The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-22 00:00:00

division.

RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. LEWIS, 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 (,f the
Soubadars, and of' Ballajee Punt .Nattoo, and in
consequence of their representations, General Lod wick
had sugge3ted 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 lion. Proprietor (Mr. Fielden),
who had evidently come forward under the guidance
of high authority.
Mr. FIELDEN—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 motiondf
tutniest ioiltntallFasoeub,piaecas r‘gsvusahsilottuyoldeolbl:aiptnrtirtluth.
inno-
centan d3ltro.
person s Bt
si
sahslaildi
if the lion. 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 understand-
ing that a day should be fixed before the next Quar-
terly Court for the discussion.
The CHAIRMAN intimated his assent to Mr. Lewis'
proposition, and the motion was withdrawn for filo
present.