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

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 compelled 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 Sir 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 the 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 (ail.
Thompson) had not met a solitary individual outroNnfi
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 conviction 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.
aTnhdeyt
hoey onlynlyg gaveavehimhima
aaoprarlyt of what pittancea wasout 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 order, he understood, in putting the motion at
that time ; but he would read it. That
it is-the duty of the
, Chairman of the Cou-t of Directors who is permitted -o sit
as Chairman of the Court of Proprietors, to ob erve strictly
and impartially the acknowledged 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
supsort them. If that was not the form of the House of Lords,
it at all events squared with the form of justice.—(Cheers.)
• Mr. SALOMA NS said he thought it would be most proper
that at all quarterly Courts all notices of motion 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
tthieemCanoulrat of
hohDadireic,etromrsi,tt twhiatthptrheeseHntonm.
oatniorinLetoarntaekdeGperies...
buted

cedence of his motion.
Mr. LEWIS made satin observation which we were unable
to catch.
Mr. Wm RANI 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 his
seiitohne ci
of theticatio of adjournment
Friend
Mr.
AbieAfoßrTe hNi i(
said Mr.
that Lewis.)
be
before
Elton. Directors. A
putask
a llrom several in
Hon. t
ount ,
hadhe beggedjust bn,t
tial merchants of London, and he wished to know if the mctiou
chat petit adion journment was carried, whether 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-