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withdrawn on a previous occasion by another member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—
a 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 CHAIRMAN 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—HOW 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. Lzwzrs—There are many grounds upon which
the illegality of this act can be rusted. 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. Tuomesos thought that justice had scarcely
been done to the lion. 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 net 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. Tnompiox reminded the Hon. Proprietor,
that no motion whatever could supersede the state-
ment of the Hon. 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.
Mt. LEWIN said that his object was, to prevent any
exparie statement going forth to the world, by
moving for the production of the papers in the case.
Mr. SALOMONS 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

tins,Cl
Mr. LEWIN-16i was king.° the Honourable
Chairman did not choose to publish the noti6e4
Mr. SALomoss suggested whether the Honourable
Proprietor would not be in a better condition to dis-
miss the subject at the nett quarterly Court, after
having given notice iipSH the &tient messier!. The
question certainly had a right to be brought ref Ward
in that Court if the Honourable Proprietor chose to
bring it forward. He (Mr. Salomons) must say
loath]Proprietoret rtid ely . rur.
e. ir Je.)win)
that his Honourable Friend (Mr. Poynder) had
asvdidmt:rietrgs:srLelaEtwtthi
Narlltat:l, oat inrda br
MARRiott—No,ian
thott
dttiatlilcwent for nothing.
the
:eine
nfteod±totale
ett it
nsitttoalttoienpdn
s° thatt
ptuii
ltsd always
wn not
the custom in that Court, when parties were desiroous
papers; to give their' notice publitiv at the previous
General Court ,of Proprietors; brit the notice of mo-
ho Hev di
ai
6gdoc, ui tA
itat
i publishedi
tire el
Aia: v hh
tioii of the Hen: Prefirieter, gr. be*iti; had not
been given in the usual way. The Hon. Proprietor
had, however, a right to bring forward any motion he
pleased at any quarterly Court.
Mr. LEITIN stated that with regard to the non-
publication; it all arose from a Misapprehension on his
port; he had seilt it to the Chairithui, believing it
would be published in the ordinary way.
Mr. POYNDER admitted that he had used strong
language ; but, he trusted, not improper or rude
language towards the Honourable Proprietor; if he
had done to he begged pardon; not Only of the Hens
Gentlethan himself, but also of the doiirt. Ids *n4
occasionally in the awkward habit of calling things by
their right names.
After a great deal of desultory and irregular dis-
cusgoni
r. LEillf was again enabled to obtain a hearing,
and proceeded as follows :—Sir, I was of the same
opinion as the Hon. 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 Catrt of Proprietors themselves;
if they were better acquainted with the inipottstnto
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 mat-
ter to take place without any remedy for
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.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MARRIOTT again rose to order. He 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 government
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 1844.
They were against the decision of George 111. These
sepoys had done duty for nine months; they were
placed as guard over the camp of the very man who
was appointed their prosecutor. I will now state
. vflAt the circumstances were which gar rise to the