads of the aggressors. Every body knows 
 that the army in India mutinied, and advan- 
 tage is taken of our careless inspection into 
 the affairs of the east, to disseminate a con- 
 fused and general notion that Sir George Bar- 
 low was. driven into these measures by the 
 agitated state of government during the rau-
 
 48 
 
 tiny, by the necessity of keeping up its impor- 
 tance, and by the ignorance in which he was* 
 whether there might not be some connection 
 between military revoU and civil opposition. 
 But these civil differences began in the mid- 
 dle of the year 1808. The mutiny did not break 
 out till the middle of the year 1809. Informa- 
 tion was laid of Reddy Row's forgery in July 
 J808. The plaintiffs were threatened by go- 
 vernment in October, the bill was found in the 
 same month., the first verdict was given against 
 government on the 9th of December, the second 
 on the 28th of January 1809; and on the 13th 
 of February 1809, it was first understood in the 
 settlement that there was any species of dis- 
 agreement between government and the com- 
 mander in chief; before this period, there was not 
 the most distant suspicion of such an event. So 
 that government and the private creditors, the 
 grand and petty juries had in the two first 
 trials all resolved on, i and acted their respec- 
 tive parts before this disagreement with the 
 army had the shadow of existence, though this 
 disagreement is relied upon to explain and to 
 vilify the motives of those who were opposed 
 to government in these trials. 
 
 C7 
 
 The last trial which grew necessarily out of 
 ihe others, took place on the 6th of March,and 
 terminated as the othershad done.The indictment
 
 49 
 
 was preferred before the grand jury on the 
 October of the preceding year, and the ver- 
 dict was given by the same special jury, 
 which had been impanelled in the second cause. 
 
 There never was in fact so shameless a de- 
 fence of improper proceedings as this defence 
 of the injustice of the Madras government, 
 by the supposition of a combination between 
 the civil and the military. There is no overt 
 act which proves it, no secret connexion was 
 ever brought to light, which regarded it: no 
 letter was ever known to be sent, no meeting 
 ever known to be held between these two de- 
 scriptions of the company's servants. No in- 
 dividual civilian was ever tried for it, or ever 
 accused of it j Sir George Barlow has not in 
 any of his public papers, made the most dis- 
 tant allusion to it, nor is it mentioned by 
 Lord Minto, who cannot be accused of omission 
 in his publications relative to the late mutiny. 
 It in fact was never heard of till it started up in 
 this country as a plausible excuse for the scenes 
 of injustice and oppression which were about 
 to be developed: it then seems for the first time 
 to have occurred that the way to make injur- 
 ed men odious, was to call them disaffected. 
 
 But to what purpose or for what object could 
 
 this display of disaffection be made by large bo- 
 
 H
 
 50 
 
 dies of civil servants in India ? What could they 
 hope to get? where to go ? or what to do ? if 
 the dominion of the company was destroyed, 
 with it must perish all their hopes of acquiring 
 wealth,and of returning to their native country. 
 There neverwas any body of agents so completely 
 subjected to the power of their employers, and 
 so completely identified with them in point of 
 interest. If the conspiracy failed, the leaders 
 would have been ruined, if it succeeded 
 all would have been ruined: men with arms 
 in their hands, are liable at all times to fits of 
 irritation and excess, but to foster a general 
 spirit of discontent among the civil servants 
 in India, and to have trained them to a syste- 
 matic opposition to the will of government, 
 must have been at any time regarded as the 
 extreme of every thing that was incongruous, 
 absurd, and impossible. 
 
 In truth there never were any causes where 
 the investigation was more complete, or the 
 efforts of the juries to do justice more exem- 
 plary ; they knew that the e)es of all persons 
 were upon them : they were selected as the 
 ablest, aiidmoat upright men in the settlement, 
 and their resolution to de< ide as their con- 
 science mig!u dictate to them, was not to be 
 shaken. Government found when too late that
 
 51 
 
 they had done wrong in becoming parlies 
 to a cause where they had no natural in- 
 terest, and that the same servants of the com- 
 pany who on ordinary occasions were entirely at 
 their disposal, could not, and would not 
 sacrifice their sense of right and wrong, when 
 called upon as jurors, to the arbitrary will of 
 any human being; how to extricate themselves 
 from their errors they knew not; the only remedy 
 they applied was perseverance in it,and that per- 
 severance naturally conducted them tothoseacts 
 of tyra :ny which this narrative has related. " I 
 fe was three and twenty years, "says Sir Benja- 
 min Sullivan/ f a confidential servant of the com- 
 " pany under this government, and feel an 
 " habitual leaning towards them ; I am not 
 " therefore inclined to impute any thing to 
 " them beyond imprudence, but imprudent I 
 " am afraid they have been in taking any 
 rs part in a cause, which seemed to call on 
 " them for a steady and determined neutra- 
 " lity, and had I still been their attorney 
 " general, this is the conduct I should have 
 " advised." Happy would it have been for 
 Sir G. Barlow had he listened to such 
 prudent and rational advice. But in his opi- 
 nion, that authority and respect which had been 
 - '"'~ '"""
 
 52 
 
 1 oft by folly was 10 be retrieved by cruelty,every 
 opponent was at once swept away before him, 
 and a principle was assiduously propagated 
 throughout the settlement, that the law 
 (useful only for the litigations of subjects) 
 should be silent and submissive, when once 
 the pleasure of government was declared : 
 a doctrine which could not be tolerated 
 here, and from the tremendous effects of which 
 men quietly doing their duty in distant colonies 
 ought to be protected. 
 
 Considering the violence of which he has 
 been guilty, and the perils to which he has sub- 
 jected our Indian empire, Sir G. Barlow has 
 been hitherto treated with a consideration which 
 he certainly does not deserve. He is not na- 
 turally a bad man,and nobody has ever imputed 
 to him any corruption in his motives, or his ac- 
 tions, but he is a man of moderate understand- 
 ings and unbounded vanity, with a fervent 
 desire to act,with a great ignorance how to act, 
 and with as little suspicion of his own defects 
 as ever entered into the contemplation of a 
 human being ; as a second in office, he gained, 
 and was entitled to, real credit ; he was obser- 
 vant of forms, accurate in details, and patient 
 of labour: with these qualities, these praises, 
 and with the self-importance which they na- 
 turally inspired,he succeeded to thegoverumeut
 
 53 
 
 of the southern parts of India, and the com- 
 mand of a vast army. He first failed (as or- 
 dinary men commonly do fail) in th? choice of 
 his advisers, and then in the choice of his 
 measures; some little deference to men's feel- 
 ings, some study of their characters, and some 
 knowledge of their passions would have easily 
 carried him through the trifling difficulties 
 which presented themselves to his atten- 
 tion, but all these things were beyond the 
 routine of office to which he had been accus- 
 tomed, and foreign to the notions of dignity 
 which he had cherished ; whatever happened 
 he had no .other resource than an order trans- 
 mitted by the chief secretary ; if this failed he 
 had recourse to another order, still more vio- 
 lent and more ungracious ; and at last,was often 
 driven for refuge to the borders of lawless vio- 
 lence and outrage. 
 
 For the servants of the company whe- 
 ther civil or military, he had only one 
 distinction. Those who approved of and 
 praised all his measures; arid those who 
 did not. Of the latter there was but one class: 
 respectful remonstrance, official information, 
 zealous advice, lawful appeals>conscientious re- 
 sistance in the discharge of duty, were all con- 
 founded with open rebellion ; all marked with 
 secret infamy to the government at home, or
 
 54 
 
 punished on the spot with banishment, and 
 poverty. 
 
 Such are the means by which this unfit 
 person has attempted to govern one of our most 
 valuable colonies ; of the consequences we are 
 all too well informed. In eighteen months 
 after Sir George Barlow succeeded to the go- 
 vernment of a quiet settlement and a loyal 
 army, eighty thousand men were in open re- 
 bellion against him ; and almost every civil 
 servant of respectability banished from his 
 presence, whilst an example has been given 
 which no time will ever obliterate : for the 
 lesson of disaffection which Sir G. Barlow first 
 taught the native troops, by tampering with 
 them to resist their European officers, is now 
 fast spreading throughout our Indian army, 
 and laying the foundation of future scenes, 
 which no one who hopes or fears for our East- 
 ern possessionSjCan contemplate without horror
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 Memorandum of Claims preferred by Reddy Row before 
 the Commissioners. 
 
 1798, 
 26th July. Bond assigned by Gopal Row 
 
 1799, to ReJdy Row . 
 
 28th August. Ditfo, Rnm Row Putmaja to 
 
 1800, ditto,of which 5000 was paid 
 13th April. Dittoin favour of D.Moorlapah 
 
 assigned iw Reddy Row 
 21st October. Ditto 
 
 1801, 
 
 9th May. Di'to in favour of Reddy Row 
 26th Ditto. Balance due on open account 
 in favour of Reddy Row, as- 
 signed over to D. Moorlapah 
 
 3d June. Bond in favour of Moorlapah 
 
 13th Ditto. Ditto assigned by Antiapah 
 
 NaigtoD. Moorlapah 
 Ditto S. Vincatasah Chitty to 
 
 ditto 
 
 Ditto in favour of D. Moor- 
 lapah 
 
 19th Ditto Ditfci assigned by Narrain 
 Chitty to Reddy Row 
 
 21st Ditto. Ditto by Yeve ja" D.iva, do. 
 
