The Sun. — London, England, 1841-09-24 00:00:00

MORNING SUN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE CASE OF THE OF SATTA (From the British Indian Advocate of Sept. 1.) It is my object to call your attention to a narrative of facts, connected with the dethronement of an Indian prince, the confiscation of his property, and the banish msnt of his person to a distance 'of 800 miles from the principality over which he ruled. The case lam about to bring before 'you is important in every aspect in which it can be viewed. Important—if regard be had to the person who now complains of unjust and un- English treatment at the hands of the British Indian Government. That person is a Hindoo of high birth ; a decendant from one of the most renowned among In dian warriors : the representative of the great Sevajee, who, in the middle of the seventeenth century, succeeded in bursting the thraldom of the Mogul power, and became the founder of the powerful and wide-spread empire of the Mahrattas. The successor of this great man has recently been hurled from his throne in the sight of all India, and appeals from the power, and alleged injustice of those who have deposed him, to the people in whose name the deed has been done. The case is important—if you con nect it with the past history of British India, and view it as another illustration of the grasping policy of the rulers of that country ; who, from the condition of lowly mer chants, soliciting, with bated breath, permission to ex change commodities with the subjects of the Mogul, have risen, by the conquest of the sword, to be the lords paramount of India ; and claim the right of dethroning, at their pleasure, the hereditary occupants of oriental thrones. The case of the Raja is but a late act, in a long career of bold and often guilty ambition. stretching over more than half a century. The case before us is important, as indicating the fate which awaits the still remaining States of India ; which, to use the words of the late Governor of Bombay, who deposed the Raja, seems doomed, the whole of them, "to fall, at no distant day, into the vortex of British power." The case is a most important one, when viewed in connection with its natural and inevitable effects upon the minds of the natives of India. It reveals the true source of our present danger—a danger grow ing, not out of the designs of foreign foes, but out of the suspicion, the jealousy, and the hatred, which are begotten by our continued acts of a g gression and usurpation. It is not possible that the enlightened natives of India can witness our almost daily encroachments upon territory which we have declared to be sacred to the pos session of others, without being reminded of the near ap proach of their own doom, and without cherishing a desire, if possible, to avert it, by inviting the interposition of some power that shall humble the pride and prostrate the might of their oppressors, and pr eve milder in its rule over the dominion it may snatch from us. Neither is it to be expected that those whom we have already cast down, and utterly spoiled both of their ancient preroga tives and ancestorial rights, can entertain any other than hostile feelings, however those feelings may be disguised, against those by whom they have been subjugated and bereft. Let those who measure with complacency and patriotic exultation the length and breadth of our Eastern territory, and swell the number of the Queen's subjects by adding the hundred millions of India, look well to the elements of which this mighty mass is com posed. Prostrate they may be, and are ; but, beneath the ruins of the empires we have razed, there are smoul dering fires of inextinguishable hatred, which some unlucky wind may blow into a flame which may burn to our destruction. The present case will be found important—as exhibiting the true character of the home Government of India. It will take us to the coun cils of the India House and the Board of Control, and will show us to what extent those who have been wronged abroad are justified in expecting sympathy and redress from the authorities at home. And, finally, the case before us will prove the absolute necessity which exists for the people of this country becoming better acquainted with the state of Indian affairs, with their own solemn and tremendous responsibilities, and with the power, which they may constitutionally exercise, to check the progress of evil government, and save, from ultimate ruin or alienation, the empire they have acquired. It may be proper here to premise, that exclusive of those portions of India which are considered and denominated British territory, there are upwards of thirty native States, the surviving fragments of fallen dynasties, which have relinquished political relations with one another, and are connected with the British Government by treaties of various kinds. Sattara, the state of which I am about to speak this evening, is in alliance with us by a treaty, which guarantees the protection of the British Government, and gives to that Government the right, within certain defined limits, of controlling the internal affairs of the principality. The territory of Sattara, at the present time, extends over a surface of about 7,800 square miles, and yields a revenue of about 180,0001. sterling per annum. Sattara, became the capital of the Mahratta empire in the year 1698, and has ever since remained the residence of the Mahratta Princes. The descendants of Sevajee, the founder of the empire, and a man of in ferior religious caste among the Hindoos, continued to exercise sovereign sway until 1749, when the Brahmin minister obtained a deed, empowering him, as Peshwa, or Prime Minister, to exercise the sole power in the State. In this he was supported by the Mahratta Chiefs, on condition that a suitable allowance was made for the descendants of the Royal house ; and, from that period, the Peshwas, in regular succession, were considered as the actual rulers, while the nominal Princes resided in the city of Sattara. These Princes, however, were accus tomed to receive the homage, respect, and reverence of all classes. They were called upon to confirm all suc cessions to great offices of State ; nor was any war ever engaged in without the sanction of the Raja. At the commencement of the Mahratta war in 1817, the Raja of Sattara, recently dethroned, was a state pri soner in the hands of Bajee Rao, the then Peshwa ; and, on the conquest of the Mahratta empire, which was completed on the 20th of February, 1818, the power of the Peshwa was entirely annihilated, and the British Government proceeded to carry into effect the terms of a previous proclamation to the Mahratta people and chieftains, that the Raja, on being released, should be placed at the head of an independent Sovereignty, of such an extent as might maintain him and his family in comfort and dignity. On the 20th of May the Raja made his public entry into Sattara, escorted by the British troops, and most of the officers, and was formally placed upon the wadi (or throne) in full durbar. The motive avowed by the Governor-General of India in thus establishing the Raja on the throne of his ancestors, with a limited territory, was to afford an honourable maintenance to the representative of the ancient Princes of the country, and to establish among the Mahrattas a counterpoise to the remaining influence of the former Brahmin Government. On the 25th of September, 1819, a treaty was concluded with the Raja of Sattara, by which the British Government ceded to his Highness, his heirs and successors, in perpetual sovereignty, certain districts specified in a schedule annexed. This territory i sas to be held in subordinate co-operation to the British Gov?rnment, and the Raja to be guided in all matters by the British political agent or resident at Ilia Highness's Court. Having now seen the Raja placed on his throne—the throne secured to him by solemn treaty, ratified, sealed, and delivered—let us look back fur a moment to the still earlier history of this interesting Prince. His father had died in the year 1808, leaving two sons, himself, then four years old, and his brother, Appa Sahib, now his successor, and then an infant in arms. Their mother lives a woman of high family, of great spirit, and of con siderable natural talent. She as proud of her elevated rank, devoted to the interests of her children, a hater of the Brahmins, who had usurped the power originally wielded by the Ilahratta Peinces, and was bent on giving her sons an education which should render them, in some respects, eoual to cope with the monopolized learning of the priesthood. She, besides, carefully instilled into their minds the dislike which she herself cherished to to tke whole race ; aed, as will be seen in the sequel, the ex-Raja was not slow to-Nat by her lessons. It had been the policy of the Brahmins to prevent the Sattara Princes from being taught to read and write, and to confine their accomplishments chiefly to skill in horse manship and the use of the bow. The Dowager, how ever, contrived to have her sons instructed in letters, after midnight, while their attendants slept ; and the result was, that they were both tolerably educated before they were released from the Peshwa's power. The conduct of the i ta j e , when placed on his throne, evinced so much grati tude and fidelity to the British ; so much talent and a ptitude for public business ; so much enlightened libe rality and zeal for the interests of his people, that, in three years from the time of his installation, the entire manag eme nt of the prin c ip a li ty was placed in his hands, andathe designation of Politi ca l A gent„ to whose advice lie had been required to yield submission, was changed to that of Political Resident, wh ose a d v i ce was only to of d the treaty. be enforced, when the RRaja'sßaja'sconduct w to inconvenience or injustice, P or to a positive litively to lead to to himself, lie displayed a laudable, lech a and, in India, t Left aor dinary desire foe the e d ucat i on of the people. He: extraordinary m ost anxious to fit the Mah ra t tas f or business, that t h ey might supply the plac es hi t h erto filled by the , Brahmins. For his own connexions, and the sons of the great , officer of his government, he s e t apart a suite of rooms, in his own palace, as a coll ege . On one occasion, when it was deemed necessary to ascer tain what was the state of tw education as found that inSa it containedttara,atown containing 10,000 souls , 1 no fewer than forty schools. He manifested the deepest respect for the advice of those early ohad placed him on his throne, and superintended his administration ; and reigidly fulfilled the Aff e nt on his quitting Captain Grant Duff, the Political parting promise, which he gave to Sattara for England, in 1823, that he would never depart from the laws established for him by that_ 4 gentleman, and confirmed by th e H on . Mountstuart Flphinstone. Such is the testimony borne to the virtues and fidelity of this Prince, before the Court of Proprietors. on the lith of last month, b y M a j or -G enera l B r i ggs , who immediately succeeded C a pt a i n G rant D u ff, an d was for four years it the P o li t i ca l Res i dent at the Raja ' s Court. N or was on the subj ect o f e d ucat i on alone. that t h e B a ja dis played his zeal for the welfare and improvement of his people, and his fitness to rule over the portion of his an cestors' dominions conferred upon him. He made Sat tara, from being a small