Page:Nil Durpan.djvu/223

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

As for Mr. Seton-Karr, he was wrong only of doing a private affair in a public capacity. Let not any one think, that he was censured by the Government for his adopting a course which was contrary to the interests of the Blues. For, if such would have been the case, the Members of Parliament, the India and Bengal Governments, the several Newspapers of India and abroad, who maintained truth, and advocated the cause of oppressed Ryots, or in other words, spoke against the Planters, would have been censured. Even the very Mr. Seton-Karr, who as president of the Indigo Commission in conjunction with the majority of the members of the Commission, reported a great deal against the planters, would have been censured. The explanation which he forwarded to the Governor-General and which was published for general information, was so reasonable and satisfactory, that it entirely befitted a man of his position and qualifications.

As for Mr. Long, he fulfilled the duties of Christianity,—he suffered "in a good cause—the cause of his Divine Master—the cause of the poor, the needy, and the oppressed." He suffered the public indignities with a patience that expressed a truly Christian, high and magnanimous heart.

"Let us conclude." One of the most memorable events which has thrown a dark spot into the annals of British India, is the trial and condemnation of Rev. J. Long. The manner in which the trial was conducted was clearly expressive of partizanship and strong partiality. It attracted universal attention, and excited the indignation of the right-minded men. The Indigo Planters, their Judical advocate, and the Counsel, expressed so great an aversion for the Rev. Gentleman, that those eminent virtues which enabled him to draw universal notice, and by which he rendered the most eminent service to this country, seemed to them the most detestable vices. No reasonable man will deny that the trial was by far the most unjust that ever disgraced any tribunal of the nineteenth century. In the history of the civilized world there are few examples with which it can bear a true analogy; and to speak more emphatically, it was a disgrace to Christianity, to Truth and to Justice, a disgrace to Reason, and to Conscience.

This unjust trial reminds us of the trial and execution of Nundcoomar. Sir Mordaunt may deservedly be called the Impey of the nineteenth century. In fact he was a true incarnation of that arrogant, haughty, and Bengali-hating Englishman, who at one time, on the same chair, and within

201