 23d Ditto. Ditto by Narrasmgah Row, 
 dilto 
 
 24th Ditto. Ditto assigned to D Moorla- 
 pah by M. Anunt 
 
 26th Ditto. Ditto by Boojunga Row to D. 
 Moorlapah 
 
 *7th Ditto. Ditto in favour of D. Moorla- 
 pah 
 
 28th Ditto. Eilto assigned by Juvana Naig 
 to D. Moorlapah 
 
 List of bonds said to he includ- 
 ed in the account of open 
 
 1801 . balance for SPs,87,703 2320 
 1st May. Mi orle Doss 
 
 Co.oor Vincata Narrain 
 1 7th June. Vervanada Jawker 
 VenoyaiMm 
 Virdarajah 
 Rama Chundinpnt 
 Duatajie M <>rlapah assign- 
 ed tu Dr. Davies 
 Praboo Doss 
 Buojunga Row 
 
 38,500 
 37,445 
 
 26,443 
 23.0CO 
 
 49,343 
 
 11,800 
 
 87,70;) 23 20 
 60,050 
 
 1,298 
 16,500 
 
 3,377 9 
 
 9,447 
 13,945 
 
 5,193 22 40 
 15,570 
 
 5,193 28 
 5fl,jOO 
 
 7,880 
 
 99,503 23 20 
 
 1,76,954 17 49 
 
 6000 
 
 4000 
 
 2MOO 
 
 15.500 
 
 5,"')0 
 
 5000 
 
 25,800 
 
 3,^00 
 
 11)00 
 S87,'/00 
 
 4,89,445 40 60
 
 No. II. 
 
 Fort St. George, 30th August, 1808. 
 
 Address to the Governor in Council, from the Agents 
 of the real creditors of the Nabob, stating the bad 
 consequences which may arise from the interference 
 of Government in the approaching Trials. 
 
 To the Honourable Sir George Barlow, Bart, and 
 K. B. Governor in Council. 
 
 Honourable Sir, 
 
 1. We hope we shall be excused for troubling your 
 Honour in Council upon a subject in which the in- 
 terests of those who are really creditors of the late 
 nabobs of the Carnatic, is materially concerned,as well 
 as, though more remotely, that of the Honourable 
 the East India Company. 
 
 2. It is a notorious fact that claims to an enormous 
 amount have been laid before the commissioners ap- 
 pointed to investigate the demands on the late nabobs 
 of the Carnatic.to perhaps at least ten times more than 
 those claims could have been estimated at, as was 
 supposed by those who had the best means of form- 
 ing an opinion on the subject. 
 
 3. It is generally believed, that the greater part of 
 the bonds upon which these claims have been made 
 are forgeries : and as the real creditors have by the 
 agreement entered into with the Honourable the 
 East India Company, made considerable sacrifices 
 in order to have it eftected, it is peculiarly incumbent 
 on such creditors in this country, as well on their own 
 account, as on the part of those they represent in 
 Great Britain, and in i'act for the general interest of 
 all parties concerned in the arrangement which has 
 taken place for an adjustment of the demands in 
 question, to guard as far as they possibly can against
 
 57 
 
 the admission of claims, by which the fair creditor 
 of the late nabobs of the Carnatic may be deprived of 
 tfie advantages of the fund appropriated for his re- 
 lief, and by which the interests of the Honourable the 
 East India Company may be ultimately materially 
 affected 
 
 4. A short time ago, a meeting of some of the 
 creditors of the late nabobs of the Carnatic,who it was 
 well known, had actually themselves had money trans- 
 actions with the Durbar, was convened at the ex- 
 change, when we were appointed, with others, to 
 watch over their interests and those of the creditors 
 in general, and to take such steps as we might deem 
 advisable on the occasion. 
 
 5. The first bond advertised by the commissioners 
 for investigation, and claimed by Roya Reddy Row, 
 one of the Serishtadars of the late nabob of the Car- 
 natic, and at present in the service of his highness the 
 nabob Azim ul Dowlah, and constantly in attendance 
 with the commissioners, was challenged as a forgery. 
 Informations to this effect were laid before the sitting 
 magistrate, and Roya Reddy Row and a person called 
 Anunda R.OW were committed, and gave bail for their 
 appearance at the next sessions for the said forgery. 
 
 6. On the 26th of July, pending the above men- 
 tioned examinations at the public office, it was un- 
 derstood that the commissioners acquainted the Sit- 
 ting magistrate that they had addressed a letter to 
 goveniment to request they would order their law 
 officer to proceed against two of the witnesses who 
 were then making their depositions against the said 
 Roya Reddy Row and Anunda Row, for having per- 
 jured themselves in giving evidence before the com- 
 missioners, but the sitting magistrate conceiving that 
 there was sufficient matter in the informations taken 
 before him to commit the said Roya Reddy Row 
 and Anunda Row, they were committed accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 i
 
 58 
 
 7. A few days afterwards it was publicly known; 
 and certainly not without some degree of astonish- 
 ment, that the law officer of government had actually 
 commented proceedings against the two evidences 
 alluded to in the letter of the commissioners, because 
 it was, and certainly not unreasonably, supposed that 
 those who came forward voluntarily to give evidence 
 against claims produced before the commissioners, 
 would rather have met with the support than the dis- 
 approbation of government. 
 
 8. Trusting, however, that the sitting magistrate 
 would have allowed matters to take their regular 
 course, we did not deem it necessary at the time to- 
 state these facts to your honourable board. 
 
 9. We have since been informed that the two wit- 
 nesses above mentioned have been bound over to 
 take their trial for the crime before stated, at the en- 
 suing sessions. 
 
 10. We therefore feel ourselves compelled to lay 
 these particulars before your honourable board, and 
 to submit whether such proceedings may not tend 
 entirely to discourage natives from coming forward 
 to question any claims however unfounded, and ii> 
 fact, whether they are not likely to stifle enquiry and 
 investigation altogether. 
 
 11. Because when it is known publicly that Roya 
 Reddy Row, the person who has made the claim or* 
 the bond in question which is challenged as a forgery,, 
 and for which he is bound over to take his trial at the 
 next sessions has, notwithstanding, the support of the 
 commissioners ; that the law officers of government 
 have been directed to prosecute those who have given 
 information against him, and that he is a confidential 
 iervant of his Highness the nabob Azim at Dowlah, 
 we cannot but entertain the most alarming appre- 
 hensions, that all evidence from natives by which the 
 forgeries can be brought to light, will be entirely 
 ittL
 
 59 
 
 3$. It is well known that the natives of this place 
 'are of a mild and timid disposition, and that the very 
 idea of a contest in anyway with persons in high 
 situations, whether Europeans or natives, is at all 
 times sufficient to deter them from coining forward, 
 even where their own immediate interests are con- 
 cerned, much less so can they be expected to volun- 
 teer their evidence in a matter wherein those interests, 
 jperhaps, may not be at all implicated. 
 
 We have the honour to be with great respect, 
 Honourable Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient servants, 
 (Signed) BENJAMIN ROEBUCK. 
 
 THOMAS PARRY. 
 WILLIAM ABBOTT. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 Fort St. George, September 17tb, 1808. 
 
 The Governor's Reply to Messrs. Benjamin Roebuck, 
 Thomas Parry, William Abbot. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I am directed by the honourable the Governor in 
 Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 the 20th ultimo, in which you have informed the 
 Governor in Council, that you had been appointed to 
 watch over the interests of certain creditors of the 
 late nabobs of the Carnatic, and in which you have 
 stated objections to the proceedings which it has 
 been judged advisable to adopt, with regard to certain 
 persons, (of the description of creditors) who are sup- 
 posed to have been engaged in transactions of an illicit 
 nature, and against whom a prosecution is in conse- 
 quence about to be instituted.
 
 60 
 
 The Governor in Council must be entirely precluded 
 from acknowledging you in the capacity of the agents 
 <>l 'creditors who have not subscribed the paper which 
 you have addressed to the governor, or who have nqt 
 individually authorized it. Without however going 
 at present into a farther discussion of the circum- 
 stances which may have attended your nomination, 
 the Governorin Council considers it sufficient to state, 
 with reference to the professed object of your letter, 
 that if. as individual creditors, you have reason to be- 
 lieve that the commissioners for the investigation of 
 the Caruatic claims had not sufficient grounds for the 
 recommendation which has led to the prosecution of 
 which you have complained, means will be used to 
 obtain satisfaction on that point. 
 
 The Governor in Council has no reason to doubt 
 that the whole of the proceedings in question has been 
 founded on the most correct principle ; and that its ac- 
 curacy will be sufficiently evinced by any farther expla- 
 nation which may take place. But it being at the same 
 time the wish of the Governor in Council that all per- 
 sons whose claims may be liable to the consideration 
 of the commissioners, should have the full benefit of 
 the comptrolling authority vested in the supreme 
 government, I am directed to acquaint you that ap- 
 plication will be made to the commissioners for copies 
 of all papers connected with the question agitated in 
 your4etter, and that copies of those papers with a copy 
 of your letter will be submitted to the right honour- 
 able the Governor in Council,if you should be desirous 
 that this course should be adopted. 
 I am, Gentlemen, 
 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 (Signed) G. BUCHAN, 
 
 Examined. Chief Secretary to Government. 
 
 (Signed) ED. H. WOODCOCKE, 
 Fixed Examiner.
 
 6i 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 Fort St. George, September 26th, 1808. 
 
 From the same Agents in continuance to the Goveiv 
 nor in Council, stating the private interest which the 
 Law advisers of the Government have in the ap- 
 proaching Trials. 
 
 To George Buchan, Esq. chief Secretary to Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of 
 your letter of the 17th instant, in which you inform 
 us that we had stated to the honourable the Governor 
 in Council,certain objections to the proceedings which 
 it had been judged adyiseable to adopt with regard to 
 certain persons (of the description of creditors) who 
 are supposed to have been engaged in transactions of 
 an illicit nature, and against whom a prosecution is in 
 .conseq.uence about to be commenced. 
 
 In reply to this part of ypiur letter we beg leave to 
 observe that on reference to our address of the 20th 
 ultimo we do not find any objections of the nature to 
 which you allude, nor do we know of any prosecutions 
 about to be entered into of the description yo* men- 
 tion. 
 
