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

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 the Court of Directors
—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 lawless *power arrayed against
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 what 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 the
ecnedly. if
there had !Ten, they would have been invalid. If there had
guns were net 6red—because
practice of burning widows had been in like manner guaranteed
obeenri.
When Lord
nled 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