and insignificant place, a hand some and populous town. He planned awl laid out broad streets in every direction. He supplied the want of water by an aqueduct, brought from the neighbouring hills, a distance of two miles ; and with so much skill, that a well-known civil engineer in this country, who saw rind examined the work while in progress, declared that be was :perfectly astonished at the science which had been displayed in every part of its construction, whether as to the knowledge of hydraulics, or the ingenuity in discovering and leading to the main trunk, the several small streams of water which were conducted into it ; and he even carried with him the recipe for forming the cement which was used in laying the pipes. The Raja also laid out large sums in the formation of roads and bridges, and set aside other large sums, annually, out of his revenues, for that purpose. Such was the Raja of Sattara, as he appeared every day in the eyes of the men appointed to watch his conduct. Prom year to year he received the lavish praises of the Bombay Government, and from year to year he was complimented by the authofities at home upon the wisdom and beneficence of his sway. At last, in the latter end of the yar 1835, seventeen years f‘vm. the date of his elevation to the throne, sixteen from the signing of the treaty, and four teen from the periOd when he assumed the entire ma nagement of the affairs of his kingdom, the Court of Directors, desirous of bestowing upon him the highest and most gratifying mark of their admiration and respect, resolved that he should be presented with a sword, and at the same time with q suitable letter. In the letter, which received the signature of every one of the twenty four Directors, they complimented the Raja upon the exemplary fulfilment of the duties of his elevated situa tion ; they declared that the whole course of his con duct reflected the highest credit on his character—that he had won their unqualified approbation—that his liberality in executing, at his own cost, various public works of great utility, had justly raised his reputation in (the eyes of the Princes and people of India ; and that, therefore, they had sent him a present of a sword in estimation of their high admiration and high esteem. Such was the Raja of Sattara in 1835. The sword and letter went out in 1836, but never reached the Prince. Before they arrived he had incurred the displeasure of the Bombay Government, and engines were already at work to effect his ruin. Unhappily, they succeeded, and this exemplary Prince is now—the ex-Raja of Sattara. We proceed to the story of his downfal—a story reflect ing the deepest and most indelible disgrace upon all the parties concerned in effecting it. The treaty which placed the Raja on the throne, se cured to him the absolute sovereignty over certain estates, or jagheers, as they are in India called, which, on the death of their then occupants, were to lapse to the Raja of Sattara. It may be proper to ob serve, that it is the practice in India to reward services rendered to the State, by the bestowment of jagheers, or certain portions of territory, over which the parties to be rewarded are empowed, during their lives, to collect the revenue. These jagheers stand in the place of pen sions. The sovereignty over several such jagheers was secured to the Raja of Sattara, by the same treaty which placed him on the throne. If any power was competent to deprive him of these jagheers, the same power was competent to take from him his entire dominion. It be came a matter of the utmost importance, therefore, that the.Raja should assert his right in this matter, and claim the fulfilment of the treaty. He did so, and was evaded. He offered to submit the point in dispute to Mr. Elphin stone, the framer of the treaty, then in England, and gave his word that he would abide by Mr. Elphinstone's decision, whatever it might be. This was never done. He prayed that the matter might be referred home for the opinion of the Court of Directors. This was promised, but never performed. The disagreement about the jagheers took place in 1832 and 1833. After the promise of the Bombay Government that the subject should be submitted to the Court of Directors, the Raja rested for some time contented ; but, at the end of thre years, he discovered that he had been deceived —that no reference of his case had been made to the home authorities. He was displeased—he lost his con fidence in the Bombay Government—he became dis quieted in his mind, and declared he could not take his food, so deeply had the conduct of the local authorities affected him. He announced his intention of sending agents to this country to represent his case, and to claim the fulfilment of the treaty. This openly avowed intention of appeal, the Bombay Government construed into an infraction of the treaty, and, still more, into an insult to themselves ; and they retaliated, by rejecting the Raja's customary annual present and letter, thus breaking off all amicable relations with him. They also withheld the sword and the Directors' letter. Let me here observe, that these alleged infractions of the treaty cn the part of the Company, in the matter of the jagheers, are now admitted. Mr. Elphinstone, who was always at hand to be appealed to, and whose word would have settled the point at once, has never been appealed to. Lord Clare, the Governor of Bombay at the time of the dispute, and who was at first inclined to sanction the resumption of the jagheers, has since confessed that he was wrong, and the Raja right. The treaty has again and, again been produced in the presence of the Directors; and the three successive Residents at the Rajah's Court, Generals Robertson. Briggs, and Lodwick, have all de clared their unqualified opinion in favour of the entire justice of the Raja's claims. His right to appeal to the home authorities, by means of Vakeels or native agents, has never been disputed in open Court. The right is undoubted ; but it suited the purpose of the wholesale violators of treaties in India, to pervert a respectful ap plication to the superior authorities in England, into a breach of treaty. The loss of the favour and good opinion of the Bombay Government was the signal for the rising of a host of enemies of the Raja, who found the local authorities but too willing to listen to every ac cusation they could invent. The first charge, gravely preferred against him, was that of seeking to corrupt two native officers in the service of the British Government. But, before I proceed, I must remind you of what I have already informed you. The Throne of the Raja, who is a Mahratta, had been raised upon the ruin of the Peshwa, who was a Brahmin. The Raja had been guided for years by a policy, which led him to adopt ev er y legitimate means of destroying the influence of the Brahmins, and of raising the intellectual standard and political importance of the Mahrattas. He had, despite of all opposition and all denunciation, prose scented the work of educating the mass of the people ; and he had filled up the measure of his offences, in the eyes of the Hindu° priests, by refusing to appoint to the office of Prime Minister a talented Brahmin, who, from the commencement of his reign, and before, had aspired to that high situation. He had, therefore, many power ful, malignant, and unscrupulous foes, who, though awed and held in fear during the period that the Raja was the favoured child of the Bombay Government, took immediate advantage of his quarrel with the British authorities, and determined to make it subserve the ends of their baffled ambition, their deep hatred, and their inextinguishabl revenge, Accordingly, Untagee (one of the most profligate of Brahmins) accused the Raja of tampering with the allegiance of two of the native offi cers, or soobadars. This charge was first gone into before a Commission sent up to Sattara, to try the Raja at his own capital, but behind his back. The Commis ;ion consisted of one of the Secretaries of the Bombay Government, a Colonel in the British army, and the Resident at the Raja's Court, General Lodwick. The last-named gentleman was appointed the president of the Commission, and I heard him the other day declare in open Court, that the originator of the plot avowed him self actuated by revenge, and to be unworthy of belief ; that while looking about for the means of revenging him self upon the Raja, heaven threw these soobadars in hit way. He said, too, that one of these soobadars declared that, to promote the plot, he took an oath which he had no intention to keep ; and General Lodwick also openly stated that the Commissioners, with whom he was asso ciated, would not allow these criminators of the Raja to be cross-examined ; although their oral testimony was in many important particulars irreconcilable with their previous depositions. A second charge was brought forward—that of con spiring with Don Manoel de Portugal, the Viceroy of a petty, poverty-stricken, powerless Portuguese settle ment, on the southern confines of the Sattara terri tory, some 200 miles below Bombay ; a conspiracy to raise 30,000 troops in Europe, bring them to India, and, with this splendid army, to drive the English for ever out of Hindostan ! The witnesses brought forward to support this monstrous, wicked, and contemptibly ridi culous charge were almost to a man Brahmins. Several among them were gang robbers, whom the Bombay Government pardoned. The precious evidence of a written character, consisted of a bundle of Mahratta and Portuguese letters, found in pawn with an obscure in habitant of an obscure village in the Goa territory, and purporting to have belonged to two Brahmins, who had died ten months before, and are declared to have bean the agents of the Raja of Sattara ; while it is ad mitted that these same persons had for years been in the service of a man who is regarded as the Pope of the Brahmins, known by the name of the Swainee of Sunkeshwar, and a known enemy of the Raja. These documents, which have been pronounced satisfactory evidence of the Raja's guilty intentions, and which, if genuine, might have made their possessors rich for ever, were purchased by the British Govern ment for the astounding sum of forty pounds sterling. The Portuguese papers thus found, and affirmed to be signed by Don Manoal, have been declared by that nobleman to be utter forgeries, and his alleged corres pondence with the Raja a gross fabrication and false hood. But you will naturally suppose that the British authorities, both in India and at home, took the earliest opportunity of calling upon our ancient ally, the Portu guese Government, to explain the conduct of the high functionary thus directly implicated in a charge of che rishing, through twelve years, the design of subverting the British power in India. How great will be your surprise when I tellyou that, while pretending to hold the proofof the Viceroy's guilt under his own hand and seal, there has not been, that I am aware, down to this hour, the slightest reference made to the subject in any correspon dence between the British Government and the Govern ment of Portugal. lam equally ignorant if there has ever been any correspondence on the subject between any person connected with the Executive of the East India Company and the Viceroy himself. But there has been between that ex-Viceroy and other parties. A friend of the Raja proceeded in April last to Lisbon, where Don Manoel now resides, and fills a high situation in the household of the