The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-28 00:00:00

ever for making such statements as you are about to
make to the Court to-day, after the question had been
withdrawn on a previous occasion by another member
of the Court. I see no pretence for calling that in-
justice. The proceedings you have now adopted, if
persisted in, will indeed be the height of injustice, not
only to this Court of Proprietors, whom I have the
honour to address, but also to the Indian population—
s proceeding which must affect the stability of that
body upon whom, I say, must rest the maintenance of
our power in India—the military in that country.
The Cnaramass Perhaps, if the Honourable
Proprietor will allow me to read an extract from a
letter upon this subject, it may tend to satisfy his
mind. The Honourable Proprietor seems to think
that the proceedings in this case have been illegal.
Mr. LEWIN—I state distinctly that I am prepared
to prove their illegality.
The CHAIRMAN—IIow can you prove their ille-
gality ?
Mr. LEWIN—I Will do this : I will prove that the
prisoners had no counsel, and were not allowed to
produce witnesses.
The CHAIRMAN—I will read an extract from a
dispatch, and then, if you choose to go on, it will be
for the Court to determine whether you have been
discreet in so doing. This is dated the 7th of March,
1847.—(The Honourable Chairman read an ex-
tract from a dispatch from India, maintaining
the legality of the proceedings which had
been adopted with reference to the sepoys,)
As soon as possible after the individuals, conduct was
discovered, they were brought to trial and sentenced,
and more especially as the regiment to which these
soldiers belonged were then upon important duty.
We are confirmed in our view of the legality of the
proceedings which took place at Arcot, upon the most
prominent of the mutineers, by the opinion of her
Majesty's Solicitor-General, and our own standing
counsel. We have reason to know, moreover, that
his Grace the Commander-in-Chief has also no doubt
upon the subject. Now, I submit to the Court
whether, after hearing the opinions of such authorities
as these, the Hon. Gentleman is likely to obtain any
good by adopting the course with which he this day
threatens us, and whether he is likely, in the face of
such authorities, to be able to prove the illegality of
the act of the court-martial.
Mr. LEWIN—If you will allow me to proceed I
will endeavour to show its illegality. The letter of
the Commander-in-Chief was an act of oblivion ; it
was so understood by every body, and yet nine
months afterwards these two men were brought to
trial for this act and were shot.
The CHAIRMAN—And deservedly so, for adminis-
tering unlawful oaths to their comrades.
Mr. MARRIOTT—They were Indian Chartists.
Mr. LEwlN—There are many grounds upon which
the illegality of this act can be rested. In the first
place, the articles of war require that a mutineer shall
be tried at the earliest opportunity. These men af-
terwards passed through Kampter, and they also
passed through Secunderabud, in either of which
places they might have been tried. They were not
tried there, but were brought in perfect ignorance to
Arcot, where a court of inquiry was instituted, and a
court-martial was held.
Mr. FIELDER suggested whether the Court could
with propriety go into the case without having the
papers before it.
Mr. LEWIN replied that the production of the
papers was the very thing that he was going to
move for.
Mr. G. Tnomrscne thought that justice had scarcely
been done to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman upon
his first appearance in that Court, and a proper
degree of courtesy had certainly not been shown to
him. He (Mr. Thompson) had not the remotest
idea of the intended discussion of the circum-
stance to which the Honourable Gentleman bad
alluded ; but he thought that the Honourable Gen-
tleman was addressing the Court under very great
disadvantages, owing to the propietors not having
been able previously to inform themselve of the merits
of the question. He submitted to him, whether it
would not be better to give in to the general feeling
of the Court on the present occasion. But when
Hon. Proprietors endeavoured to prevent a member
of that Court from bringing forward any statement
before it, which he chose to make with reference to
the affairs of the Company, they were themselves
violating the privileges which belonged to the whole
body. It would be for the Hon. Gentleman himself
to judge whether it would or would not be prudent
at present to persevere with the statement of his case.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Hon. Proprietor
had a perfect right to proceed, if he chose to persist
in doing so, but he (the Chairman) merely submitted
to him whether it would be expedient, under the cir-
cumstances, to persevere.
Mr. FIELDER then rose, amidst great confusion in
the court, and moved the previous question, which,
having been stated by him to have been seconded by
somebody whose name did not transpire, that gentle-
