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

blunder at Madras. The batta was wi'bheld ;rom
these men, who at the time were perforiring the im-
portant duty of guarding the frontier; they thereupon
refused to mount their horses, and a sort of passive
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
afterwards the commander of the regiment wrote to
the Commander-in-Chief, and stated that tranquillity
was restored, whereupon the Commander-in-Chin
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 Brigadier Watson and Col. Litchfield,
that the men of the Gth 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 OLIPHANT 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—Is 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
persona. 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 to
this Court to allow this proceeding to go on?
Mr. LEWIN—If what I am stating is not true, then
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
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 Seringapatani. You
must be well aware, that all the officfrs who were
tried upon that occasion had ccunsel 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
neeusations 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.
Mt. SimmvAN said that the Chairman might think
so, but the mid would think very differently. lie
(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
accordingly 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
time were many Directors who held the same opinion
upon the subject as himself.
The motion was then put and negatived by a large
majority.
Mr. J.EwIN 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 thQ 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 66 faults of the chairman.
Mr. MARRIOTT (with great warmth) : contended
that the statement made by the Hon. Proprietor re-
specting the " faults" of the chairman, was an Insult
to the chairman.
Mr. LE*IN stated that he was about to bring
forward a motion i'espe'ting 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, ifi ithieh the Gallant Chairman, Mr.
Fielder, and Mr. Marriott Violi the most prominent
part,
Mr. LEwisz gave notice of the following motions
;of the tea Cotrt t—" To move for papers in the
case of the suit filed by M. 'l:repeat° ltoyaloro, a
person removed from office by the Madras Govern-
ment, :reported in the Fort St. George Gazette,
9thJanuat7 184F1. 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 Sulk Court of Madras.

THE LATE RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr, G. THOMPSON inquired whether the Board of
Directors had received any information relative to the
settlement of the Sattara question ?
The C/lAIRMAN replied that they had received none,
o*ing to a delay ffhich had taken place on the part
of the Bombay Government, in sending the papers to
this country. He trusted, however, that they would
be forwarded by the next mail, when he should be
able to give the Hon. 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 lloue,
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 the Princes
of Navarre, in John of Paris, and her singing was
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
Gth Oct. Sir Robert Cunliffe, Bart., C. 8., gives a be-
speak on Friday, and Sir W. W. Wpm Bart., ou
Iltodap