The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-06 00:00:00

1,471,282

successors might otherwise have had. Mr. Lewis as a
lawyer could not deny that fact. The case lay in a
nut-shell, and it would be bad taste to say anything
further upon the subject.
The CHAIRMAN said that it was his intention to-
day to address a few words to the Court. In the
first instance, he must take notice of an observation
which had fallen from Mr. Sullivan, to the effect that
be understood that positive information had been re-
ceived from the Governor-General ; he (the Chair-
man) begged leave to tell that gentleman that they were
not in possession of that positive information. The
Governor-General had acted perfectly fair and proper
in giving his advice as he had done. There was also
an observation made by Mr. Hume, who, he was
sorry to say, had left the house, that there had been
no authority appealed to. Now it so happened that
there was an authority much superior to that Court
or the Court of Directors, which had been appealed to,
and that was the House of Commons. He (the
Chairman) thought that it was rather hard that the
Court of Proprietors should be repeatedly summoned
to special courts upon points so repeatedly decided by
the Court.—(Cries of "No, no:)
Mr. LEWIS denied that the point had ever been
decided by that Court. It was altogether a new point.
The CHAIRMAN said that the point contained the
whole question, as he thought the ex-Raja was a
traitor to this country. Say what they would,
nothing could be plainer than the fifth article of the
treaty which had been quoted by Mr. Sullivan. He
(the Chairman) would not enter into the subject fur-
ther than to say that in his opinion that article com-
pletely disproved what the liqn. Gentleman had
assumed. He (the Chairman) should certainly not
detain the Court, but pursue the same course which
he followed upon the last occasion, namely, to move
an adjournment. After the discussions which had
taken place—after having an adjourned debate in the
• House of Commons upon the guilt or innocence of
the Raja, upon which everything hung, it was not
right to bring the question again before that Court.
If the Raja was innocent, the Hon. Gentleman would
be correct in his argument ; if guilty, the Court
could not think of taking the adopted son of a
man who had forfeited all claim to consideration.
Would they for a moment think of adopting
such a person? For himself, he should say not.
What he said, therefore, was, that as there was an
authority at this moment existing upon the subject,
by the terms of that authority they were bound to
abide. Whatever might,be the decision of Parliament,
by that they were content to abide. He, therefore,
moved that the Court do adjourn.
The DEPUTY' CHAIRMAN, in seconding the motion,
said that he did so upon the same grounds as those
of the Honourable and Gallant Chairman. He be-
lieved that the question had been got up—he
would not say improperly but for the
purpose of re-opening the whole question.—(Loud
cries of "No, no.") His Hon. Friend had positively
stated to the Court, from an article in the treaty, a
condition which, in his opinion, entirely put the ex-
Raja. of Setters out of that court ; that condition
was, that be was " to act in subordinate co-operation
to then British Government, and be guided in all .
matter* by the terms of the British agent at his
Highness's Court." He would:ask Honourable Pro-
prietors, whether that had been the tenor of the conduct
of the ex-Raja of Sattara ? By the fifth article
he engaged to forbear from all intercourse
with foreign powers, and with sirdars, jagheerdars,
chiefs, and ministers, and all persons of whatever de-
scription, who were not by the above article rendered
subject to his Highness's authority; and with all of
whom his said Highness, for himself and his suc-
cessors, engaged to have no connexion or correspond-
ence whatever.

Mr. SULLIVAN requested the Deputy-Chairman to
read on.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN maintained that the Raja
of Sattara had himself, under his own hand and seal,
confessed that he had broken that article, and he
would read to the Court his own confession upon that
subject. He was accused of having communication
with the Government of Gos, and various individuals,
for the purpose of sending them to England, in spite
of the Government of India. General Lodwick,
who went to him, positively told him that by such
conduct he was guilty of an infringement of the
treaty.
Mr. MARRIOTT begged to suggest to the Gallant
Deputy-Chairman that advantage might be taken of
his going into the question to keep the Court there
till twelve o'clock at night.—(Cries of " Oh.")
Mr. LEWIS contended that the Honourable Deputy
Chairman ought to be allowed to open the question
if he pleased.
Mr. FIELDER said the object of the party was to
keep up agitation.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN contended that the ques-
tion had been opened by Mr. Sullivan, and therefore
he presumed he was right in making a few observa-
tions upon it. In the Sattara papers of 1840, at p. 5,
there was a letter from Colonel Ovens, in which he
stated that there wes a deputation about to proceed
to England on the part of his Highness, and the Raja
admitted that that deputation was proceeding to
England by his order. He (the Deputy-Chairman)
would ask whether that was or was not holding com-
munication and intercourse with people not under his
authority ? It might be said that that was Colonel
Ovans's own statement ; but he (the Deputy-Chair-
man) had then before him the letter of
the late Raja. The Raja had bound himself
to comply with every instruction of the British
Government, and yet he told them that in conse-
quence of certain documents being differently con-
strued to what he thought right, he purposed to lay
his claims before the Government at Calcutta, and
the Hon. Court of Directors, with all the circum-
stances connected therewith, and in the event of its
not being finally settled by them, to bring the same
to the notice of Parliament and her Majesty in
Europe. For those articles which could be settled it
was well, but those which could; not; be so settled
were to be subject to such reference. He in
his own statement told them that he was
employing men to go to England for the
very purpose of counteracting the views of
the Government upon the questions which existed
between them. He (the Deputy-Chairman) should
be glad to know whether that was or was not an in•
fringement of the treaty? Syed Meer, a Mahometan,
residing at Bombay, was the person selected ;for that
duty. The Raja chose a man with whom he was pro-
hibited from having intercourse to go as his advocate
to England; and the Raja told them that that man
had been made acquainted with all the papers con-
nected with his interests and disputed rights. That
man was desired not to leave the country until he
had received further orders from the Raja:
At the interview which the Raja had with
the resident, Colonel Lodwick, ne was asked why
that had not been made known to him, and what ob-
jection there was to consult with him (the resident)
upon the subject. The reply given by the Raja was,
that the resident had personally explained all tae
circumstances in his presence to the Governor, Sir
Robert Grant, and there was no objection to make
him acquainted with the plan which N.vas to be
phuer(stuheed
Deputyin orderxthoniramvoaind)
thatv
was not a plain demonstration, under thed Raja's
entirel
handwriting, that he had set
individuals, ex-
ceptnot to have intercourse with.
the article of the treaty
under his own control ?
those who were
Deputy-Chairman) held
After that he (the .
awllounidisc
that the fact was not a matter of opinion, but of de-
monstration.. If that was the case,. why should
which.ssibeound him
not
have been stated over and over again that the Raja