 The circumstances which we were desirous of bring- 
 ing under the consideration of government was alto- 
 gether of a different complexion; a prosecution com- 
 menced by the law officers of government in their of- 
 ficial capacity not against persons of the description of 
 creditors of the late nabobs of theCarnatic, but against 
 two witnesses who had given informations before the 
 sitting magistrate, on which certain persons had been, 
 bound over to take their trial at the ensuing sessions 
 for having forged or being concerned in the forgery Qf
 
 62 
 
 a bond from his late highness the nabob, Omdell ul 
 Omrah for a large sum of money, a proceeding into 
 which we thought it probable government might inad- 
 vertently have been led, and which we were appre- 
 hensive might, on the grounds we then stated, be 
 attended with consequences injurious to the interests 
 of the fair creditors as well as those of the honourable 
 the East India Company. 
 
 This, sir, was the fact to which we deemed it in* 
 cumbent on us to call the attention of government, 
 and in doing so we were far from intending to blame 
 or implicate any person whatever. 
 
 We did not presume to question whether the com- 
 missioners appointed to investigate the claims on the 
 late nabobs of the Carnatic had or had not sufficient 
 grounds for the recommendation which led to the pro- 
 secution of the two witnesses in question. We were 
 aware that those gentlemen are not in any way under 
 the control of the government of Fort St. George, 
 and that they have full power to adopt any measure 
 which may appear to them to be best calculated to 
 carry the duties of their office into effect; they there- 
 fore had no doubt a right to select any person they 
 thought proper to cariy on the prosecution they con- 
 sidered it expedient to institute against the parties in 
 question, but we humbly conceive it was by no means 
 necessary that the law officers of government in their 
 official capacity, should have been ordered to conduct 
 the prosecution. No attempt was made by the parties 
 prosecuted, to endanger the interest of the fair creditor, 
 by imposing on the commissioners a spurious claim. 
 On the contrary they had given evidence against a 
 claim which they state to be of that description : 
 should it appear hereafter their evidence is not true, 
 the fund appropriated for the relief of those whose de- 
 mands are just will not be injured ; on the other hand 
 should the bond which has been opposed ultimately 
 prove to be a forgeryj the fair creditor, and the ho-^ 
 nourable East India company will derive considerable 
 benefit from the testimony of the parties now prose-.
 
 63 
 
 cuted by the law officers of government and under 
 their orders. 
 
 Before we use the freedom of availing ourselves of 
 the indulgence offered by government of applying to 
 the commissioners for copies of all the papers having 
 reference to the subject of our former letter, we have 
 to request they will be pleased to favour us with a 
 copy of such observations as may have been made on 
 it by the advocate general, to whom we understand 
 it has been submitted; in order that we may have an 
 opportunity of replying to them, and that the whole 
 affair may be brought forward in a regular manner 
 to the notice of the right honourable the Governor 
 general, and ultimately to the parliamentary commis- 
 sioners, and the honourable the court of directors. 
 
 We are the more anxious on this point, as we have 
 some reason to believe that the report of the advocate 
 general is not altogether free from inaccuracies and 
 misrepresentations. 
 
 In one particular, we know, he has mis-stated the 
 fact, and he has said, alluding to the witnesses before 
 mentioned, that Mr. Parry has become bail for them, 
 to take their trial at the approaching sessions for per- 
 jury. 
 
 Mr. Parry is not bail for these two witnesses, nor 
 has he any connection with or knowledge of them 
 whatever. 
 
 In our address to government we abstained from re- 
 marking on the situation in which the advocate general 
 was placed in consequence of having stated himself to 
 be a creditor of the late nabobs of the Carnatic; a fact 
 which we understood to have been known to all the 
 members of government, and which, we did suppose 
 might have been a sufficient reason for considering 
 him not altogether a fit person to give aji opinion on
 
 any matter in which the interests of the creditors iri 
 general are concerned. 
 
 It is a notorious fact that Mr. Anstruther cannot 
 possibly be a creditor of the late nabobs of the Car- 
 natic in his own right, and that if he actually be a 
 creditor, it must be as a speculator. 
 
 It is also generally believed that many of the pur- 
 chases in which he is concerned, and which are sup- 
 posed to be to a large amount, have been made 
 through Reddy Row, the person we have already had 1 
 occasion so frequently to mention, or on his recommen- 
 dation; and it therefore may be fairly inferred, that he 
 feels more than common interest in the prosecutions 
 which are now depending. 
 
 We have thought it necessary to state these circum- 
 stances for the information of the board, because we 
 conceive, that although they may have understood 
 generally that Mr. Anstruther was a creditor of the late 
 nabobs of the Carnatic, we do not suppose they can 
 have been acquainted with the nature and description 
 of his claims. 
 
 In consequence of your having informed us by your 
 letter of the 17th instant, that the honourable the 
 Governor in Council does not think proper to recognize 
 us as a committee for the bona fide creditors of;the late 
 nabobs of the Carnatic, we now take leave to present 
 ourselves individually as such. 
 
 We have the honour to be, Sir, 
 Your most obedient humble servants, 
 (Signed) BENJAMIN ROEBUCK* 
 THOMAS PARRY. 
 WILLIAM ABBOT.
 
 No. V. 
 
 Fort St. George, 5th Oct. 1803. 
 
 PUBLIC DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Oovernor's Reply threatening these Gentlemen if they 
 proceed. 
 
 To Messrs. Benjamin Roebuck, Thomas Parry and 
 William Abbot. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 . 
 
 1. I am directed by the honorable the Governor m 
 Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 the 2Gth ultimo. 
 
 2. The Governor in Council thinks it unnecessary to 
 go at present into a further explanation of the nature 
 of the illicit transactions, which were alluded to in 
 the letter addressed to you on the 17th ultimo, or of 
 the proceedings which those transactions may render 
 it expedient to adopt, as the explanation does not ap- 
 pear essential. 
 
 3. The particular object of the letter addressed to 
 you on the 17th ultimo, was for the purpose of making 
 known to you, that if you should have any cause for 
 questioning the propriety of thelmeasures adopted by the 
 commissioners for investigating theCarnatic claims,the 
 Governor in Council was present to afford any assist- 
 ance that might be necessary in bringing the subject 
 under the notice of the authorities, which are legally 
 intitled to take cognizance of questions of that na- 
 ture. The Governor in Council however observes in 
 your present letter, that you disavow an intention of 
 bringing into question the grounds of the recommen- 
 dation of the commissioners which have formed the
 
 66 
 
 subject of your recent communications; but that you 
 have thought it necessary to question the propriety 
 of the orders of the Governor in Council expressly 
 founded on that recommendation. 
 
 4. The Governor in Council has attentively reviewed 
 the proceedings connected, with the subject, and it 
 appear? manifestly established from the facts which 
 have been stated, that no other course could have 
 been taken than that which has been adopted, on, 
 the recommendation of the commissioners repressing 
 the dangerous efforts which have been made to ob- 
 struct the cause of their enquiry, and to place in dif- 
 ficulty the persons instrumental in facilitating its 
 progress. In these circumstances the Governor in 
 Council must necessarily consider the tenor of your 
 communications to be in the highest degree impro- 
 per. 
 
 5. The Governor in Council considers the mode in 
 which you presume to discuss the proceedings of the 
 government, and your application for the official 
 paper to which you allude, to be an aggravation of 
 your disrespectful conduct. The explanation con- 
 veyed in the letter addressed to you on the 17th 
 ultimo, was founded on distinct grounds, and was 
 unconnected with any reference to that paper, (to 
 which it is proper to notice that you could have had 
 no regular means of access) and the Governor in 
 Council must therefore consider your observations on 
 that point to be irrelevant to the professed object of 
 your letter. 
 
 6. I am directed to repeat, that if there is any 
 matter of real or supposed objection connected with 
 the proceedings of the commissioners, which you 
 may be desirous of bringing under the notice of the 
 constituted authorities, the Governor in Council will 
 afford every degree of facility that may be requisite 
 
 iu- promoting that purpose, but on the other hand, it 
 

 
 67 
 
 is proper to apprize you, that any farther acts of 
 wanton obstruction to these proceedings, or of dis- 
 respect to the authority of the government will not 
 fail to experience the severest effects of public dis- 
 pleasure. 
 
 I am, Gentlemen, 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 (Signed) G. BUCHAN, 
 
 Chief Sec. to the Government* 
 Examined. 
 (Signed) J. PRATT. 
 
 No. VL 
 
 Fort St George, S3d December, 1808. 
 
 The Agents reply to George Buchan, Esq. chief 
 Secretary to Government. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 1. However desirous we might have been of replying 
 to your letter, of the 5th of October, to Mr. Roebuck 
 and ourselves, in order to remove as far as we possibly 
 eould the unfavourable impressions which the ho- 
 nourable the Governor in Council appeared to have re- 
 ceived regarding our conduct as to the communications 
 we had deemed it incumbent on us to make in our 
 addresses of the 20th of August and 26th September 
 last : we considered it adviseable to wait the result of 
 the trials, which were to take place at the October 
 sessions, before we intruded ourselves again on their 
 notice. 
 
 2. We are indeed much concerned to find from your 
 letter that our former communications had been con.
 
 m 
 
 sidered disrespectful and improper. We beg leave 
 most solemnly to declare that nothing could be far- 
 ther from our intentions than to offend government, 
 or bring forward improper information to their notice; 
 for them and for their acts, we have that high respect, 
 to which from those, who live under their authority, 
 and enjoy their protection, they are so justly en- 
 itled. 
 
 3. In answer to the last paragraph of your letter 
 we trust we shall stand excused for observing that 
 we are apprehensive some communications not 
 founded in truth have been made to government, as 
 to the motives which influenced our conduct, and 
 which have drawn forth the expressions which we 
 cannot but consider severe, and which we know we 
 have not deserved. 
 
 4. We request you will assure theHonourable the Go- 
 vernor in Council, that we have not in any way, either 
 directly or indirectly obstructed the proceedings of the 
 commissioners appointed to investigate the claims on 
 the late Nabobs of the Camatic. 
 
 5. It is true that Mr. Abbot waited frequently on 
 the commissioners, anxious to give them information 
 respecting the claim which had been preferred before 
 them by Reddy Row, which he believed ta be a for- 
 gery, but he was not aware that he thereby in any 
 way obstructed their proceedings. 
 