reigning Queen. He took with him a letter from Mr. Hume, who had expressed his de termination to bring the matter before Parliament. Mr. Hume called upon the ex-Viceroy to give full and explicit snswers to the questions which he put, relative to the crime said to have been by him committed. The high-minded Nobleman went before the British Consul in Lisbon, and made the following voluntary and solemn declaration,--" Having received a communication, dated on the Bth instant, from the most illustrious Senhor Joseph Hume, Member of the British Parliament, re lating to the conspiracy that the Rajah of Sattara, at present dethroned, is said to have contrived against the British power in India ; and affirming that I was aware of the said conspiracy—l feel it necessary, for the sake of justice and my honour, to declare, that, during the whole of the time I governed Portuguese Asia, I never had any correspondence whatsoever, upon political sub jects, with the said Raja of Sattara ; and that whatever documents may appear relating to it, must be considered entirely false. What is to be thought of the conduct of the British Indian Government in this business? They have de throned kvirtuous and benignant Prince, upon a charge which they never took the most important preliminary step to substantiate, and at the same time have concealed from the Minister of the British Crown all knowledge of the alleged guilt of a Government in friendly alliance with us. It is not possible to believe that the British Indian authorities, either at home or abroad, ever enter tained the most distant idea of the genuineness of the correspondence which they took out of pawn. Anything approaching to a conviction of its authenticity, would have laid them under the most solemn responsibility, as loyal sub3ects, to bring the whole matter before the Queen's Ministers, that an immediate and rigid inquiry might have been made into the facts of the case, But no. The evidence that was considered abundantly suffi cient to warrant the dethronement of the Raja, was THE SUN, LONDON. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1841 No further movement took place until the 23d of June, whe: ••; •,. • • . ~e., and • for the consideration of theil• contents. 'plat day was the 14th of July. During a debate of five days which followed, the case was fully arguad. It has been most truly said, in the paper which I hold in my hand, that " the advocates of the Raja went at once into the merits of the question. There was no special pleading—no tor turing of words—no twisting of minutes—no mouthing of high names—no begging of the case by quoting mere opinions—(opinions mostly of men deeply compromised); but there was an appeal to the evidence produced against the Raja, though not printed by th e C our t o f Di rec t ors —that evidence was discussed, dissected, put to the test of probability, weighed with living testimony of unim peachable character ; and we fearlessly assert, that the verdict of any twelve honest men would be the Verdict so emphatically pronounced by General Robertson—that upon such evidence hel . woull not hang a dog.' Yet, upon such evidence, has a Prince—an ornament to kind— been hurled, unheard, from his throne. A more wicked, disgraceful spectacle of lawl e s s *p owe r arra yed ag a in s t helpless - right, the world has never beheld." What was the result ? The gentlemen who opened the debate moved for the re-consideration of the Raja's case by the Court of Directors. Other gentlemen recommended amelioration. I felt it my duty to give notice of an amendment. The Directors modestly proposed that the Court should pass over again their resolution of the 12th of February, 1840. The original motion was lost by a majority of seventeen—the majority being all Directors. On the motion of the Directors being putfrom the Chiir, one experienced Proprietor got his amendment before the Court, which was, however, lost. The rest were jockeyed aside in the most shameless manner, and the Directors carried, by their own votes, their own resolu tion, that there should be no interference with the "re sponsible Executive." I ventured to tell the Honourable the Court of Direc tors that they must not lay "the flattering unction to their souls," that they had placed the question of the Raja of Sattara at rest. I reminded them, that there were other and higher tribunals before whies this cause could be tried. That there was a legitimate appeal to the Imperial Parliament, the source of their power, and that—to Parliament we would go. I reminded them that we had upon the throne a benignant Queen, who would listen to our petition in behalf of a prostrate In dian Prince, and thatto the footstool of that Monarch we would go. I reminded them, finally, that there was a bar, before which even they might be placed on their trial, and, peradventure, be found GUILTY: and I pro mised them, that no humble efforts should be wanting on my part, to bring them to that bar, if they should turn a deaf ear to the pleadings of disinterested compassion, and obstinately refuse the demands of outraged justice. They have fulfilled my worst fears. They have resisted evi dence, as clear, as cogent, as convincing, as authorita tive, as ever was submitted to the judgment and verdict of the human mind. If, in hot haste, or blind ambition, or wounded pride, or partial or entire ignorance of the facts of the case, they drove the Raja from his throne, and chose a supple villain to supply his place ; time, ample time, has been given them, to grow cool and thoughtful—to review and retrace their steps, and though late, to do something to redeem themselves, and to save the British name from lasting infamy. If they ever had a doubt respecting the Raja's innocence, that doubt must have been a thousand times removed, by the accumulated proof which has been furnished, that the Prince they have trampled upon and exiled, has been, from first to last, the victim of one of the foulest conspiracies ever hatched by perjured caitiffs for the ruin of an honest and noble-minded man. From day to day, and from the de bate of one year to the debate of another, they have seen the most upright and distinguished of their own servants stand forth to declare, after years of the most intimate knowledge of their Raja, their firm and enlightened con viction of his entire innocence. They saw the other day the evidence, which they had bought in every market where falsehood was exposed to sale, dissected, and de monstrated to be utterly unworthy of notice, where but the life of a dog might be concerned. It was proved, that themselves were the violators of the treaty with the Raja, when they cast upon the jagheers a look, like that which Ahab cast upon the vineyard of Naboth, the Jez reelite, and felt like him, when the possessor said, " I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers." Yet have they decreed that there shall be no justice done. The man is proved to be innocent, but they abide by the award they made in the day they declared him to be guilty. It is upon record that the sentence under which the Raja lies, was not pronounced or inflicted because he was guilty, but for the act—the thrice noble, the en nobling act, of declining to keep his throne at the ex pense of his honour. What then remains, but that the lovers of justice out of doors should espouse the cause of helpless innocence, now enduring the unjust sentence of unrelenting power. This, I believe, will be done. Let the work commence here. To you, as to a part of this great nation, I appeal. I call upon you to send this cause for trial to that assembly where your representatives sit, under the solemn obligation to restrain the abuse of the power they have, by act of Parliament, delegated. I call upon you to demand, through them, an impartial investi gation of the merits of this case. We have witnesses at hand, who have not yet appeared, whose testimony will carry confusion into the camp of the adversaries of the Raja. Let the Raja have a fair trial, and I fear not the issue. I now submit the motion of which I last evening gave notice. I anticipate your vote with confidence, and, when it is passed, I shall accept it as the happy herald of a verdict which shall, ere long, place the Raja. of Sat tara on his throne ; vindicate the tarnished honour of the British name ; and prove to the world that, though the acts of the East India Company may be cruel, the heart of the British people is just. EAST INDIA HOUSE. (YESTERDAY.) COURT OF PROPRIETORS. A Court of Proprietors of East India Stock was held yes terday, at half-past 12 o'clock, at their House in Leadenhall street, pursuant to adjournment from the previous day. The minutes of the proceedings of the previous day having been read, Mr. POYNDEa rose to call the attention of the Court to the petition which he had presented from Bridlington on the 2d of June last. Mr. MARRIOTT rose to order. The prayer of the petition only had been read ; he thought it would be better that the whole petition should be read. Mr. POYNDER had abstained from doing so for the purpose of saving the time of the Court. As the subject would most likely lead to discussion, he had thought it better not to take up time unnecessarily, but if the Honourable Proprietor wished it, he would read it at length. Mr. I ARRlOTT—Certainly not. Mr. POYNDER would at once, then, proceed to discuss the subject. The petition which was from Bridlington and its neighbourhood was signed by 209 persons, the most respectable ofehe clergy and laity of that neighbourhood, and was ad dressed to the Court of Proprietors. Notwithstanding the abolition of the pilgrim-tax, yet the Com pany still derived a considerable revenue from the taxes imposed on the vain rites and idolatrous worship. That was one of the facts alluded to in the petition, arid the other was as to the specific money payment of 6,0001. a-year, which was still paid to the Temple of Juggernaut. He con gratulated the Court in having effected the abolition of suttee, on the remission of the fines, on the offerings in the temples, on the abolition of the pilgrim-tax, and on that concession so wisely made of no longer requiring from their officers mad ser vants the positive homage which they had at one time been obliged to pay to the Rsjr.s and to the idols which they wor shipped, and which had caused no less a man than Sir Pere grine Maitland to relinquish all his offices rather than comply with suc'i sinful requisitions. Such were the men who had been driven into exile and disgrace by the operation of those laws which were now happily abrogated ; but still they were . only at the beginning- of their progress in the career of int provement.