The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-21 00:00:00

RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. Lzwts_, in bringing forward his motion rela
tive to the Raja of Sattara, trusted he should not
be met with a motion of adjournment. The subject
of the guilt or innocence of the Raja of Sattara had
been discussed in the Court, on which occasion Ge-
neral Lodwick, who had been one of the Sattara
Commissioners, gave it as his opinion that the
evidence was not sufficient to support the
charges against the Raja of Sattara—that the
Raja had not had a fair trial, that he had not been
permitted to be present at the inquiry, that he had
not been permitted to have the assistance of an advo-
cate, either native or European, to support his cause,
and that he had been refused a copy of the depositions
of the witnesses. These statements had produced a
strong sensation in the public mind from the source
from whence they had emanated. General Lodwick
had been a member of the Commission. Ile had en-
tered on the inquiry with strong prepossessions
against the Raja. He had heard the evidence of the
Soubadars, and of Ballajee Punt Nattoo, and in
consequence of their representations, General Lodwick
had suggeMed to the Bombay Government the pro•
priety of making the inquiry. Under these circum-
stances, it was not surprising that the statements of
Gen. Lodwick should have produced a strong sensation
in the Court. The other members of the Commission
thinking that their conduct had been reflected on by
that statement, had presented a petition to the Bengal
Government in vindication of their conduct. That
petition had been brought forward in the Court of
Proprietors by an Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Fielden),
who had evidently come forward under the guidance
of high authority.

FIELDENw—NO, no ; I deny that. I came for-
ward solely on my own responsibility, without any
connection with the Court of Directors.
The CHAIRMAN said that since their last meeting
additional papers had been received, and it would be
impossible for the Court of Proprietors to come to a
just decision on the subject until those papers should
have been laid before them. He always wished to put
a stop to the discussion. The Court of Proprietors had
twice shown a desire by their votes that the discussion
should be brought to a close. Of course if the Hon.
Proprietor wished to bring forward the discussion, it
would be impossible to prevent him ; but if the dis-
cussion were to go on, it would be for the advantage
of all parties that the additional papers recently re-
ceived should be laid before the Court. He would,
therefore, suggest to Mr. Lewis the propriety of post-
poning his motion until those papers should be printed.
Mr. LEWIS said his only object was to: elicit truth,
and to establish if the Raja was a guilty or an inno-
cent person ;- and if the Hon. Chairman assured him
that these additional papers were calculated to
throw light upon the question of the guilt or inno-
cence of the Raja, he would postpone his motion
until the papers should be printed, on the under,stand-
ing that a day should be fixed before the next Quar-
terly Court for the discussion.

The CHAIRMAN intimatecrhis assent to Mr. Lewis'
proposition, and the motion was withdrawn for the
present.

ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. LEWIS postponed his motion relative to the
practice of moving adjournments of the Court of Pro-
prietors by way of amendment to a motion.
EMPLOYMENT OF NATIVES.
Mr. SULLIVAN said that, in advocating the important
question which he was about to submit to the Court,
it was only to remove the injurious misapprehensions
which prevailed respecting it, and he was induced to
bring it forward only from an imperious sense of
duty. It was to him, besides, a matter of serious
importance, as a great part of his property was in-
vested in India ; and in twenty months the book debts
in that country had fallen from a premium of 12 per
cent. to a discount of 1 per cent. The Hon. Member
then went into a statement to show the great dete-
rioration which had of late taken place in funded and
a
other property in that part of our possessions. In
former, difficulties the Indio Government had
always in prospect some certain means of relief;
if they were at war, they had victory in the
perspective, and when they conquered
they either
gained territory or pecuniary compensation for their
expenses. Even the Burmese war—the most dis-
astrous of all—was scarcely an exception to the ge-
neral rule ; for not only was considerable territory
added to our dominions by the success in that war,
but a large sum of money was extorted from the
enemy to indemnify us for our expenses. The Com-
pany to
trusted that no
re-
cruit ht
haedi
rn oe
xliomnugsetre
datrme
aosnuorpyo, ly i
andn b e
one now looked to a revenue from a tax upon
opium.—(Hear, hear.) 1. Vithou t a reduction of
expenditure it was Impossible to retrieve
the financial difficulties of the Government.
It was the opinion of every person acquainted with
the affairs of British India, that the best way to im-
prove the condition of the inhabitants of that empire,
and to render its possession valuable to us, was to
admit the natives to offices of trust and emolument.
The lion. Member then quoted several authorities in
support of this opinion, and showing that under the
Mongol and all the Mohammedan dynasties, Hindoos
were eligible to all offices in the State. These au
thorities had hitherto had n o weight,
and it was on
this account he thought it time to bring the subject
under the consideration of the Court. There were
now upwards of 800 Europeans holding offices in
India, which, before our possession of the country
were filled, under the Mohammedan rulers, by native
Hindoos. But the employment of Hindcos in these
situations would give the Government a mean „f very
great retrenchment; because a llindoo would be as
well off upon one-fourth of the income which would
be necessary to an European of the same rank. Yet
from the time of our occupation of any new
territory, it- was our practice, hitheito, to
remove every llindoo, or other native, &Om the