 6. Mr. Parry had the honour of appearing before 
 the commissioners only once on the subject of the 
 claim in question, and he attended at their own re- 
 quest He has not either directly or indirectly in- 
 terfered or communicated with them further respecting 
 it. 
 
 7. Mr. Roebuck we believe, has never attended the 
 rommissioners to be examined.
 
 69 
 
 8. We shall n ow take the liberty of stating for the 
 information of government, the result of the prose-, 
 cution, which we thought it incumbent on us to bring 
 under their notice, in our letter of the 20th August. 
 
 9. The bills of indictment preferred by the law of- 
 ficers of government at the instigation of the commis- 
 sioners against Bearnah Row and Arnachilla Row for 
 forgery, were thrown out by the grand jury. 
 
 10. Roya Reddy Row and Anunda Row have been 
 found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the private 
 creditors of the late nabobs of the Carnatic, and the 
 honourable the East India Company, by means of 
 a bond forged by them of the late Nabob Oomdul ul 
 Omrah. 
 
 11. And a bill of indictment has been found, by 
 the grand jury against Roya Reddy Row, and Mr. 
 J. Battley, secretary to his highness the nabob Azim 
 ul Dowlah, for a conspiracy and fraud, and another 
 bill of indictment against the said Mr. J. Battley for 
 perjury, which bills of indictment lie over for trial at 
 the ensuing sesions. 
 
 12. We hope that the honourable the Governor in 
 Council will now be satisfied that RoyaReddy Row and 
 the parties with whom he is connected are not persons 
 deserving of that support which has been given to them. 
 
 We have the honour to be, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient humble Servants, 
 (Signed) THOMAS PARRY. 
 WILLIAM ABBOT,
 
 66 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 Application from the Agent of Paupiah to the Com- 
 missioners for the Nabob's Debts for Copies of the 
 Proceedings before them in the Claim of Iloya 
 Reddy Row. 
 
 William Parker, S. T. Goad, and Henry Russel, Es- 
 quires, Commissioners for investigating the Debts 
 of the late Nabobs. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 It may be necessary in the prosecution by Paupiah 
 against Reddy Row and Anunda Ro\v, that I should 
 have copies of the proceedings before you in respect 
 of Roya Reddy Row's claim against the nabob as 
 assignee of Gopal Row. You will therefore have the 
 goodness to furnish me with them, or I will thank 
 you to inform me~of your refusing to do so. 
 
 I am, 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Your most obedient servant,- 
 (Signed) WILLIAM LIGHT 
 
 September 14tb, 1808. 
 
 No. VIII. 
 
 Answer of the Commissioners refusing Mr. Light's 
 Requests. 
 
 To Mr. Wm. Light, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 We beg leave to acknowlege the receipt of your 
 letter of the 14th instant. 
 
 Having publicly recorded our opinion, that the 
 charge of forgery lodged by Paupiah against Reddy
 
 71 
 
 Row and Anunda Row is malicious and false, and 
 having in consequence recommended the adoption 
 of legal measures against the author and abettors of 
 that charge, we do not think it our duty voluntarily 
 to afford any facility to Paupiah, either by the pro- 
 duction of papers or otherwise, in respect to the pro- 
 secution which he in his turn has instituted in the 
 same manner against Reddy Row and Anunda Row-. 
 
 We must therefore decline furnishing you on your 
 mere application with any papers in furtherance of 
 the prosecution against Reddy Row and Anunda 
 Row, but should the proceedings mentioned in your 
 letter be legally demandable from us, you will of 
 course know what means to employ to obtain them. 
 We are, Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient servants, 
 (Signed) WILLIAM PARKER, 
 
 S.T.GOAJD. 
 
 Office of commissioners 
 for investigating the Car- 
 jiatic debts, Fort St. George, 
 ^September 15th 1808. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 Names of the Grand Jury, who found the bill against 
 Reddy Row. October 31st, 1808. 
 
 AndrewScott,Esq. foreman Charles Wynon 
 
 J. H.D. Ogilvie Arthur Brooke 
 
 Francis A. Grant James Taylor 
 
 Wm. Thackeray George Moore 
 
 Oeorge Strachey Wm. Wayte 
 
 John Henry Peile John Babington 
 
 Joseph Dacre Frederick II. Bruce and 
 
 Raines Munro George Hay.
 
 No. X. 
 
 CQpy Letter from Hussam Ul Mulk, to Sir Thomaa 
 Strange, Chief Justice, relative to the trial of Roy a 
 Reddy Row. 
 
 (After the usual compliments.) 
 
 I have received two subpoenas from the supreme 
 court requiring my attendance with the accounts, 
 &c. during the administration of Anwar Alee Khan, 
 late Amildar of theSoobah of Arcot, during the space 
 of one month and twenty-seven days in the year 
 1207, Fusiee. As I have been indisposed for one 
 month, I have sent the accounts in my possession by 
 Madhoo Row, Serishtadar of Arcot; and the in- 
 closed paper under my seal and signature contains a 
 statement of circumstances respecting the account of 
 the money received during the administration of 
 Anwar Alee Khan, for your information. 
 
 Seal 
 
 Hussam Ul 
 Mulk. 
 
 The circumstances respecting the accounts of the 
 whole receipts of the money received during the 
 administration of Anwar Alee Khan are these. In 
 the year 1207, 1 1 uslee, when on the removal of Anwar 
 Alee Khan theSoobah of Arcot was intrusted to my 
 charge by his highness the Nucomb Oomdul ul Omra 
 Syyid Moortaza Hoosyn Khan by my directions had 
 the said account prepared for me by Anunda Row 
 and Appro Row Serishtadars of Anwar Alee Khan 
 and sent it with their signatures affixed thereto to me. 
 The account does not bear the seal of Anwar Alee 
 Khan, because he was at that time in the presence.
 
 73 
 
 The account has been with me till now, except that 
 four months ago at the request of Reddy Row, 
 Mootoosuddie of the said account, I sent it to him 
 by the hands of Meer Talib Alee Khan and Syyid 
 \eckim. In that account the loan of Gopal Row to 
 the amount of thirty-five thousand pagodas is not 
 entered. The copy of it under my signature, which 
 is in the possession of Madhoo Row, Serishtadar of 
 Arcot, is conformable to the original. 
 
 Dated 21st of Rumuzan, A. H. 1223. 
 
 Memorandum to serve as an explanation of the above 
 Letter of Hussam Ul Mulk. 
 
 Roya Reddy Row stated in his information upon 
 oath before the commissioners that his claim was 
 founded upon a loan of 35,000 pagodas to Anwar 
 A lee Khan, the renter of the Arcot district in the year 
 1797 for account of the Circar by Gopal Row. In 
 support of this allegation, an account was produced 
 from the dufters, purporting to be the account of 
 Anwar Alee Khan rendered to the Circar, in which 
 this pretended loan by Gopal Row was entered. On 
 the part of the prosecution it was contended that this 
 account was a fictitious one; that in fact Anwar 
 Alee Khan never did render any accounts of his 
 management to the Circar, that he only continued 
 renter fifty-seven days, was then turned out and was 
 succeeded in the rentership by Husam Ul Mulk ; 
 that Hussam Ul Mulk made up the accounts of 
 Anwar Alee Khan's management, as well as his own, 
 and transmitted them to Hussam Ul Mulk, and that 
 there was no entiy whatever of this loan in Anwar 
 Alee Khan's account, nor any mention of money 
 transactions with Roya Reddy Row or Gopal Row. 
 It was likewise alleged that Roya Reddy Row had 
 borrowed these accounts from Hussam Ul Mulk, 
 at some time before the commissioners commenced 
 their investigation of claims, and from them had 
 
 L
 
 74 
 
 fabricated the false accounts in which the loan to 
 Anwar Alee Khan was introduced. The true ac- 
 counts never wore restored to Hussaiid Ul Mulk, 
 hut he fortunately had two tets of them, of which 
 Roya Reddy Row most probably was ignorant. To 
 prove these allegations Hussam Ul Mulk was 
 subpoenaed upon the trial, but instead of obeying the 
 summons he wrote upon thethird or fourth uay of the 
 trial a letter to the Chief Justice of which the accom- 
 panying is a faithful translation. Hussam Ul Mulk 
 Serestadar Madhoo Row attended with the true 
 accounts, and was competent to prove them, but the 
 admission of these accounts in evidence was strenu- 
 ously opposed by the counsel for the defence, and 
 refused by the Chief Justice. Had they been ad- 
 mitted and believed by the jury, they would them- 
 selves have convicted the defenders of the forgery. 
 
 No. XI. 
 
 Letter from the Agents for the Creditors to the 
 Printer of the Madras Gazette requesting him to 
 obtain permission of the Government to print the 
 trials of Roya Reddy Row, and Anunda Row. 
 
 To the Editor of the Madras Gazette Press. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 As the trial of Roya Reddy Row and Anunda 
 Row for conspiring to defraud the East India Com- 
 pany and the private creditors of the Nabobs of the 
 Carnatic by means of a forged bond, &c. &c. has en- 
 gaged the attention of the public in an extraordinary 
 degree, and as it must be an object of considerable 
 interest to the East India Company, to the com-
 
 75 
 
 tnissioners for investigating the debts of the Carnatic, 
 and to the private creditors in England, we are de- 
 sirous to publish the same, and accordingly we re- 
 quest the favour of you to obtain the permission of 
 the honourable the Governor in Council to print it at 
 your press, from notes which we caused to be care- 
 fully taken of the evidence, and we will thank you to 
 let us know the price, and in what time it can be 
 printed. 
 
 We are, 
 Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient servant 
 (signed) ABBOT and MAITLAND. 
 Fort St. George, 
 9th January, 1809. 
 
 No. XII. 
 
 Letter to the Printer of the Madras Gazette from the 
 Chief Secretary of Government refusing permission 
 to print the trials. 
 
 Public Department. 
 