—( Hear.) The pilgrim-tax had been abashed, yet still they derived a great revenue from offerings made to idols, and thus many Christian men and Christian women still derived a profit from these impure sources. The religious rites in the temples, the religious ablutions in the Ganges and elsewhere, every prostration, every genuflection, every salaam, performed with a religious intention, was the subject of fiscal exaction. Now, the object of this motion was to effect a greater amendment than had yet been effected ; they had made a good beginning, but nothing more. Certainly, the pilgrim-tax had been the source of the greatest of all evils. It drew together multitudes of person, and famine, sickness, and cholera, were the consequence. A more horrible source of mischief had never been tolerated or encouraged. With regard to the second point, the money payment paid to Juggernaut, he was aware it had been defended by declarations that the Bengal Government were pledged to the payment of that money—that it had been guaranteed on the conquest of the province, and there was now no remedy for it. Such were the wounds on which this payment had been defended by Lord Auckland in his despatches in 1838. Now, he thought it. necessary to examine his assertion, which, after all, was not so much the assertion of Lord Auckland as of certain Anglo- Indians by whom he was surrounded, and who upheld there and various other abominations. His :Lordship began by assert ing that when the Temple of Juggernaut was founded, the appointment of three superior priests was provided for, and a money allowance was made, independent of the endowment sif the temple. In 1806, by treaty, all the lands and money allowances made to the temple of Jug gernaut were absolutely guaranteed. Now, the fact was, this money payment had, as well as the pilgrim-tax, been origi nally set up by the Bengal Government, and he (.Jr. Poyn - der) wished to know what right the Bengal Government had to set up this money payment. He would not seek to meddle with any landed endowments of the temple. He was not touching urn] that, but he was attacking the money payment of 6.000/. a year. A DIRECTOR—II is in commutation of a land endowment. Mr. POYNDER—His point was that, in 1793, the first money payment had been made—then it was that the principle had beet% conceded. Now, lie contended that it ought never to have been conceded at all. The money payment was certainly no endowment. The present payment had been established in 1806, when the pilgrim tax had been first imposed, and that tax had in all probability been originally imposed for the pur pose of meeting this money payment. As to the money pay ment being guaranteed, he should like to ask on what pos sible principle could such a guarantee have been given, or on wh a t principle could it now be upheld ? He should like also to !know how the money was gexpended, for, they knew, from a certain apocryphal book, that the offer ings of meat and drink, &c., made to a certain idol in former times, had been consumed by the priests and their women. He (Lord Auckland) went on—" The Government is at pre sent bound to make this money allowance." It was true we wrested Orissa from the Hindu.) Government; but had we given any guarantee for the support of Juggernaut ? The strongest proof of the truth of what he said was, that for three years after we obtained possession of the province by force of arms, we took no notice of Juggernaut whatever. It was only when we discovered that the money paid was flesh.- able, that we discovered the obligation. Lord Auckland said that the promises were distinct and uncoruhtional, and that he would fulfil them to the letter. Again, he (the Hon. Pro prietor) asked where did these promises appear? They must have the terms of the promise, or they could not fulfil them. He contended that Lord Auckland had proceeded upon a false assumption—he had reasoned right upon false premises. His despatches were a petitio eincipii from beginning to end. He would meet the question in two ways ; first, by asserting that no pledges of the nature Lord Auckland supposed could be found to exist. They were not produced, tor the same rgesoe the Lord Mayor assigned to Qneen Eligabet there were Ilene. S h why th e ecnedly. if there had !Ten, they wou ld have been invalid. If there had guns were net 6red—b eca use practice of burning wid ows h a d been in like manner guaranteed obeenri. When Lord n led let them he stated. It was stated that the William Bentinck abolished that horrid prac tice. an appeal was matte to her Majesty in Council against its abolition, on the ground of these positive pledges, The known to be too foul, conternrd i f,'e, and unsubstantial, to inquiry on pttri. be made t those wno are 5w0...1 to maintain •the integrity of her Majesty's dominions, and to bring to justice all, whom soever they may be, who meditate the dismemberment or ruin of her empire. The third and last charge against the Raja is in perfect keeping ,with the two I have already- exposed. It is set forth that the Raja, with the same design of overthrow ing the English, intrigued with the ex-Raja of Nagpore. And who, pray, is he? Why, at the time, a wretched fugitive ; subsisting on the bounty of the Raja of Jud pore ; a dethroned Prince, residing in obscurity, with out money and without friends ; state prisoner, in clOsed within a court-yard, twenty feet by twelve. Yet. with this poor spectre of a pauper Prince, the Raja of Sattara is charged with conspiracy, for the purpose of overthrowing the colossal power of the British in India ; and the overwhelming proof, at once of guilt and danger is, that the ex-Raja of Nagpore sent the Raja of Sat tara a complimentary letter, and that the Raja of Sattara sent the ex-Raja of Nagpore a pair of shoes! So much for the charges. Now for the use made of them, by men who are citizens of a State, in which the meanest person, accused of the most petty of offmce, may not be condemned unheard. Did they call on the Raja for explanation? No. Did they send him copies of the charges brought against him? No. Did they tell him who were his accusers, and confront him with them? No. What, then, did,they do? They made up their minds that he was guilty. The evidence was so clear, so satisfactory, so complete, so irresistible, that it would have been a waste of justice to call up the Raja to rebut it, or even to let him know what it was. What mattered it that he felt himself innocent, if they believed him to be guilty! What need of putting the Raja to the trouble of defending himself, when he is already tried, convicted, and condemned? Sir Robert Grant, one of the chief actors in this affair, having died, Sir James Rivet Carnac, at the time a Director, was appointed Go vernor of Bombay in his place. On reaching India, he drew out certain articles and a preamble, with which he proceeded to Sattara, with a view of winding up the case of the Raja, and as it has been stated by himself and his friends, with the benevolent design of saving the Prince from the consequences of his infatuation and guilty folly. The preamble to the memorandum, which the Raja was called upon to sign, contained an admission of his guilt. The articles required him to pass an act of oblivion with regard to his accusers—to yield a certain sum from his treasury for the benefit of his worst enemies—and to put away from him the persons in whose fidelity he could alone repose. What reply did this Indian Prince make to such a string . of propositions, submitted by a British functionary, with the assurance that, if he agreed to them, he should remain upon the throne, and be restored to the confidence of the Government? He made an answer worthy of the brightest hero of ancient or mo dern times .; an answer which places him at a sublime height above the petty persecutors to whose arts lie has fallen a victim. His answer shall be given in the words of Sir James Carnac, who has reported at full length his interview with the Raja. Sir James, speaking of his ad dress to the Raja, an address intended to induce him to agree to the terms of the amnesty, as it has been called, says:— v " When I had concluded, he (the Raja) stated, that he regarded me as his friend and well-wisher; asserted that the accusations against him originated in the intrigues of his enemies; that as long as the British Gover nmen t en tertained the idea that he had cherished hostile designs he could agree to nothing, but this idea being removed, he would agree to anything I proposed; that he would consent to anything, except to abandon his religion, or to acknowledge that he had been our enemy." A second and third interview took place with similar results. The Raja persevered in his refusal to subscribe to his own guilt, and thus sign away his honour, and put it in the power of the British Government at any time to publish him to tho world a self-admitted traitor. He asked to be heard. He offered to lay aside whatever dig nity might stand in the way of an ordinary trial, and to place himself before any honest tribunal. He offered to relinquish his person, his government, his kingdom, into the hands of the British, if they would grant him a fair trial. A. trial was sternly denied. He was already guilty in the determination of the Bombay authorities, and must submit to declare himself to be, what they had undertaken to make him out to be, whether his con science accused him or not. But these functionaries had to deal with a man whom they were incapable alike of understanding or appreciating. Perhaps they reasoned that he would do what, in like circumstances, they would have been willing to do. They thought that, if they balanced his nice and fastidious ideas of honour and self respect against a throne, and the continued protection of the British Government, he would surely yield the for mer to secure the latter. But such views were far from the mind of this noble man. He said plainly, " Gentle men, you mistake me altogether. I can relir.quish a throne, I can go into exile, I can see my kingdom given to another, or absorbed into your own territory ; but I cannot forfeit the testimony of my conscience ; I can sa crifice every thing but my honour!" What was to be done? It was secretly determined that the Raja should be forthwith deposed. He had already expressed his willingness to remove without a murmur at the bidding of the Governor. Nay, he had said, when with the Go vernor at the residence of the Political Resident at Poonah, " I will stay, if you please, here, in this bun galow, nor ever enter my capital again, till I have esta blished my innocence before an impartial tribunal."_ Neither force nor rudeness, therefore, were required. The Governor had but to say "depart," and the Raja had passed his word that he would quit his kingdom im mediately. But guilt is ever clandestine, timid, and stealthy. " 'This conscience doth make cowards of us all." At midnight, when the Raja was in his chamber asleep upon his couch—at midnight, to suit the better the time to the deed, and cover it with darkness, if possible, black as itself—at midnight, did two British officers, instructed by a British Governor, and led on by a traitorous bro ther of the noble Raja's, conduct a troop to Sattara, and surround the palace. The brother showed the way to the resting-place of the Prince. They seized him— thrust him half-clothed into a palanquin—thrust into the same palanquin his faithful cousin Balla Sahib Senna puttee—placed the Raja and his family under the charge of a British Lieutenant and a company of soldiers, and ordered the escort to march to Benares, a distance of 800 miles. While pursuing their way with all the speed of guilty fear, the pangs of child-birth overtook the wife of Balla Sahib. The anxious husband implored a halt, which was denied. In a few days, Balla Sahib was brought to the point of death. A halt was again im plored. Again it was denied by this man of fleshless heart ; and, at the close of the day, the devoted cousin of the Ra b a, " Faithful among the faithless found," lay a corpse in his palanquin. My friends, I see the paleness of a speechless horror, mingling with the crim son of a burning indignation, on your cheeks. Too deep your detestation cannot be at this recital of atrocities, ' perpetrated in your own name, by your own countrymen, upon the distant plains of India, in the eyes of a people whom we have robbed of their country. Give your in dignation words. Put it into action. Rouse up at the great call of nature and of justice, and check the deeds of those who are covering you with infamy, by the spo liations and tragedies they are enacting with the power you have placed in their hands. Let us leave the lifeless body of Balla Sahib in the jungle, and the Raja is his exile, and return to Sattara. The Raja, out of all his private wealth, carried with him only the jewels which the women of his household were able, in the hurry of departure, to secure. Immediately upon the abduction of the Raja, his ruthless persecutors made themselves masters of all his papers. But I may here, once for all, observe, that there is notin the posses sion of the British Government a single document, or fragment of one, in the handwriting of the Raja, afford ing the slightest evidence of infidelity to the British. 