man demanded to be instantly put.—(Cries of " No,
no.")
Mr. G. THOMPSON reminded the Hon. Proprietor,
that no motion whatever could supersede the state-
ment of the lion. Proprietor, Mr. Lewin, if he chose
to make it.
Mr. LEWIS stated that he did not rise for the
purpose of disputing the right of the Honourable
Proprietor to address the Court upon that
or any other subject, but, so strong an
appeal had been made to him upon the impropriety of
agitating the question, that he trusted he would sub-
mit to the general feeling of the Court. He (Mr.
Lewis) had a very strong objection to questions of
that description being brought before the Court of
Proprietors, because any Honourable Proprietor might
make statements affecting the character of other per-
sons, which statements might go forth to the world,
and the persons affected would not have an opportu-
nity of making counter-statements in reply.
Mr. LEWIN said that his object was, to prevent any
e.vparte statement going forth to the world, by
moving for the production of the papers in the case.
Mr. SaLosions suggested that in a question of such
importance as that before the Court, notice should
always be given by advertisement in the public papers.
Mr. LEWIN replied that he had sent a notice long
ago to the Honourable Chairman.
Mr. FIELDER said that the Court knew nothing of
that.
Mr. LEWIS—That was because the Honourable
Chairman did not choose to publish the notice.
Mr. SALOUONS suggested whether the Honourable
Proprietor would not be in a better condition to dis-
cuss the subject at the next quarterly Court, after
having given notice upon the present occasion. The
question certainly had a right to be brought forward
in that Court if the Honourable Proprietor chose to
bring it forward. He (Mr. Salomons) must say
that his Honourable Friend (Mr. Poynder) had
addressed the Honourable Proprietor (Mr. Lewin)
with great warmth, and rather rudely.—(Hear.)
Mr. MARRIOTT—NO, no.
Mr. LEWIN said that that all went for nothing.
lie did not care anything about it.
The CHAIRMAN, in explanation of the fact of not
having published the notice, stated that it was always
the custom in that Court, when parties were desiroous
of having their intended motions published in the
papers, to give their ,notice publiclythe notice at tberev mo-
ious
General Court of Proprietors ; butof
tion of the Hon. Proprietor, Mr. Lewin, ha
rid
etornot
been given in the ustiel way. The Hon. Prop
had, however, a right to bring forward any motion he
pleased at any quarterly Court.
Mr. LEWIN stated that with regard to the non-
publication, It all arose from a misapprehension on his
part; he had sent it to the Chairman, believing it
would be published in the ordinary way.
Mr. POYNDER admitted that he had used strong
language I but, he trusted, not improper or rude
language towards the Honourable Proprietor ; if he
had done so he begged pardon, not only of the Hon.
Gentleman himself, but also of the Court. He was
occasionally in the awkward habit of calling things by
their right names.
After a great deal of desultory and irregular dis-
cussion,
Mr. LEWIN was again enabled to obtain a hearing,
and proceeded as follows :—Sir, I was of the same
opinion as the lion. Proprietor near me, that the case
should certainly not be gone into without the Court
being in possession of the papers. I would, certainly,
in deference to the wishes of Proprietors, withdraw
the motion at once, as I do not wish to put anything
before the Court against its wish ; but I am per-
fectly certain that the Court of Proprietors themselves,
if they were better acquainted with the importance
of the case, would insist upon an inquiry being gone
into. I say that the proceedings which have taken
place in this case have brought disgrace upon our
Government in India, and have brought disgrace
upon this Court. Ido not mean to say that you
are disgraced, only so far as allowing this matfor
-
ter to take place without any remedy
it. That circumstance has brought disgrace
upon the Government and the Court of Directors
throughout the whole of the army, and I say it
would tend far more to promote the stability of our
Indian empire,and cement the allegiance of our army,
by your consenting to do justice than, when injustice
has taken place, endeavouring to repress inquiry into
the circumstances.—(Bear, hear.)
Mr. MARRIOTT again rose to order. lie consi-
dered the Honourable Proprietor had no right to cast
an insult on the military. There were behind the
bar many military men, and such remarks, therefore,
respecting the character of our military governnient
in India ought not to be made.
Mr. LEWIN—I am ready to show that the pro-
ceedings adopted in this case were against law, by a
reference to the law itself. They were against the
decision of Lord Gough himself, in March 18#.
They were against the decision of George 111. TheTe
sepoys had done duty for nine months ; they were
placed as guard over the camp of the very man who
was appointed their prosecutor. 1 will now state
what the circumstances were which gave rise to the