 To the Editor of the Madras Gazette. 
 Sir, 
 
 The application of Messrs. Abbot and Maitland 
 for permission to publish the trials of Roy a Reddy 
 Row and Anunda Row having been submitted to the 
 HonourabletheGovernor in Council, I have been direct- 
 ed to acquaint you that the Governor in Council deems 
 it inexpedient to sanction the proposed publication. 
 I am, 
 Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient servant 
 (signed) G. BUCHAN, 
 
 Chief Secretary to Government. 
 Fort St. George, 
 llth January 1809.
 
 76 
 
 No. XIII. 
 
 Letter from the Agents for the Creditors to the 
 Commissioners for the Nabobs debts residing and 
 acting in London. In which are stated various cir- 
 cumstances f the forgeries of Reddy Row the in- 
 terference of government, and the interest of the 
 Law Officers on the trials. 
 
 Madras, 14th January, 1809. 
 
 To the Commissioners for investigating the debts of 
 the late Nabobs of the Carnatic, London. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 1. You will no doubt have heard when this reaches 
 you of the enormous and preposterous amount of the 
 claims preferred before the commissioners in India. 
 You will, therefore, not be surprised to hear that re- 
 sistance has been made to suspicious claims, notwith- 
 standing they may have been supported by very pow- 
 erful interest. 
 
 2. The accompanying packet, which we beg leave 
 to recommend to your attentive perusal, will make you 
 acquainted with our proceedings hitherto. 
 
 3. In addition to the information contained in the 
 accompanying documents, we beg leave to state to- 
 you, what we could not properly introduce into the 
 memorial, that regarding more particularly the con- 
 duct of the commissioners in India. 
 
 4. It appeared from the examination of Mr. Brodie 
 upon the trial, that the only claim which Roya Reddy 
 Row had upon the nabob was for a balance of pagodas 
 87,703 : 23 ; 20, upon an open account current, which 
 claim was assigned over to Duttijer Morleapah, and
 
 77 
 
 by him forwarded to Mr. Fordyce through Mr. 
 Brodie. 
 
 5. Mr. Brodie further deposed, that when the 
 claim was forwarded through him, he understood it 
 was the only one which RoyaReddy Row had, and in 
 fact, he had no bonds from the nabob whatsoever. 
 But that at a subsequent period other claims upon 
 bonds were forwarded through him by persons acting 
 asattornies for Roya Reddy Row, which struck him 
 as something so mysterious that he took copies of the 
 assignments and powers of attorney. 
 
 6. Roya Reddy Row had no bonds, was confirmed 
 by another witness, Zurial Row, who was present 
 shortly after the present nabob ascended the Musnud, 
 when Roya Reddy Row submitted the above men- 
 tioned open account current to the nabob, pressing 
 him to use his interest with the company to release a 
 quantity of paddy which had been assigned over to 
 him in the Tinnivelly country by Omdul Ul Omrah, as 
 security for his debt, and which had been seized by 
 government when the country was ceded to it by 
 treaty, and representing his deplorable condition, that 
 he had no other securities for his balance but the above 
 mentioned paddy. 
 
 7. It was likewise corroborated by the evidence 
 of Chinniah Moodelliar, who more than eleven months 
 after the death of Omdul Ul Omrah, and when Roya 
 Reddy had been conceal ing himself, shut upinhis house 
 for some months in order to elude a writ of bailable pro- 
 cess laid out against him by Venaigum Moodelliar for 
 a debt of pagodas 15,500, interposed his friendly me- 
 diation, and advised Roya Reddy Row to satisfy Ve- 
 naigum by giving him feome security for his debt. He 
 suggested to him that he should mortgage to Venai- 
 gum some of his nabob's bonds if he had any as secu- 
 rity, when Roya Reddy Row unequivocally declared 
 to him that he had none.
 
 78 
 
 Sth. Notwithstanding this Roya Reddy Row has 
 preferred claims, independantof the balance of the open 
 account current, to the amount of pagodas 304 ,042, 17 ; 
 40, of which we inclose a memorandum. And it ap- 
 peared upon the trial, and what is more extraordinary, 
 it appeared from Roya Reddy Row's own showing, 
 that the balance of pagodas 87, 703, 23, 40, due to him 
 by the nabob was made up of several sums which he 
 had borrowed from different soucars: and he pretend- 
 ed that he had received during the life time of the Omul, 
 bonds in the name of the several soucars for the 
 amount of their respective demands, that with these 
 bonds he had satisfied these creditors, and his balance 
 of pagodas 87,703, 23, 20, was notwithstanding 
 claimed by his pretended assignee Duttajee Morleah, 
 so that by his own showing upon the trial it appeared 
 at least, that this balance was claimed twice ovef. 
 However incredible this may appear to you, and that 
 this defence should be conducted by the law officers 
 of the company, openly assisted by the commission- 
 ers, yet you will be satisfied of the truth of it when 
 you read the trial which we are endeavouring to get 
 published here,and which at any rate you shall receive 
 in manuscript if we cannot obtain permission to print 
 it. 
 
 P. Independent of these two sums, viz. the balance 
 of the open account pagodas 87,703 23 20, and the 
 soucars bonds, viz. Moorli Doss, pagodas 6000, Coloor 
 Vincata Narrain, 4000, Visvinada Tawker 21,40O, Vi- 
 naigum 15,000, Verdarajah 5700, Ramchieu Derput 
 5000, Duttajer Moorlapah 25,800, Praboo Doss 
 3,300, Poojunga Row 1000, which if they are not for- 
 geries, ought to represent, and were given in payment 
 of the above balance, you will see that this man claims as 
 above stated pagodas 314,042 17 40, of which pagodas 
 176,954 17 40, is stated to have been lent to the nabob 
 in the course of the month of June immediately pre- 
 ceding his death, and after he had been declared to be 
 past recovery. Mr. Cockburn, who was at Madras at
 
 79 
 
 the time, can acquaint his. colleagues in what state the 
 nabob was, and whether he believes it possible that a 
 native of India conversant in all the transactions of the 
 Durbar, would lend to the nabob upon his death bed 
 the enormous sum of pagodas 176,954 17 40 without 
 other security than his simple bonds. Weare persuaded 
 that Mr. Cockburn would not believe such a thing if 
 five hundred living witnesses should depose to the 
 truth of it, and if five thousand written documents 
 should start up from the Dufters to support it. The 
 bonds being in different names argues nothing either 
 way, for Mr. Cockburn can inform you this is a com- 
 mon practice among the natives that they may not ap- 
 pear to possess much wealth of their own. 
 
 10. Venaigum is prosecuting Roya Reddy Row 
 and Mr. Batley for the fraud and conspiracy in passing 
 upon him the pretended fraud for pagodas 15,500. The 
 other soucarsare in the interest of Roya Reddy Row, 
 gained over no doubt by a promise of getting their 
 bonds passed by the commissioners. 
 
 1 1 . Excessive as the amount of these fraudulent 
 claims is, it is a trifle, a mere nothing compared to the 
 whole amount of bonds that this man is said to have 
 forged or given certificates for. We are informed, and 
 we have reason to believe, that the bonds sold by him 
 and by his recommendation to the law officers and 
 their associates, viz. Mr. George Arbuthriot, Messrs. 
 Binny and Dennison, the late Mr. Walter Grant, Doc- 
 tor Andrew Berry, Mr. George Hally burton, and 
 others, although none are claimed in the names of the 
 law officers amount to sixteen or seventeen lacks of 
 pagodas. Mr. Orme alone claims upon bonds amount- 
 ing to Gil, 000 pagodas, on account of the estate of the 
 late Mr. Walter Grant, the whole of which were pur- 
 chased from Roya Reddy Row and Anunda Row con- 
 victed as they are, have been left at large now near 
 seven weeks, which time has been employed by them 
 in suborning witnesses for a new trial if granted, and
 
 80 
 
 for Mr. Batley's trial. The sessions is at present ad- 
 journed to Monday the 16th, when the chieljustice is 
 to pronounce whether he will commit them to jail, 
 or by a further exercise of his own discretion, sutler 
 them to remain at large. 
 
 12. We say nothing of the hond in favour of , Go- 
 pal Row for 88,500pagodas,becauseweare persuaded 
 that a trial of sixteen days and a verdict of an English 
 jury will stamp its discredit for ever, notwithstanding 
 all the endeavours of the law officers to uphold it 
 
 13. We have just heard from the printer that go- 
 vernment has refused him permission to print the trial, 
 we shall therefore send it in manuscript to be printed 
 in London. We annex a copy of our correspondence 
 regarding it. This is a singular circumstance. 
 
 14. Aradaunum Paupiah Braminy who commenced 
 the prosecution against Roya Reddy Row, died on the 
 10th instant, Roya Reddy Row and his party arenow 
 using all their endeavours to buy over some of^ie 
 witnesses who appeared, against him on the former 
 trial. This seems to be their only hope, and to effect 
 what they have in view, nothing will be left undone 
 that money and the most powerful influence and inter- 
 est can accomplish. 
 
 15. We shall not trespass upon your time farther 
 at present, and we sincerely hope that such measures 
 will be taken in this country as will prevent the ne- 
 cessity of troubling you again. 
 
 18th January, 1809. 
 