'How triumphant is this fact ! An intriguer for twenty years—a man accustomed to make the most regular mi nutes of all his transactions, even the most trivial—ac cused by a Government that had offered liberal rewards, personal indemnity, and honourable distinction, as the premiums for evidence against him—and yet not a soli tary atom of proof, under his own hand, of his ever hav ing cherished a thought at variance with his fidelity as a Prince, or hiS honour as a man. In a very few days after the expulsion of the Raja—while the sighs of a travailing mother, the cries of her new- born babe, and the groans of the expiring husband and father were disturbing the stillness of the jungle—Sattara was the scene of the in stallation and enthronement of a new Raja. And who is he ? Surely, some one more worthy of the throne than the man who has been hurled at midnight from it, and chased into exile. The deposers of the ex-Raja have, surely, found some paragon of perfection, who, by the lustre of his virtues, shall mitigate the " deep damnation" of the deed that has been 'wrought. Who is he, that is escorted by thousands of British troops to the capital, attended by the Governor and his staff to the Palace, and placed, amidst the thundering of cannon, the clangour of trumpets, and the explosion of fireworks, upon the throne of Sevagee, and proclaimed RAJA OF SATTARA— the ALLY and FRIEND of the British Government—the CHOSEN OBJECT of confidence and protection—in the place of the dethroned, despoiled, and desolated Purtub Sing ? It is APPA SAHlB—the abandoned profligate— the companion of courtezans—the corrupt judge—the man who twice plotted the participation of the princi pality—the Judas Iscariot who betrayed his master—the inhuman brother who led the way to the chamber of the sleeping Prince, and sold his mother's son into the hands of his enemies. He is the man, whom the Governor of Bombay delighteth to honour. He is now the favourite of the East India - Company, to whew, doubtless, the sword which has been withheld from the brother, will be speedily presented, with a new and amended edition of the Court's complimentary letter of 1835. Let me observe, also, that the Company have deprived the ex-Raja of all the private property he left behind him, consisting of money and jewels, and other valuables, the savings of the years that he had been upon the throne, amounting to at least 150,00 C/ sterling. All this has Leen appropriately handed over to the exem plary Prince who now sways the sceptre. But I pass over many deeply interesting features in this history, that I may describe the conduct of the home authorities. On the news of the Raja's dethronement arriving in this country, a few of the friends of justice, Proprietors of East India Stock, signed a requisition for a Special Court fur the 12th February, 1840, " To take into consideration a recommendation to the Court of Directors and Board of Control, to withhold their sanction to the dethronement of his Highness the Raja of Sattara, by the Bombay Government, until a full and fair investigation of the charges preferred against him shall have been made, according to his Highness's earnest and repeated request." The Directors, whe are, of course, Proprietors, and, in consequence of their extensive patronage, most ingu ential ones, came down, and, instead of following the dictates of delicacy, and leaving the Court to decide for itself, uninfluenced by their votes or dictation, themselves moved, and carried by their own votes, an amendment, that " it is highly inexpedient, and this Court accordingly declines to interfere with its responsible Executive, in the affairs of the Raja of Sattara." i Learned Counsel for the respondents said, " Where are these t ,„1,,i,-,:' , :-.,1•, , ,r,. u : ...11' , ~ • ,t;,,•: ,•' ~ ou le., for wha: • , . us. e, ting ::.:,:, .; nitickny 1,,r the other side, toe couto rel.. i •• - duce them ; they could not show that any conqueror had este.- blished the immolation of women, and therefore, of course, they took nothing by their motion; de non appurentibus et de non existentibus eadem est ratio. The same argument was used by Dr. Johnson with respect to the authenticity of the poems of Ossian. Johnson said where are the originals ? nut his opponent had none to g ive,e and the re was an end of the controversy. In like manner he asked Lord Auckland to procure his authority The first Charter of Elizabeth contained no saving clause in favour of idolatry— subsequent Charters preserved the same silence. The Charter of William 111. not only did not premote it, but it bound the Company to use means to teach the native the Christian re ligion. The Company were, therefore, pledged to do this in stead of the other thing. He (the Hon Proprietor) had la boured long to see whether anything could be made of the ar. gument of treaties, but he found nothing of the kind. He had examined the original treaty of Orissa, but it contained no stipulation whatever for the support of heathenism, nor could he find any such stipulation in any treaty from that one to the final partition treaty of 1804. If not supported by us, this abomi nable system of idolatry would drop of itself. Gentlemen knew that, but for our support, it would be all at an end. On this subject he was struck with a remark of Mr. Grant's, in his invaluable work, published by the House of commons, with out reading which no Hon. Member should legislate for India. He asked " Are we bound for ever to preserve all the enormities of the Hindoo system 7—to be the guardians of every monstrous principle and ' practice it contains ? Are we pledged to support it for all generations, by allying the Government and the whole army with the miseries which ignorance has so long entailed on the whole human race ? Is this the part a humane and enlightened people are engaged to act towards their subjects? Shall we become passive spectators of such wickedness?" " Yes" said Lord Auckland, "it they pay 6.0001. a -y ear f or it." If this were the case, they were doing themselves the greatest possible injustice. 'Of what use were their ecclesiastical and other religious establishments? His Lordship had been grossly deceived. Christianity permitted nothing but neutrality towaras existing evils till the grace of God should institute a better state of things. If such doctrines could be established, from that moment they would depart from their own faith. Such powers were not only not conferred upon our rulers, but no one of them before had ever attempted to exercise it. The great men whose statues were above their heads, were quite in capable of such things. his attention was first called to this subject by a sermon he beard delivered by Dr. Buchanan, then just returned from India. He narrated some of the atrocities of the system, and he said it was a question at Ca'cutta who was to blame. Some said the Court of Directors of the East India Company; bur his answer was, that they were not to blame, they were the executive Government; it was the Court of Proprie tors who were to blame. He said the sin lay at their door, and they must settle it with their consciences, if they had any. He (the Hon. Proprietor) then said to himself, " Am I a Pro. prietor, and know nothing of this ?" And he thereupon went to Andrew Jackson, their great orator, and said to him, " Here is a statament of things given upon undoubted evidence." " Weil," he said, " what then ?" He replied that he wanted some one who had the ear of the Court, and who was not only a great orator, but a shining character (for he had four stars) to broach the matter. Mr. Jackson said he should lose, and that he did not like to be beat. He would not, therefore, intro duce the matter, but would support it, and so he did. He tried other Hon. Proprietors with a better success, and he de termined at last to undertake the matter himself. He had ac cordingly came firth, like David, armed only with a sling and a stone, but he reli,d upon the blessing of Providence upon his endeavours, which he had no hesitation in saying he believed was the secret of all success. Perhaps he should apologise to the Court for being so warm upon the matter. Allowances should be made on both sides. " Ultro veniam damus, petimusque vicissim." He could point to many and illustrious men who always warmed with this subject, and of this Mr. Pitt was a remarkable exam ple, who could never speak without violent gesture. The times were progressive, and the month of mind could not be stopped. .1 he present Premier was forced to take office upon this princi ple. But he (Mr. P.) had no comfort from Lord Ellenbo rough's being made President of the Board of Control, after his declaration on the subject of India in the House of Lords. Lord Brougham, too, he was sorry to say, had adopted the same views as Lord Ellenborough, and even the late President of the Board of Control evinced little anxiety as to the state of religion in India. He had little to hope far from the Court itself, yet he was glad to acknowledge that he was received with more de corum on the present occasion than he had been on many former ones. However, nothing should prevent him from doing what he considered his duty. If he was wrong he was open to correction, but he acted upon the information he possessed. Whether this impost had originated in 1793, or at an after period, he considered it to be void, abinitio. He concluded by moving aresolution to the following effect :—" That the Hon. Court of Directors would take measures to abolish all remaining processions, ablutions, and other idolatrous practices in India, in compliance with a minute from the Court itself at the date of 1832, and also that it would investigate into the payment of 6.0001. a year, awarded to the Bengal Government, for the sup ! port of the Temple of Juggernaut, in 1805 (as we understood), and which had been confirmed by Lord Auckland, and the other circumstances connected with that annual payment." Mr. MARRIOTT seconded the motion, and said that while Christianity continued to be the religion of England, it ought never to countenance idolatry in any of its dependencies. The CHAIRMAN said that he would take on himself to say that the East India Company never derived any pecuniary ad vantage from the procession to the Temple.