blunder at Madras. The batta was withheld frol

these men, who at the time were performing the im-
portant duty of guarding the frontier; they thereupon
refused to mount their horses, and a sort of pas:iive
mutiny took place for four days. In the mean time
an order came from Madras, correcting the error, and
the men immediately returned to their duty. Briga-
dier Watson went to them, and advised them to pre-
sent a certain petition. That petition was presented
to Lord Tweeddale, and the order and tranquillity
of the regiment was again restored. Immediately
after wards the commander of the regiment wrote to
the Commander-in-Chief, and stated that tranquillity
was restored, whereupon the Commander-in-Chief
returned the following letter :—" The Commander-
in-Chief is happy to understand from these
communications, viz., letters of the Bth and 10th De-
cember, from Brigadieri Watson and Col. Litchfield,
that the men of the 6th Regiment Light Cavalry have
returned to their duty, and that they appear to be
sensible of their late misconduct. But as his Lord-
ship cannot allow the regiment under the reproach
of such unsoldier-like behaviour, to continue at a
station where it might be required for employment in
active service, he has ordered it to be sent into can-
tonment at Arcot." After the receipt of this letter
the men were kept out four months doing duty upon
the frontiers, the Government receiving their services
all that time, although their death was meditated.
After this a letter was addressed to this Court.

Major OLIPHANT then rose to a point of order.
He really wished to put it to the Hon. Proprietor
whether he had not better abstain from proceeding
any further in the case. It must be perfectly well
known to every person that this transaction had taken
place, and the men had all been dead and gone for
some years.—(Hear.)
Mr. LEWIN replied that there were many others,
as well as those who were dead, who were affected
by the question.
Major °memoir wished to know what possible
good the mover or seconder of such a motion ex-
pected to get from it.
Mr. LEWIN replied that what he expected to get
was, that all the men who were then suffering unjustly
should, as far as possible, have justice done to them.
Mr. MILLS (a director)—When any officer high
in command shall feel it his duty, under his oath,
to bring men to a court martial, was it fair to
say that he meditated their death ?—(Hear.)
Mr. LEWIN—IC not the punishment of death what
always follows a conviction for mutiny ? These men
reached Arcot, and immediately after that a court of
inquiry was instituted, preliminary to a court-mar-
tial. A letter was sent, and that letter deserves
particular comment. It sets out at the beginning
with begging the whole judicial question. It states that
the fact whether mutiny had or had not taken
place was no longer in question. The object was,
not to punish the whole regiment, but only a few
persons. Punishment was ordained, and somebody
must suffer. Well, immediately after this a court-
martial sat with closed doors ; numbers of persons
were called before them; fear seized on the whole
regiment.
Mr. MARRIOTT—IS it not doing great injury VI
this Court to allow this proceeding to go on?
Mr. LEWIN—If what I am stating is not true, than
let the Hon. Proprietor set the matter right.
The CHAIRMAN—Why did not the Hon. Proprie-
tor bring forward all these charges when he was in
India ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LEWIN—I did bring them all forward. The
very day when these men were ordered to be put to
death I remarked that it was a shameful occurrence,
and sent a gentleman, who was with Lord Tweed-
dale for two hours, remonstrating with him upon the
impropriety of the proceeding which had been taken.
That happened upon the very day when this order
was passed. Well, sir, there is another point which
has been insisted upon. At the time these men
were put to death, which as I have already observed
was nine months after the occurrence, and the order
and discipline of the regiment had in the mean
time become perfectly restored, there was not a single
ground for taking away the lives of these men. The
taking away life, even when tolerated by the letter of
the law, is almost murder, if you take it where there
is no necessity for doing so; and, I venture to say,
that there was not the slightest necessity in the pre-
sent case. There was a court of inquiry which was
afterwards held, and before that court of inquiry
certain native officers were called, who, as they
did not state what they were wanted to state,
were therefore dismissed. What was to be ex-
pected from the proceedings of such a court-
martial might easily be judged. Then there was
another point, the court-martial ought to have been
composed of thirteen members, whereas it was com-
posed of only seven. Immediately after the court-
martial upon these poor Sepoys, another was held
respecting the conduct of an officer of a regiment,
when no less than fifteen of the first men in the army
were assembled to try the case. What I contend for
is, that the same justice is not extended towards a
i coloured man in the army which is dealt out to a
white man. The Court must be well aware of what
took place after the mutiny at Seringapatam. You
must be well aware, that all the officers who were
tried upon that occasion had counsel allowed them,
while, on the other hand, these poor Sepoys
had no opportunity of seeing their friends
until after the prosecution was closed. They
had no counsel allowed to them, and in
fact they had not a single advantage which is
awarded in the case of officers when brought before
a court-martial. Whether or not this motion will
be seconded, is to me a matter of not the smallest
consequence as an individual. I shall certainly
continue to call upon the Court to do justice,
because I think that the matter which I have laid
before it involves a glaring instance of injustice, and
that the stability of our empire in India is concerned
in the case, and that it would be far more for our
honour and interest to do justice than to endeavour
to repress crime. I merely move, sir, for the
production of the papers in this case.