 You will perhaps be surprised to hear that after two 
 more successive adjournments of the sessions, viz. from 
 the 16th instant to the 17th, and from the 17th to this 
 day, the chief justice has this day disposed of the two 
 motions before him, where the one on the part of the
 
 81 
 
 defence for a new trial he has ruled that it ought to be 
 argued in term, the other on the part of the prosecution 
 for the commitment of the defendants he has dis- 
 charged, declaring his resolution to leave them at 
 large upon their recognizance, without assigning any 
 one reason for such measure, or stating any one cir- 
 cumstance in the case of the defendants that entitle 
 them to such extraordinary indulgence, but simply 
 asserting his right and power to do so. Thus two 
 men convicted upwards of seven weeks ago of a crime 
 for which in England they would before now have 
 suffered a capital punishment are left at liberty, an 
 apparent example to the natives of the inemcacy of 
 our laws in this country when opposed by wealth, 
 power, and influence. We shall not now be surprised 
 if all the native witnesses for the prosecution of 
 Reddy Row, as well those that gave testimony 
 upon the late trial, as those summoned for the ap- 
 proaching one should abscond, seeing the powerful 
 protection that he enjoys, and fearing thence the effects 
 of his vengeance for daring to depose the truth against 
 him. Living as you do, gentlemen, in a country where 
 the laws are equally and impartially administered to 
 all ranks of people, you can have no conception how 
 little the natives of the East confide in them. For 
 some time anterior to, and during the trial of Reddy 
 Row their uniform language was, that there was no 
 doubt of the man's guilt, nor of his having committed 
 many other forgeries and frauds, but that enjoying 
 the favour and protection of the commissioners, the 
 law officers of the company, the nabob and the go- 
 vernment, we should never be able to convict him ; 
 when however we did convict him, notwithstanding 
 the weight of influence that we had to contend 
 against, their opinion and language began to change, 
 they began to understand the importance of a trial by 
 jury, and to venerate it. But now, alas! that they 
 find that a man may be tried and convicted by a jury 
 and still appear to escape the penal consequences of 
 his guilt, they recur to their original and native belief, 
 
 M
 
 82 
 
 that fvery thing is determined with us as with them, 
 by power and influence. 
 
 Our able and eloquent counsel Mr. Marsh, upon 
 whose talents and exertions in the conduct ot these 
 trials, too much praise cannot be bestowed, has ad- 
 vised and given notice, that he shall move the court 
 on Monday the 23d, for leave to petition the king in 
 council in appeal from the interlocutory order of the 
 court having these men at large. As the trial of Batley 
 for perjury comes on the 24th, we shall close this dis- 
 patch now, and advise you the success of our motion 
 in a separate letter. 
 
 '.. ' '.i iv:, 
 
 We have the honour to be, 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 Your most obedient humble servants, 
 
 (signed) THOMAS PARRY. 
 W. ABBOTT. 
 R.A, MAITLAND. 
 
 No. XIV. 
 
 Letter from the Agents for thecreditors, to the creditors 
 of the Nabob in England, containing a list of the 
 special jury on the trial of Mr. Batley, and other 
 circumstances of the trial. 
 
 Fort St. George, 2d February, 1809. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 We beg leave to inform you that Mr. John Batley, 
 secretary to his highness the Nabob Azem ul Dowlah, 
 against whom, we stated to you in our letter of the 
 20th ultimo, that a bill of indictment had been found 
 by the grand jury at the last sessions, for perjury com*
 
 mitted in his evidence given on the trial of RoyaRedd/ 
 Row and Anunda Row, was this day found guilty after 
 a trial of eight days, by a special jury summoned on 
 the motion of the defendant. 
 
 , 
 
 The names of the jury are mentioned in the annex- 
 ed list. 
 
 We use the freedom of troubling you with this com- 
 munication, it being materially connected with the 
 subject which we found it necessary to bring to your 
 notice in our letter of the 14th ultimo, inasmuch as it 
 confirms the verdict against Roya Reddy Row and 
 Anunda Row. We have the honour to be, 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 Your most obedient, 
 
 humble servants. 
 
 JList of the special jury on the trial of Mr. John Batley. 
 
 Mr. M. Jolly Mr. W. W. Weston 
 J. F. Coll is Edward Dent 
 
 W. Watts H. G. Keene 
 
 John Tullock Robert Mackonochic 
 
 William Oliver Alexander Falconer 
 
 John Mac Dowall Wm. Hawkins. 
 
 No. XV. 
 from the commissioners granting the request, 
 
 To Messrs. Parry, Abbott, and Maitland. 
 
 Gentlemen. 
 We have received your letter of the 3d instant. Our
 
 84 
 
 deference for the verdict pronounced yesterday by a 
 special jury induces us to inform you that if your 
 solicitor will attend at our office with a copyist at 
 eleven o'clock to-morrow, or any other day, he shall 
 be at liberty to transcribe the papers mentioned in your 
 letter. We are, Gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient servants, 
 
 Office of commissioners (signed) WM. PARKER, 
 for investigating the S. T. GOOD. 
 
 Carnatic debts, Fort HENRY RUSSELL. 
 
 St. George, 3d Feb. . 
 1809. 
 
 No. XVI. 
 
 Substance of a letter from the Commissioners for ex- 
 aminingintotheclaims ontheNabobs of the Carnatic, 
 to Mr. Buchan, secretary to the Government. 
 
 Dated Madras, 6th February, 1809. 
 
 Mr.Batley being found guilty of perjury on theprose- 
 cution,as avowed in Court by their own advocate,Messrs. 
 Roebuck, Parry, Abbett, and Maitland, in which he 
 Jiad, at our suggestion, been defended by the law-of- 
 ficers of the crown, they hoped that the verdict of 
 the special jury would have satisfactorily established 
 the validity, or invalidity of the ground on which the 
 prosecution has been instituted ; but with every degree 
 of deference, c.&c. we do not hesitate' to avow that 
 in the present instance the evidence on the trial of Mr. 
 Batley, -has not, in any degree had the effect of altering, 
 our opinions on the merits of the case, or of impairing 
 the strength of our conviction that both Mr. Batley and 
 Reddy'Row are entirely innocent of the charges on
 
 65 
 
 which they were indicted ; under other circumstances 
 they might not have thought proper to avow this opi- 
 nion, but they are encouraged in the present instance 
 by the similar sentiments of the chief justice himself, 
 the tendency of whose charge was strongly for the ac- 
 quittal of Mr. Batley : and he has signified his reso- 
 lution to submit the two verdicts, with his own report 
 and observations on the respective trials to the wisdom 
 and consideration of the king. Since the trial, a letter 
 has been received from Messrs. Parry, Abbott, and 
 Maitland, for copies of papers with an obscure and 
 indefinite expression of their intention to proceed to 
 further prosecution, the object of which is easily con- 
 jectured. The advocate for the prosecution has dis- 
 tinctly and unreservedly menaced the commissioners, 
 that if they shall make a favourable report of the bond 
 claimed by Reddy Row to the commissioners at home, 
 he would render them the object of a criminal prose- 
 cution. These trials have impeded our public trans- 
 actions, and the further prosecutions with which 
 we are threatened, or any other measures calcu- 
 lated to oppose our proceedings, we contemplate as 
 the complete and effectual obstruction of our official 
 duty. We therefore distinctly and unreservedly state 
 to the governor in council that unless measures are 
 adopted by government to relieve us from embarrass- 
 ments from persons avowedly the prosecutors,it will be 
 impracticable for us to proceed with immediate effect, 
 or with any ulterior success in the discharge of our 
 duties. We feel that our exertions will be of ho avail 
 withoutthe aidofgovernment,andinthis emergency all 
 our exertions will be rendered nugatory and abortive. 
 
 The only remark that shall beoffered on the commis- 
 sioners' letter is.that they have not attended these trials 
 on which they have presumed to pass judgment. 
 Goad attended the greatest part of the first trial, but 
 little of the second. Parker and Russell attended 
 little of the first trial, and none of the second. But 
 the consequence of this letter to government is, that
 
 86 
 
 Mr.Roebuck has been removed from the situations he 
 held in the company's service as detailed in Ihe govern- 
 ment letter. Mr. Maitland who was one of the jus- 
 tices of the peace, and had committed Reddy Row and 
 Anunda Row, has been deprived of that office, and 
 Mr. Parry has been ordered home. 
 
 No. XVII. 
 
 Letter from the Chief Secretary to Mr. Roebuck, dis- 
 missing him from all his employments. 
 
 Public Department. 
 To Mr. Benjamin Roebuck. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I am directed to acquaint you that the honourable 
 the Governor in Council has deemed it proper to appoint 
 you to take charge until farther orders, of the factory 
 of Vizagapatam, and you are ordered to proceed to 
 that station without delay. 
 
 You will transfer the charge of the office of the mi- 
 litary paymaster-general to the honourable Mr. Murray, 
 and Mr. Ogilvie has been appointed to take charge of 
 the mint. 
 
 lam, Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 
 Fort St. George, (signed) G. BUCK AN, 
 
 8th Feb. 1809. Chief Ser.
 
 87 
 
 No. XVIII. 
 
 Letter from Mr. Roebuck to the Chief Secretary, re- 
 questing to know why he is dismissed, and petition- 
 ing to be heard. 
 
 To the Chief Secretary of Government. 
 Sir, 
 
 I have received your letter of the Sth instant with the 
 utmost surprise and concern, as it conveyed to me the 
 first intimation of having incurred the displeasure of 
 the honourable the president in council. My removal 
 from the two important offices of paymaster-general 
 and mint-master, the former of which I have held for 
 so many years, and the latter department I have esta- 
 blished, and in discharging the duties of which, I can 
 conscientiously say I have exerted myself with unre- 
 mitting zeal to promote the interests of my honourable 
 employers, is so severe a punishment, so public a mark 
 of the disapprobation of government, and so painful 
 a degradation in the eyes of the public, that, as I am 
 conscious of no breach of public duty, I can only im- 
 pute this heavy misfortune to some extraordinary^and 
 unfounded misrepresentation, or from the malevolence 
 of my enemies. In this peculiarly distressing situation 
 I rely with confidence on the justice of government, 
 that an opportunity will be afforded me of explaining 
 or defending my conduct ; that I shall not be punished 
 unheard ; and that a privilege, founded on the im- 
 mutable principles of justice, and repeatedly recog- 
 nised in the orders of the honourable the court of di- 
 rectors, will not, in this instance, be withheld from 
 me. So soon as I received your letter of the 5th Oc- 
 tober, directed jointly to me with Messrs. Abbott and 
 Parry, I immediately withdrew myself from all con- 
 iiection with their proceedings and correspondence, 
 nor have I had any concern in it in the most indirect 
 manner. I have paid a small sum towards the fees of
 
 the lawyers, in the two suits, in which verdicts have 
 been found against the respective parties, but I have no 
 concern, or have had any intention of having any thing 
 to do with any other trial ; and in these I concerned 
 myself, because it was of consequence to my pro- 
 perty, 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 Sir, 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 
 (signed) B. ROEBUCK. 
 Fort St George, 
 9th Feb. 1809. 
 