—( Hear, hear.) And he could say with perfect confidence, that every fair step would be taken to abolish the practice of idola ry in India. ith regard to the payment made for the support of the Tem ple, they were bound by the proclamations made upon their taking possession of the country, to support it They were obliged, by the faith of that proclamation, to support the Tem ple, when they came into posse-lion of the country in 1805. The Hon. Chairman then quoted from the proclamation in proof of that obligation. They were bound, by every princi pie of honour to support it, and he thought it would give rest dioatisfaction in India if they did not do so. He should thoirfore meet the resolution with a direct negative. Mr. PosrsroEit observed that the support and the actual en dowment were distinct things. Sir J. Lusn INGTO sr said they were bound to the endowment, as was proved by the documents between the Company and the Raja of Beran and the Raja of Carnac,but they did a great deal notwithstanding, to abolish idolatrous practices in India—a great deal more than he believed the Hon. and Learned Pro prietor himself expected.—( Hear, hear.) They abolished the pilgramages and other practices. A great deal of ignorance existed upon the subject in the public mind. The petition from Birmingham, alluded to two things, which were quite distinct, the granting of pensions to persons connected with religious ceremonies, which has been done away with and the allovianee to the temple. The latter Lord Auckland declares, in a minute of the date of 18.38, he will fulfil to the letter, because, it he did not, it would be a breach of faith. These allowances and rents were made by former sovereigns of the country. But he hoped the discussions of the Court would do away with the ignorance and exaggerations that prevailed upon this subject. He thought the motion was unnecessary, and he would there • fore vote against it. A short conversation ensued in which several Proprietors took part ; after which the motion was put from the Chair, arid negatived by a large majority. Mr, WEEDING made a few observations relative to the library, of which he thought a catalogue ought to be made out before now. Two o- three years had elapsed since the subject was brought before the Court. What he complained of was the delay. RAJA OF SATTARA'S CASE. Mr. LEWIS said that, in calling the attention of the Court to the case of the Rajah of Sattara, it was not his intertion to enter at any great length upon the subject, in consequence of the knowledge upon it already possessed by the Court. He would content himself with proposing a motion which, from its nature, he was sure would meet with no opposi tion. He hoped, however, that when he abstained from en tering upon the merits of the case, no person would suppose that his opinion of it was altered, or that the injustice of the deposal of the Raja of Sattara was, in the slightest degree, im paired or diminished—(Hear, hear)—from that circumstance. If that opinion required confirmation, the documents on the case, exhibiting as they did the utterly deficient grounds on which the local Government proceeded, would afford abun dance of it.--( Hee-, hear.) His opinion, then, remained un altered, and his confidence of the injustice done to the Raja of Sattara was very much increased. Since the question was last before them the whole of the Raja's case, with the argu ments on bo h sides, was laid before the public. Those argu ments had been considered—a deep interest had been excited in the public mind.—( Hear, hear.) Meetings had taken place on the subject in Scotland, in Ireland, and in the important provincial di,tricts of England. The resolutions passed at those meetings expressed the utmost indignation at the course pursued in this case, and called on Government for immediate reparation of the injury. He was happy to see such noble and generous feelings, which would not permit a native Prince of India, in alliance with them, to be oppressed and crushed, be cause he had not himself the power of vindicating the injus tice.—( Hear, hear.) There were other circumstances which gave him confidenee. The administration of the affairs of the country had devolved upon other hands—he believed upon more efficient, more able, and more upright hands.--( Hear, hear.) He was happy to see the rule of:experimentalists and jobbers at an end, and that the Government of India was to he conductedpn bet ter and more prudent policy— ( Hear)—above all that the unnecessary war now going on in Affghanistan would be put an end to—a war which was not only attended with loss of life and great expenditure of the country, hut with loss of credit to the British Government, and much fiscal embar rassment. With respect to India, they had a President of the Board of Control who would bring much antecedent know ledge to the subject on which he was going to legislate— ( Hear, hear)...-who, when out of office, appeared at all times in his place in Parliament when subjects concerning India were brought before it—who was reputed to be, and nu doubt he was, the framer of the Report of the House of Lords, laid before it on the 14th of February, 1840, and which contained such enlightened views of the principles on which the future Government of India ought to be conducted. Let him briefly advert to that Report. After some important observations, it concludes thus, " It is the firm conviction of the Committee that our Co!onial possessions in the four quarters of the globe can only be main , ained iu peaceful and willing obedience, by making strict justice and impartiality the sole guide of every proceeding tiy which they can be affected." Strict justice and inpartislity ! If the Nobleman who drew up that Report would put in practice the principle he had here promu!gated— and he had no reason to doubt that he would not—then in a few weeks the grievance of the Raja of Sattara must be re dressed.—(Cheers.) Since the last discussion took place, cer tain articles appeared in the Times newspaper, pur porting to be " Observations on the case of the Raja of Sattara." He did net allude to those observa tions, partial, ex parte, and incorrect as they were, for the purpose of refuting them. Were he to do that, he should have to enter upon a question already published, but lie alluded to them for the purpose of repelling certain insinuations re garding himself personally_insinuations mean and illibe•al xs they were false and unfounded. It was clear he was then the advocate of the Raja of Sattara, and that he thought this was the proper place to meet theme insinuations.—( Hear, hear.) An anonymous writer in the Times—for he would not do that journal the injustice to suppose that it was the author of those charges—it would be a libel op its impartiality to make such a supposition—but an anonymous correspondent expressed him self in these words Tile case of the Baja of Sattara is eup poi ted here by a barrister who has large connections in India, and by an officer in receipt of a salary from the Raja." The filet he had 110 doubt was himself; the officer, he supposed, was his Hon. Friend near him. It staled that they had re ceived three lees and G 3,000 rupees for their services. What was the first insinuation here? That the ease of the Raja of Sattara had ken supported only by the humble indiei. dual who was addressing them, and the Honourable Pro prietor near him. He would appeal to the Court whether such was the fact? Was not his case supported by Sir Charles Forbes ? Did he not call upon the Court not to proceed in the case till the proprietors had a fair opportunity to consider it? Did he not propose that it should undergo a full, fair, and impartial investigation? Did not Mr. Ponder sup port that case? Did he not state when ho cape forward as the advocate of the Raja of Sattara, that, though unsuited to enter upon such Sobjfict,'yet as strongly did he feel the in justice of his case that lie was comp e ll e d to do so? Did not Mr Salomons support that case? And to person dare accuse him of coming forward to resist the ants of Government. Was it not owing to that Hon. Proprietor, and the effective speech he made on the occasion, that the papers on the case were re• luteantly produced in Court. Mr. MARRIOTT—Not reluctantly. Mr, lawts —Yes, reluctantly, he would repeat, and with great reluetance too —( Hear, hear.) Wes not, he vvotild ark. I is. 0.., ; ti ss: .ss : assts. st-te ss Ss. ss the guilt of that Prince was concerned, the onus probandi rested with the Court ? Had they not failed in establishing the charges against the Raja. and did not Si r George propose a certain resolu tion to the effect that they ought to give to him (the Raja) that redress which he (Mr. Lewis) sought ? What, then, be came of the insinuation that the Raja's case was only sup ported by him (Mr. Lewis) and his Hon. Friend (Mr. Thompson) ? The CHAIRMAN said there was no such insinuation made in that Court. Mr. LEWIS said, he alluded to the concluding remarks in the paragraph on this subject in the Times newspaper. He would venture to say that no case bad appeared in that Court which was supported so strongly, efficiently, and independently hoth by Proprietors and Directors. Mr. MA RRI OTT rose. Mr. LEWIS protested against any interruption being given to him. It was due to himself, and much more to the ease of the Raja, that he should act as he was now doms. It was in sinuated that he appeared in favour of the Raja influenced by a large connection of his (Mr. Lewis's) with India. If any person would take the trouble to inquire, he would find that his ( Mr. L.'s) connexion with India was very limited indeed. But there was a connexion—a strong, a binding, and an en dearing connexion, which he had with India—he was born there—( Hear, hear)—it was the place of his nativity. That was his connexion with India. Was it possible, he would ask, that the Court of Directors should profess to do justice to India, and yet deprive a native Prince in alliance with England of his throne, plunder him of his property, and consign him to a dungeon, upon charges which he never heard, and on evi dence of which he knew nothing? He (Mr. Lewis) had taken the trouble to look at the facts of the case, and he found that those facts. onfirmed him as to the exist nee of such .t posAbilit v. It was on that account. that he came forward as the supporter of the cause of the Raja of Sattara, and he trusted he should ever be found at his post there and elsewhere in support of that case. What was the third insinuation? The writer stated that a sum of money, amounting to three lacs and 63 000 rupees. was squandered by the Raja of Sattara among his (the Raja's) agents here.