Mr. SULLIVAN stated that it would not be fair to
the Noble Lord who was implicated in the case if an
opportunity was not afforded him to reply to the heavy
accusations which had been brought against him.
The statements which had been made that day would
go forth through the medium of the press to the world.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Noble Lord did not
require any defence.
Mr. SULLIVAN said that the Chairman might think
so, but the world would think very differently. He
(Mr. Sullivan) had a strong opinion upon the subject;
he did not think that matters of that kind should,
however, be brought forward in that Court, and had
acco►dingly advised his Learned Friend to refrain
from doing so. He certainly should feel it his duty
to second the motion, the statement having been

made.
Mr. LEWIN stated that he was well aware that
there were many Directors who held the same opinion
upon the subject as himself.
The motion was then put and negatived by a large

maj on ty.
Mr. LEWIN was then proceeding to bring forward
another motion, when he was interrupted by
Mr. SALOMONS, who suggested the propriety of
giving notice upon that occasion for the bringing
forward the motion upon the next Court-day.
Mr. LEWIN contended that he had given notice to
the chairman a fortnight ago, and was, therefore, not
answerable for the faults of the chairman.
Mr. MARRIOTT (with great warmth) contended
that the statement made by the lion. Proprietor re-
specting the " faults" of the chairman, was an insult
to the chairman.
Mr. LEWIN stated that he was about to bring
forward a motion respecting the removal of the Judges
of the Suddr Court; but, in deference to the wishes
of Hon. Proprietors, he would refrain from doing so,
and merely give notice for the next Court.
After a great deal of acrimonious and irregular
discussion, in which the Gallant Chairman, Mr.
Fielder, and Mr. Marriott took the most prominent

Part,
Mr. 1-4xwfx gave notice of the following motions
for the next Court :—" To move for papers in the
case of the suit filed by M. Veneato ltoyaloro, a
person removed from office. by the Madras Govern-
ment, as :reported in the Fort St. George Gazette,
25th January, 1846. Also, in the case of the illegal
residence of Lord Tweeddale on the Neilgherry
Hills, and his exercising the power of Governor in
direct violation of an Act of Parliament, which
divested him of all authority when absent from
Council, on the ground of indisposition, or for what-
soever cause. Also in the case of the removal of the
judges of the late Suddr Court of Madras.

THE LATE RAJA OF SATTABA.
Mr. G. THOMPiON inquired whether the Board of
Directors had received any information relative to the
settlement of the Sattara question?
The CHAIRMAN replied that they had received none,
owing to a delay which had taken place on the part
of the Bombay Government, in sending the papers to
this country. He trusted, however, that they would
he forwarded by the next mail, when he should be
able to give the lion. Proprietor the information he
sought.
There being no further business before the Court,
one of the most disorderly meetings which has oc-
curred for a long time, even at the India House,
terminated.

WREXHAM THEATRE. - This theatre has been
opened, at very great expense, by that celebrated tra-
gedian Mr. George Owen. On Tuesday, the 26th, he
appeared as Hamlet, in which character he drew a
good house, and was well received. Mrs. Owen, as
the Queen, was delightful; her personage of t
she
Princess
was
of Navarre, in John of Paris, and hersinging
grand. The company are very much liked. Miss E.
Montague is a great card. Mr. George. Owen has taken
Chester theatre, and opens the same, on the sth and
6th Oct. Sir -Robert Cunliffe, Bart., C. 8., gives a be-
speak on Friday, and Sir IT, W, Wymie, Bart, on
Mouday,