 No. XIX. 
 
 Letter from the Agents for Creditors to the private 
 Creditors of the Nabob in London, stating the 
 Punishment of the Juries, the Effects produced by 
 the late Trials, the Information of Mr. Barenshaw 
 suppressed by the Madras Government, and the 
 Mission of Mr. Saunders to collect Evidence for 
 Government in the Trials. 
 
 Madras, 23d March, 1809. 
 
 TO the Private Creditors of the late Nabob of the 
 Carnatic, London. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 We take the chance of this letter overtaking the 
 ships at Bengal to acquaint you with the proceedings 
 at this place since our last. We shall not make any 
 remarks upon them, but leave you to draw your own 
 inferences from them. Mr. F. A. Grant and Mr. G. 
 Strachey, who served upon the grand jury that found 
 the bill's .of indictment against Batley and Reddy Row,
 
 80 - 
 
 Mr. W. Hawkins, Mr. W. Oliver, and Mr. G. Keene, 
 who served upon the petit jury that tried tiiese de- 
 fendants, have all been ordered away from Madras, 
 and appointed to different stations distant from the 
 presidency. Mr. E. Wood, and some others, who 
 tiave had the manly courage to express their sentiments 
 regarding the late proceedings, have .also been re- 
 moved. 
 
 We omitted to notice to you, in our last, that we 
 had written to the Lord Chancellor a particular ac- 
 count of these trials, and of the measures of the Chief 
 Justice regarding them. A term commenced upon the 
 21st instant; and we are preparing an affidavit, and a 
 petition of appeal from the decisions of the Chief Jus- 
 tice to the King.in council. We beg leave to call your 
 attention to these proceedings, and to recommend to 
 you to take such steps in support of them, as may be in 
 your power. Independent of the interest which every 
 member of civilised society ought to have in the due 
 execution ,<?f public justice, the fair creditors of the 
 Nabo b .are particularly interested in seeing the law 
 carried into effect against the defendants, Batley and 
 Reddy Row. They are the sole hope and support of 
 the forgers, and of those who claim upon forged 
 bonds. Had they been only committed until the 
 pleasure of his majesty should be known upon their 
 cases, the whole band of forgers would have disap- 
 peared. We know that they were prepared to quit 
 Madras had the verdicts been followed up with judg- 
 ment A it is, we feel confident we have done great 
 service to the bona fide creditors. The week before 
 last twelve or thirteen claims, amounting to more than 
 ..700,000, were advertised for investigation : the 
 bonds upon which the claims were made were cer- 
 tainly very barefaced forgeries, and Reddy Row had 
 no connection with them ; and it was on this account, 
 perhaps, that they were selected by the commissioners,
 
 90 
 
 Uiat they might have the credit of rejecting the claims, 
 of doisg something. .Not a single 
 
 ch.ima -M appeared to support his claim. 
 
 In our letter of the 8th instant to the governor-ge- 
 neral, you \vi!l see an allusion to the famous Mana'r- 
 :. ly mission. In speaking of the acts of govern- 
 ment in this country you are aware that we are obliged 
 to be very cautious, but in truth we did not know at 
 that tiine that the instructions to Mr. Saunders went 
 so far, at least avowedly, as to direct him to collect 
 witnesses for the trial. In October last, prior to the 
 first trial, the law officers of government applied to 
 Mr. Ravenshaw the collector of Arcot, through the 
 board of revenue, upon the same subject. Mr. Ravdn- 
 shaw made enquiries, and found that Anunda Row 
 had, in fact, resided in the districts at the time stated 
 upon the part of the prosecution, and reported the 
 same accordingly. There is not in the whole service 
 a more upright, honourable man than Mr. Ravenshaw; 
 he is totally unconnected with the nabob's creditors, 
 and, we have since heard from himself, did not know, 
 at the time he was directed to make the enquiry, what 
 was the motive of it. His report not being favorable 
 to the defence, was suppressed by the law officers, but 
 "we got intelligence of it, and the counsel for the prose- 
 cution related the whole transaction in court, and chal- 
 lenged the counsel for the defence to produce Mr. 
 Ravenshaw's letter, which he of course declined. It 
 was in consequence of this that the law officers of 
 government employed one who was a perfect stranger 
 in tlie districts, in preference to one, who from his situ- 
 ation must naturally have been more competent to ob. 
 tain information upon the subject. The Amildar, wild' 
 obtained the original information for Mr. Ravenshaw, 
 has been discharged from his situation by orders of 
 government. 
 
 You will have no difficulty, gentlemen, in forming a
 
 91 
 
 pretty correct estimate of the character of the proceed* 
 ings connected with the late trials. 
 
 We have the honor to be, 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 Your most obedient, 
 
 and humble servants, 
 (Signed) T. PARRY. 
 W. ABBOTT. 
 R. MAITLAND, 
 
 No. XX. 
 Extract of Sir Benjamin Sullivan's Argument. 
 
 In regard to the third part of the question, namely, 
 how the forged bond ought to be disposed of? it was 
 moved the other day, and perhaps irregularly, ;s the 
 proceedings have not been removed, that it siiould 
 be lodged with the officers of the court, the bon(< ^e- 
 ing then, and I suppose still is, in the hands < 
 commissioners for investigating the Carnatic d< 
 The opinion of my lord chief justice, if I understand 
 him correctly, was that it rested with those gentic- 
 men to deposit the bond in court or not as t'r y 
 should think proper. He said it could riot be iti 
 safer hands than with the officers of the court, but 
 that they were to use their discretion in the matter, 
 that he would not order it. His lordship said he con- 
 sidered the bond, although tainted, to be still an out- 
 standing claim ; and that notwithstanding the verdict, 
 which pronounced it to be a forgery, he thought the 
 commissioners were competent to exercise their judg- 
 ment upon it, and to recommend it as a good and 
 valid bond, if they thought proper so to do, but. that 
 it would be a dereliction of duty if they suffered the
 
 93 
 
 yerdict to influence their judgment in the investigation 
 of that claim. 
 
 This, I think, was the substance of what fell from 
 his lordship ; if I have in any tiling misconceived 
 his meaning, I shall be thankful to him to set me 
 right these sentiments fell from him in the warmth 
 of argument, and I should be extremely sorry to im- 
 pute them to him, unless, on reflection, he should 
 think proper to avow them. But I must withhold 
 my assent, as they stand at present, and should deem- 
 myself unworthy of the place I occupy on this bench, 
 did I not express my warmest dissent to sentiments 
 openly delivered, which.if adhered to,seern to me to be 
 fraught with public inconvenience. 
 
 It is impossible to say what may be the result of 
 the reference to his majesty ; he may refuse to grant 
 a pardon altogether ; and it is most likely he will, as 
 I believe he has never yet been known to pardon the 
 crime of forgery, and in that event judgment must 
 not only be pronounced, but the bond cancelled, (2 
 Inst. 60.) for all prosecutions of forgery have two 
 objects in view, to defeat the criminal intention of 
 the offender, where that intention has not already 
 been carried into effect, and to punish him for the 
 means he employed to effect it -to inflict the punish- 
 ment, and yet leave it in his power to effect his cri- 
 minal intention, would be absurd ; and therefore, ia 
 eases of forgery, the court commonly takes care, by 
 cancelling the forged paper, or delivering it up to the' 
 prosecutor for that purpose* that an improper use' 
 shall not be made of it; should then a refusal of par-^ 
 don be the reference to the crown, where shall we 
 look for the forged bond if it be suffered to remain- 
 with tlie commissioners, for these gentlemen act- 
 under instructions from the commissioners in Eng- 
 land, by whom they are directed to transmit to them, 
 all bonds upon which any claim is founded ? Should 
 his majesty therefore be advised to adhere to his ro-
 
 93 
 
 solution not to pardon forgery, and orders come out 
 to us to proceed to judgment, are we to send to 
 England for the bond ? The court ought not 
 surely to expose itself to this inconvenience, nor to 
 the far greater perhaps of rendering future judgment 
 wholly ineffectual, by seeing this bond acknowledged' 
 by the commissioners as a judicium, and put in a 
 tram of payment a bond which, after a full defence, 
 has been pronounced by a British Jury to be a for- 
 gery ; and the evidence brought in support of it has 
 been, by another jury, pronounced to be wilful and 
 corrupt perjury. Siiouid the commissioners be en- 
 couraged to venture so far as this should they be led 
 to hold the verdicts of two grand juries, and two petit 
 juries in such disregard as to declare this bond an 
 honest and fair claim, shall we be justified in the 
 eyes of our Sovereign and our country in assisting to 
 lead them into error, by leaving it in their power so 
 to do ? It is our duty, I think, to guard against the 
 possibility of such a conduct: it is also our duty to 
 await the result of the reference to his majesty, and to 
 have every thing in readiness to obey the royal orders 
 as soon as we receive them : should the king be pleas- 
 ed so far to extend his mercy to the offenders as to 
 grant them a conditional pardon, and the condition be 
 that the forged bond shall be cancelled, how shall we 
 carry his orders into execution if the Bond is not within 
 our reach if it is not in our actual custody and 
 power? Why the officer of the court was permitted 
 to return it to them I know not, but by suffering it 
 to remain in the hands of the commissioners, we 
 place ourselves in the situation of not being able 
 to conform to the orders he may think proper to 
 send to us; and why draw this incon enience on our- 
 selves, when we have it in our power to avoid it, by 
 directing that the bond be lodged with the officer of 
 the court? 
 