—( Hear, hear.) What, he would ask, had that to do with the t ase, unless it was insinuated that he (Mr. Lewis) had received some of that money ? To such an insinuation he would say it was utterly false. Who the anonymous writer of that article was he neither knew nor cared. He supposed him to be some hirelihg scribbler, who was so accustomed to be paid for every thing he did, that he could not suppose a man would do any thing for which he did not receive pay. But. those insinua tions, abounding in mis-statements and inaccuracies, came too late. The subject had been discussed in that Court, and the puhlic mind had been undeceived. The writing of the article in question was a low stratagem-,a trick resorted to for the purpose of making an improper impression on the public mind. But it would not avail those who had recourse to it. It was as dishonourable to the author of it as it was discreditable to the case. Though, in themselves, they were too contemptible to notice, he yet thought it necessary to say thus much, lest it should affect the Raja's case. (Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. Lewis then quoted the opinions of Sir James Car nac as to a lenient mode of treatment to be observed towards the Raja. The communication in which Sir James had given expression to those opinions was dated 19th June, 1839. and yet, how had he subsequently aetes? Why, in the month of September following, three months after the date of that do cument, he deposed the Raja, and he (Mr. Lewis) asked, was there, in that time, any intervening necessity for such a pro ceeding? Were any fresh plots discovered? None whatever. What then was the intervening cause ? Whv, simply, he would riot submit to sign a document, in which he was called on to admit his own guilt. Was that sufficient to justify Sir James Carnac in dethroning the Raja. He called on the Court of Directors to pause, and consider the facts of the case, the more so, as he was satisfied that they felt an injustice had been done. Even now he called on them to retrace their steps. The motion with which he meant to conclude was, that the letter of General Lady, ick , dated October 1, 1839, be laid before the Court of Proprietors. Captain COGAN seconded the motion, and took occasion to say that the statements of the Times were, as far as he was concerned, totally false. Mr. WEEDING observed, that the attacks which had been made on Sir Robert Grant would never have been uttered if he had been living. With respect to the Raja's case, he (Mr. Weeding) had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with its details, and he came to the conclusion that the Raja was guilty. He ( Mr. Weeding) thought the treatment received by the Raja was the treatment due to a Prince. He saw no rea son to complain of it, when they were put to 14200/. expense for his support. He would now move that the Court do adjourn. Mr. M. MARTIN said that in the observations mad either by himself or his friends who supported his views, either not mean to throw any imputation whatever on the character of Sir R. Grant. Mr. SALOMONS could well understand the propriety of the Hon. Proprietor defending himself from the imputation of stooping to be the hired advocate of the Raja, but he (Mr. Salomons) confessed that beyond that limit he could not go with his Hon. Friend. He alluded to the observations made by the Hon. Gentleman on the Government. They ought to avoid all party discussions in their deliberations on the affairs of India. He thought his Hon. Friend had adopted an ill judged mode of expression, in alluding to the conduct of the late Government. With respect to Lord Auckland, in re viewing the whole of that Noble Lord's conduct, it must be admitted that the Government of India was very much improved during his administration. They might in his (Mr. Salomon's) opinion consider the case of the Raja of Sattara settled, unless some new facts were brought to their knowledge. He wished to ask the Chairman, if since the last discussion on that subject, any inquiry was opened in India respecting the Raja. The CHAIRMAN said there was no inquiry opened that he was aware of. The question of adjournment was then put from the Chair, and a short discussion, in which Mr. Thompson, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Weeding, and other Hon Proprietors took part, arose. Mr. THo m PSON called on the Court not to let the end of truth and justice be frustrated by any quibble or subterfuge. As for him self he spurned such artifices and would act in opposition to them as long as he had the honour of a seat in that Court. He had given public notice of his motion, on the fourth day of the debate during the last discussion of this subject—he had fur nished the Chairman with a copy of the motion, and now he asked why was not that motion put from the Chair, anal an opportunity allowed him of entering on the question? The DVPUTY-CHAIRMAN here entered into a long expla nation of the rules and forms of the Court, for t he purpose of showing to Mr. Thompson that as the motion of the Chair man to which his (.\lr. Thompson's) motion was an amend ment, was carried, the latter was of course lost. He (the De puty-Chairman) then went on to say that it would be better not to enter into the case of the Raja of Sattara, as notice of a motion on the subject was given in the House of Commons, where its merits would be fully discussed. He therefore trusted that the motion of adjournment would be acceded to. Mr. THomrsoN complained that he was deprived of putting his motion by a point of form. When he was about to bring the question forward, the • Court rose, and rose illegally, as no motion of adjournment had been made at the time. The im pression on his mind Wtl3, that he had been ill-used, and he could not let that opportunity pass without stating that the form or law which thus frustrated the ends of justice could not be too soon revised and altered. He asked, what would any Director think of a Proprietor making a motion like that of Mr. Weeding, of an adjournment, while another Hon. Director had a motion to make ? He (Mr. Thompson) asked only for a fair field. The Hon. Court of Directors, when even thename of the Raja of Sattara was men tioned, had nice regards, cherished for form sake. There was no charge against him (Mr. Thompson) of being out of order, and yet his motion was not to be put. But though he was de feated there, he must pay his humble tribute of thanks to the Press, which had so ably assisted him.—(Hear, hear) He thought, although some Hon. Director had complained of his name being omitted in the Reports, the Directors themselves could not but be perfectly satisfied. He (Mr. Thompson) was, and the public were deeply, indebted to that Press. He must particularly acknowledge the merits of the Asiatic Journal, whose endeavour in this cause had rendered him such valuable service. This case was out of their (the Directors') hands. Justice would yet be clone, although they failed to do it.- - (Cheers. ) The country was rising upon this subject. It was only that morning that he had received a letter from a gentle man in Ireland, who was well acquainted with the general feeling ; and he said that the universal conviction was that the Raja was innocent, and was the victim of a vile persecution on the part of the governmest in India. He (ai l. Thompson) had not met a solitary individual out r o Nn f i e‘r ,hst o . son m,v, who- 0: was nut of this opinion.—( Hear , hear.) His tion still was, that the Raja was innocent, He son) came not into that Court to defend him as an honest man, but he would say that was his own convicti on at that moment , and he would say as he had said to his friends, " Tell me not of what is to be said in his favour, tell me what there is against him." The press had taken up that question uncer the solemn con viction that the man was innocent, and in that solemn convic tion they continued still. He must then take his leave of the Raja, as far as that Court was concerned. On the question of order, before that Court rose, he wished to ask when h, could make his motion, as he had prepared one grounded on the con duct of the parties behind the bar. He wished to know whe ther that was the proper time to make that motion. The CHAIRMAN—The . question of adjournment is not yet discussed. Mr. TitoursoN must take that opportunity, then, of inqui ring whether the notice he had had the honour to transmit to the Chairman was a legal notice, and whether it would be heard that day if the adjournment was not carried? The CHAIRMAN said that notice must be given in the event of the adjournment not being carried (as we understood). Mr. THoairsoN said it was a motion regarding a man whom they had deposed. They said they had given him a pension. a T n h d ey t hoey only nlyg gaveavehim him a aaoprarlyt of what pittancea was out his own. ofthesoilTohey said of India, that he should be King, but that they should receive the re venue. If this was not appropriation he knew not what. was He was not in o r d er , h e understood, in putting the motion at that time ; but h e wou ld read it. That it is - the duty of the , Chairman of th e C ou - t o f Directors who is permitted -o sit as Chairman of th e C ourt of Proprietors, to ob erve strictly and impartially th e ac k now l edged rules of üblic debate. by the obligation of which the Chairman is required to put, in their order, from the Chair all amendments of which he has received clue notice, and to call'upon the several movers by name to sup s ort them. If that was not the form of the House of Lords, it at all events squared with the form of j u stice.—(Cheers.) • Mr. SALOMA NS said he thought it would be most proper that at all qu arter l y C ourts all notices of m otion should have precedence of any other motion.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it would he consistent with the propriety of that Court, so far as Hon. Directors were concerned. Mr. WIG RAM said that which the Hon. Proprietor asked was the uniform practice of that Court.—( Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Proprietor matte any complaint it must lie, not with t th ie e m C an ou l r a t of hoh D ad ire i c ,e t r o m rs i , tt t w h i a t t h p t r h e e se H nt on m . o a t n io ri n Le to arn ta e k d e G p e r i e s . .. buted cedence of his motion. Mr. LEWIS made satin observation which we were unable to catch. Mr. Wm RA NI ifought that the lion. Gentleman ( Mr. Lewis) could nut complain of his motion not being put that day, although it had been advertised. Bat it had always been the practice in that Court to give precedence to notices of motion over other motions. But it was to be clearly understood that if there was any complaint on that occasion, it rested with the Proprietors themselves, and not with the Directors behind the bar. If the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) had not. given the Hon. Gentleman precedence, they would then have been discussing his motion. Mr. LEWIS said he was the first who gave notice of a ino tion, that the,officer might make no mislake in p acing hi s s e ii t o h n e ci of theticatio of adjourn men t Friend Mr. A b i e A fo ß r T e h N i i( said Mr. that Lewis.) be before El t on. Dire c t ors . A put ask a llrom several in Hon. t o u n t , hadhe begged just bn, t tial merchants of London, and he wished to know if the mctiou chat petit adion journment was carried, w h ether he could give notice of ? The 01)+1101,1w said if the quostori of adjournment was carried, no motion Qould he made that day. Mr, Wicif:Alt said if the lion. Proprietor pleased he could sipi3ali on the question of adjournment, but the Secretary could not receive his motion then. Mr. MARTIN begged, then, to give notice, that it was 7 .4 is in tention at the next ensuing Quarterly Meeting of the Court of i'roprietors to present a rnerntirial to that Court, signed by all the East India Paeleh4nts in Lonion, praying that the East India CG , mpany should take such steps as they might deem ne- MORNING SUN cessary for ohtninino• a r ,, ,liteti,n of the ditties levied ja , ;0;11 th,bat Mr. TWINING felt regret than the course o f t" e ie ht : should be i n t erru pt e d b y an a dj ou; nm ent, and he tho was a tnod unsasfactor way to terinate it. Mr. WE DING said he had moved m the motion of an the meat in consequenc e o f th ere b e i ng two rnotions on th e subject before the Court ht Major OLIPH A N T sa id h e th oug ht that the Cour t ongedof, to adjourn till every motion on the paper was d is P on tle What master was it whether there were two motions ....... same subject or not? _ Tote After a short explanatory conversation betvreen Vr. d,ter! 0 0 son, Mr. Salomons, and .slr. Lewis, the motion for a ?.. n ment was put, and a s h ow o f h an d s t a ken, but the _l 11_lurjk being nearly equal, a divi s i on was called, and the C 0 videi, when there appeared— 15 For the motion. ................. ••• 12 Against it. Majority for the m o ti on .................. _3 The Court then adjourned. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT' HOUSE OF LORDS, Sept. 2 3 . 0 ,c;o0 . The!r Lordships met to-day at Half-past Thre e • se gG The Earl of CARLISLE took the oaths And h i Score' Lord COTTENHAM gave two judgment s hi d derieg appeals ; after which their Lordehips 1 w o u pleasure. the '.l he LORD CHANCELLOR took his sea, on sack ,at Five o'Clock. • • - eel ° . On the motion of Lord WHARNCLimere 3 correspondence of Lord John Russell and the of Normanby was ordered to be laid on the tah' e lo the Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition ft() coes t i i n the jeo ie Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees, of Black. House,. of Dublin, praying'their Lordships to expel t he h e t t : from the Kingdom. The Noble Lord suited c l ea t le could not support the prayer of the petition; i n felt bound to object to it. THE RAJA OF SATTARA. .„ 0 adjourne ema Lord BROUGHAM also presented a Pe t ' tl iorfls e )' Rating from a public meeting held in Dublin ° ,i r ago, and signed by the Chairman, praying.- their °t ships to take into consideration the case of t'''" ce io Sattara, for the purpose of using their infl uen- Die r storing to him his possessions. orn Earl RA.DNOR- presented a petition, ; I• y e atre'r, chants, bankers, and other inhabitants ei of praying that a tax might be levied on the Pr e ' e - at, of to United States coming into Canada, for the b ell e - proch l " revenue of the United Kingdom, and that st le- e rey. should then be imported duty free into this co on " ASSIGNEES IN BANKRUPTCI.,, 00 gr' The Earl of DEVON presented a petition ' t re'''. Adam Murray, the land agent, of Parliarne° complaining of the loss he had incurred by t h : te pl!e s i of Mr. Abbott, the official assignee to 'Messr s ' I ",. o els e , son and Co. He believed if the creditors had e ,:" 0 - 0 11 1 a due degree of vigilance, so large an amount 11 o ieco have been suffered to remain in the hands of th e : 0i assignee. The subject, h owever , was w orthY diate and earnest consideration of their Lordelnr bs etyr. Lord BROUGHAM entirely concurred in th e ° t ese i e st• tions of the Noble Earl, an d he thought th e st° he had made would be worthy of consideratieli lye event of any contemplated alteration in the His Noble Fri en d was qu it e correct as to the m s t bet", which the official ass i gnees were appo i n ted ; bY; lieved the selection was made, in the first insta, lle oe ore Board composed of the Governor and Deputy of the Bank o f E ng l an d , t h e G overno r an 5000 000 ° s , Governor of th e E as t I n di a C om panYi l t - the principal merc h an t s o f t h e City, a nd ;be ll three Judges of the B an k ru pt c y C ou rt. Whe t % 0. pointments were maki ng , th ere wer e not l es '. 0'; 1,500 candidates for th e diff eren t eituati oas s g ile therefore so far as the field of choice was c ohc e ffs r it was ample enough. It only showed how futi.leito all, the most strict and searching investigation ro of 3i r :, meter was, for, at the time of the a ppointneen t el oct; Abbott, no one could receive a higher eu,teoa for integrity and business habits. Netwit e i erit urci ing the objections of the petitioners, he woul d 4 0 1 0 however, to say, that there was no power under 00 Bankruptcy Act which had given more satisfactienoe:il the appointment of official assignees. It i _ ni l ii r co 1 to him that the allowing so large remain in the hands of the official ° le t was extremely injudicious, and argued a great °e a the interests of the creditors. ; nio at e f Lord COTTENHAM had, previous to res.g Seals, directed an inquiry to be made into the a s i A with a view of preventing its recurr ence , but 11 ' yet received the report. th g The Earl of DUCIE presented petitions fro - der Dissenters of Ebenezer Chapel, London, Woottonors' Edge, and other places, praying for a repeal of th e 0 laws. The Noble Earl also presented a petition f r e ° ttl° Ministers' Meeting at the Conference of Minister' Peegd Manchester, on the subject of the Corn-laws. lie b t e i ii o : to call the attention of their Lordships to the P e co Thisr as he looked upon it as well worthy of theirber of deration, not only on account of the nunt et tbe l signatures attached to it, upwards of six hundredi,eue"teore it also represented the feeling of upwards of iv' d the ministers. This large body o Dissent t e b r e s y eo w n e s r i e de o r r e pe Corn-laws religiously wronee because tae to the spirit movements Bible. The present petition was 00 4 of a series of on the part of the countr),:.,to f ee would either be for good or for evil, accordine,,,eore" mode in which they were met by the Executive ti„ from ment. The Noble Lord having read several estra e the the petition, observed that he could not but OPre ' c ' til s ,', regret he felt at the postponing all inquiry int e io 4 3 tressed state of the country till the next year. .i t t i V.'" undoubted fact that hundreds and hundreds during . - l een te year had fallen into an untimely grave in c ase ( ' l et of these laws, and he felt convinced that before th e) hter again thousands would have been added to th °se ,„t re' j dreds. He thought such a postponement a titre did for any Govern men t t o undeettece,oo! one which he must confess he though t ro ti not have been undertaken by a Coo eti3'.' Government. He thought a fraud had been Pr: e a th ° on the people by the Noble End who had pr n e - ad, Its Amendment to the Address. If there was no fra tt .,4 thought the Noble Duke had no confidence in tte. he led, and that mutu a l con fid ence was an open `r - iu the Cabinet.—(Hear, hear.) ref s Lord COTTENHAM moved for c ertain rete,rn'ejte tive to the sittings in the Court of Chancery. --- Ag re el, 011 Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that ne 51 10iPt Monday next, submit a proposition to their L°l4• dries" with a view to obtain their concurrence in an D er to the Crown, to call upon the Home DeP sl ieerl if d at the beginning of each Session, to lay before aft meat a statement of anything that might Ws - peie lP done during the interval between that and the P r- Session upon the Report of Prison Inspectors. CATHOLICS IN INDIA. les .° Lorl CLIFFORD (of Chud!eigh) moved for a f any official communications made towards the e fla t ° t lje l year 1834, or the beginning of the year 1835 : de ° o l l British Government at home by the Governov t oe of Ilindostan, relative to a correspondence b e e 0 0 ,, 54 the Governor-General and the Governor e` f tr respecting the residence and the exercise ° el ett el spiritual functions of any Roman Catholic miss"' e e ir in Hindostan; also a copy of array have been made in 187, y t h e Gover ) o fil Madras to the British :_iovernmeri; hontre 1 61' to two decrees. rl eated, the ore Deceuileer t a h s e 0 0 . and the Other a few v " .- tit). days after. It cla c „ sible th e _eat objection might be made to the r -° we e r these papers, and that it might h e 4 1)° ,; ( 1 merely a petty squabble between some Jesuits s ; r eel' tuguese priests, who the more they (1°- bc h) " any oramunicatinasor of the better, as it might end in their o , ef er , converted to the Protesta n t f a i t h . H e tru sted, 11 Ot t ; their Lordship s w ou ld not ta k e such a v i ew of the Tr, ter, but would grant the papers he had moved f° : a °h e petition prese aut n iht t ees e il d refil h g.Lo e . ; me,m l r i d i ah s sneh N ri obl e and Learned Fr'ernberer: drive nightcalled the Jesuits s p o ks f i n t to? address e n; hn tEstablishedehre Madv a s o t I 10 , o t o - ; It tleman, when he used that phrase, evident -I .Y Wh e know its real meanincr, Dr. for Johns en ' it „ a JO° asked what a Jesuit meaning, p , reli he d, a man rather more clever than the 1, 13 0 ° 1 1 1 him so."—(Cheers and a laugh.) In that seas e l iarce u e r , - Friend, Dr. Kenny, was a Jesuit, and the Ilft,, i its Lees certainly was not. Again, when the J e L e reeey, perseoutedin France, and the French Ambass 3 .7, coa rse r mended the English Minister to pursue a sial ll3 ' t e e erl','„ and confiscate the property they held in the using funds, what was the reply of Lord North? The 'l o o' may be very bad men, but your Excellency mus_t,„ that if. the Devil himself had money in the Of se ee funds St. Michael the Archangel would never take i l e a ..) 0 . ! ) them so long as -I am Minister of England."- - (b e e ce' The Noble Lord then read several portions of ;oil" place onlatcheeh at td Crooeaft Jan., tna. t : o : it 3E3 whichl:lt'it - e ta. tt itreb: dunce relative to the meaning of the term i le g oe' educ and observed that, having a knowledge of the 1 )9 1 - 0 0t able conduct of these men, he was not in the ir e ren t o ci . surprise a d thta a ad t finding,Gazette taken i ma n e te eC r t e ial s 'lcg ts of the Catholic e should have secular _Priests?' solutions had been passed the effect that a be t Irish i Colleges This was at a time when orn required Jesuits **opted to obtain so desirable an '5O - India, and when it was necessary that ?doe' should ' man Ir t is h h a t regi n m i e e a n n ts s A be priests there to teach them the way to salv - -" - , beireeapplication had been made to the British Gove.°, ll , -' io,( l for to allow English Missionaries to be eteis t " a , the ignorant Portuguese • - ide° privets r fe . the lime at Goa. The Governor of Goa, fusedhelve"- to allow the charge to be made, and Vie first 'feet' of the correspondence he moved for related hatc°' - ''' of to t , It mite e lit be said that their Lordshi had In can' eo t ' psn knewine• whether these persons were priests oc ho further than that they called themselves so, but t''` rho contended, was no ground for believing theta to be etc persens they represented themselves. In som e ` t her'' . , sects which dissented from the Church of Englan d ,: ti e were persons calling themselves Catholic priests, " ,ei w hether e would put it to their Lordships to say wes;eit:-.1131:: would assume them to be such on that declaration. cases were precisely similar, so far as he could see.i. December, 1834, a Magistrate o f the province ° re" hall took from the recognised Catholic clerg,c var cognised as such by the Vicar-Ap os t o lic of Meeire.s--1 chapels, and imprisoned them because Wel' rei nset iev i deliver up, the keys of those churches, .402) theY been for six years in quiet and peaceeeNie possessiO3,ere Nay more, if his information were eer erec t, they % l e' put to the torture, although the •ecery _Let of their - h not had possession for a perieel s'ee Y' are was a. pro ° `: . o. they were entitled t he Ve- . 1, 408 5e5-:-Irei of these el 11 , 1 , 1. '„ of The consequelecee was, that 800,re00 Roman Catho"Llittie India, ant lee. believed the nir,leer was at present rx is shoetof . a million, were deprive ;_ t o e s i ef y or eight): ch s' where they were i n th e h a l e ,t or receivingreligion4:rir struction. These chapels ‘,eere put into the hands of ~ : je tuguese priests wh o tar the subjects of Great, 3;1 ,., of that they owed no 'aernPoral allegiance to the Queeiirei England, or no F , piritual allegiance to the Pope. t he that justice ? w as i t common sense ? Was that