 At the same time that we draw a great inconveni- 
 ence on ourselves, by suffering the bond to remain
 
 in their hands, we expose them to solicitations and 
 importunities to pass it as a fair demand, which, in my 
 opinion, ought to be avoided, for these gentlemen are 
 hot placed above the Law; their powers of decision 
 arise solely from the deeds between the company and 
 the creditors, which are neither ratified nor confirmed, 
 by parliament, as is evident from the ninth clause of 
 the act; they are liable, like all other trustees to suits, 
 for abuse of trust, and should not I think be unneces- 
 sarily exposed to it ; nor to the serious inconveni- 
 ence of admitting in the list of claims, which they are. 
 bound, through the commissioners in England, to lay 
 before the two houses of parliament at every sessions, 
 with the grounds of their decision, that they passed 
 this bond, or recommended it to be passed, indirect 
 cfpposition to the verdict of a British jury. For 
 these reasons I am clearly and strongly of opinion 
 that an order should be made for depositing the bond 
 with the officer of the court. I shall close what I 
 have to say on this question, by observing, that though 
 a creditor of the late nabob, I am not at present, in the 
 smallest degree, interested in this bond. The verdict 
 of a British jury having pronounced it to be a forgery, 
 even the semblance of validity is for ever gone, and 
 by its validity only could my interests be affected. 
 Though the verdict has not had the aid of judgment, 
 its propriety has not been questioned by the defend- 
 ants themselves, and, by not praying a new trial, which 
 might have been granted, they have acknowledged 
 its justice. The punishment due to the crime. of 
 forgery may, perhaps, be pardoned, but no pardon 
 can stamp a value on the bond ; that will for ever 
 remain attainted, and, I may venture to say, an useless- 
 paper; for the commissioners in England, with whom 
 the final decision rests on all the Carnatic claims, will 
 unquestionably hold the trial by jury, that great pal- 
 ladium of our liberties, in too much veneration to 
 allow the opinions of any individuals here to be put 
 in competition with the verdict of twelve men upon 
 their oaths; nor would it, I apprehend, be suffered by
 
 95 
 
 parliament, to whom they undoubtedly are account- 
 able. The quotation from my letter will therefore, I 
 trust, miss its evident aim to cast on my opinion, if 
 I should venture to give one, the imputation of 
 interest. Bui, T am too well known in this settlement 
 to have my integrity brought in question. I am not 
 now interested in the fate of this bond, nor was I from 
 the moment the justice of the verdict was acknow- 
 ledged, by neither moving for a new trial, nor in arrest 
 of judgment. I am neither interested in it myself, 
 nor is any one connected with me. 
 
 THIRD QUESTION. 
 
 As to the question, whether the prayer of Mr. Marsh 
 for an order from this court to print the late trials, 
 .ought to be granted or not : 
 
 I think that as the trials are not before the court, 
 but before the court of oyer and terminer and gaol 
 delivery, the application would more properly be made 
 to that court but perhaps, as this is riot a question 
 of law, and my lord chief justice, befpre whom the 
 men were tried, presides here, we may, placing a per- 
 fect confidence in Mr. Marsh's ability and correctness 
 give him leave to print them ; but what end will our 
 permission answer, if there exists any where within 
 the settelment, a power to controul the liberty of the 
 press ? He has already applied to the chief secretary 
 of government for leave to publish them, and has re- 
 ceived for answer that it is not thought expedient 
 and nothing more, no reason given why it should not 
 be printed but it sometimes is not convenient to as- 
 sign reasons. The chief secretary could not have said 
 that the government of this settlement have power to 
 revive the act of Charles II. for restraining the liberty 
 jpf the press. The act, after two revivals, expired ahout 
 one hundred years ago, and all the efforts 01 King Wil- 
 Jiam, that great favourite of the nation/vverenotsuincient
 
 96 
 
 to prevail on parliament to revive it again. Parliament 
 knew too well the value of a free press to put it under 
 any other restriction, than that already imposed on it 
 by the law of libels. The chief secretary might perhaps 
 have said that government had been for many years 
 in the exercise of a power to restrain the press ; by 
 prohibiting the publication of any thing that may 
 create private uneasiness, or public ferment; and that 
 the settlement had so long acquiesced in the assump^ 
 tion of this power, that it had grown into a right, 
 which they now thought proper to exercise, allowing 
 for a moment that the acquiescence of the settlement 
 for twenty or twenty-five years past (for beyond that 
 period, there was no press at Madras) could con-, 
 lersuch a right. It was limited to the newspapers, 
 and never extended nor meant to be extended, to 
 the length to which it would now be carried, In the 
 case of the king against Paupiah and others, many 
 years ago, for a conspiracy against Mr, David Hali- 
 bruton, no such right was pretended to, that trial was 
 printed and published at Madras, and no objection 
 whatsoever made to it on the part of government, 
 even though the governor and council were then 
 judges of oyer and terminer, and formed the court 
 before whom the defendants were tried ; they were 
 not lawyers, and were therefore liable to errors in 
 judgment, which they might not have wished to have 
 Exposed to the observation of the public, but no ob- 
 jection whatever was made. The other day at Cal- 
 cutta, the trial of Mr. Tucker for an assault on 
 a married lady, with intent to commit a rape, 
 was printed and published at Bombay ; all the trials 
 of consequence are printed in the public papers, many 
 have appeared in the public papers of Bengal, and 
 come have lately appeared in our own way, why then 
 object to a publication of the late trial ? are the cha- 
 racters and conduct of the men tried, like a lady's 
 fame, too sacred to be mentioned, or are the public 
 less interested in being acquainted with the circum- 
 stances which came out on their trials, than they
 
 97 
 
 were in those which have at various times already 
 appeared? Nothing of this kind could possibly be 
 the cause of refusing to let those trials be made pub- 
 lic; we must therefore look to something else. Per- 
 haps to an apprehension of improper interference in 
 the suits of other men approaching, nay, possibly 
 amounting to maintenance, " an offence, (as Black- 
 " stone informs us, 4 Com. 134) against public jus- 
 " tice, as it keeps alive strife and contention, and 
 " perverts the remedial process of the law into an 
 " engine of oppression, and therefore, by the Roman 
 " law, it was a species of the crimen falsi to enter 
 " into any confederacy, or to do any act to support 
 " another's law suit by money, witness, or patronage." 
 The excellent lawyer and upright judge, who quitted, 
 iss last October, noticed a similar imprudence in the 
 case of Abbot v. Hussam ul Mulk, and pronounced it 
 from the Bench to be maintenance. 
 
 If then the secret reason of thinking it inexpedient to 
 permit the publication of these trials, was to pre- 
 vent the exposure of their falling a second time into 
 the same error, it wa* certainly prudent; but more 
 prudence would have been shewn if they would have 
 taken the blunt hint of Sir Henry Gwillirn, and avoid- 
 ed the error altogether. I was lor three and twenty 
 years a confidential servant of the company under 
 this government, and feel an habitual leaning to- 
 wards them; I am not, therefore, inclined to impute 
 any thing to them but imprudence, but imprudent, 
 I am afraid, they have been, in taking any part in a 
 cause which seemed to call on them for a steady and 
 fii-tf rmined neutrality ; and had I still been their at- 
 torney general, this is the conduct I should have ad- 
 vised; all this however may soon be overlooked and 
 forgotten, if the error be not further repeated. But 
 the unauthorized restriction of the press cannot be so 
 easily passed over; it is the dearest privilege to a 
 British subject; the best and surest protection of his 
 liberties; the greatest check on the extension of au- 
 
 o
 
 98 
 
 thority, to which w.e are all naturally inclined; it is 
 the best security we hive for the pure administra- 
 tion of the laws we live under, and for keeping unpol- 
 luted by undue influence, or arbitrary decision the sa- 
 cred seats of justice. Mr. Marsh, has therefore my 
 leave, as far as it can avail him, to publish these trials. 
 But my leave is comparatively of little value. By the 
 constitution of the court, my lord chief justice at pre- 
 sent possesses a double or casting voice ; whether, 
 therefore, Mr. Marsh shall, or shall not have the leave 
 of the court, depends on the inclination of his 
 lordship's mind. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 >rintedbrW, Tlint,i)ldBiiley, Londou.
 
 The Publisher of rhis Pamphlet, 170, Piccadilly, most re- 
 spectfully acquaints the Public that all the Morning and 
 Evening Newspapers, are distributed through the West 
 End "Of the Town and seat Post Free through the 
 United Kingdom. 
 
 Pamphlets and Books just published. 
 
 1. THE SPEECHES of the Honourable THOMAS 
 EllSKINE (now Lord ERSKINE) on Subjects connected 
 with the Liberty of the Press, and against constructive 
 Treason, 3 vols. price 27s. or on royal paper 36s. 
 
 2. The REAL STATE of FRANCE in the Year 1809, 
 containing an account ot' theTreatment of Prisoners of War, 
 and those Persons otherwise detained in France. The 
 fourth Edition, 5s. 
 
 3. BETTER LATE THAN NEVER, or Considerations 
 upon the Conduct of the War, and the Necessity^ of 
 Peace with France, 3s. 6d. 
 
 4. A VIEW of the POLICY of Sir CEORGE BAR. 
 LOW, as rxhibitfd in the Acts of the Madras Govermenf, 
 in the late unhappy Occurrences on the Coast of Coroman- 
 del, 3s. 
 
 5. A SHORT DEFENCE of the CONDUCT of the 
 Civil Smants at Madras, Is. 
 
 6. The SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS for 1809, 
 consisting of an impartial Selection of the best short Es- 
 says, the most excellent Pieces of Wit and Humour, and 
 the most classical [Poems and Jcux D'Esprits, which have 
 appeared in the Newspapers, and other periodical Works, 
 with explanatory Notes and Anecdotes, of many of the 
 Persons alluded to, price 7s. in boards. 
 
 Any of the former yols. may be had separate, ^7s. each, 
 boards.
 
 
 
 '-
 
 27 $5 *
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 to " lf - 
 
 QUL31U86 
 
 21 
 
 Form L9-32m-8,'58(5876s4)444 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS 
 
 t rir>r
 
 A2P2 of the CircumstanJ 
 
 1810 ces attei 
 
 Late Trial in the 
 Supreme Court of 
 
 Judicature I at Madras., 
 
 AA 000013858 6 
 
 DS 
 
 A2P2 
 1810