The Sun. — London, England, 1848-07-12 00:00:00

~y~~ tten ii kmuni confi- er the' tter to which 'or biil " the natives of India with evidence that the Ho tourable Member could succeed in what he undertook, and he could have as many constituents as he pleased. Re had remarked in the Honourable Member a dispo laition to act in that way. Within a few days the Hon. Member had put a notice on the book of a motion for a retur n o f all jagheers and of all lands held on Enam or Shotrium tenure, which ' had been resumed by the British uovernm en t in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies, from the y ear 1820 to the year 1840 inclusive , s h o win g the annu al of the possessions so resumed, and the causes of their resumption. That would open a fine field for the Hon. Member and his friends, and if he suc ceeded in obtaining the Committee for which be now moved five hundred similar cases would be brought Under the notice of the House. He believed that jus tice was administered with as much purity in India as it Was in this country ; but dissatisfied persons would ap- Peal to the House of Commons, not because they had Injuries to be redressed, but because they wished to ob tain that which they were not entitled to. Mr. HUME then rose and said, that his acquaintance with India did not warrant him in giving such a cha racter of the native power in India as that given by the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire, or of such a ge floral discontent as he had represented would lead to the employment of European agents by the natives. He (Mr. Hume) believed that accusations of injustice might row and then occur, but, he would not calumniate the Government of India by any such statement as that which had been made by the Hun. Member who had last addressed the House. His (Mr. Hume's) desire Was to bring the House back to to the question from which its attention had been removed by the Hon. Member. The motion was to inquire into the conduct of Lieutenant-Colonel Ovens (of the Bombay Army), While British Political Resident at the Court of Sattara; and into the proceedings of the Bombay Government, and the Court of Directors of the East India Company, in relation to certain charges preferred against that officer. Now, the Hen. Gentleman had taken up an ( - Ad worn-out debate respecting the Raja of Sat• tars. For a long time he had directed the attention of the House in endeavouring to sa tisfy it that the Raja was guilty, and that the documents on which that guilt was established were be yond suspicion accredited. Now he (Mr. Hume) consi dered that, to use a common phrase, a kind of drag, which sportsmen sometimes use ; when they find the scent is strong upon the fox, they get a red herring and draw off the scent, and turn it to some other track. So the Hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to draw off the attention of the House from that old fox, if he (Mr. Hume) might.be allowed so to call the officer named in the motion, and had turned its attention to the Sattara inquiry. In•the first few sentences which fell from the Hon.: Member for Roxburghshire, where he spoke of Col. Ovens as a man of high character, he (Mr. Hume) was not disposed to differ with him. He had heard the same statements from persons well acquainted with that officer. He (Mr. Hume) was bound to say that those who knew Colonel Ovens in India spoke highly of his character before be became connected with Sattara, and so long as he remained merely a military officer, there was. no ••reason to believe that he was not taken by the commanding officer as the best man that could - have been selected for Commis sioner at Sattara. The Hon. Member for Roxburgh shire had deprecated the charges made against that officer, and stated the difficulty there would be in making good he proof. Why the Hon. Member seemed to have forgotten the first few sentences of the statement of the Hon. Member who introduced the subject. Instead of the inquiry asked for by the motion being, as the Hon. Member whoihad last spoken, said interminable—instead of five or six year& being required for its prosecution— the Hon.. Member for the Tower Hamlets had under taken to prove the whole of the charges from the papers then upon the table of the House, and by the testimony of parties living in England at the present moment, and from the testimony of Colonel Ovens himself, from his own statements as the principal means of proof. He (Mr. Hume) could not, therefore, understand upon what ground the Hon. Member (Mr. Elliot) bad discarded altogether the charges which had been brought forward seriatim, forgetting, or at any rate not noticing, the documents read in support of those charges, leaving all at once Colonel Ovans, the object of the inquiry, and proceeding to state a variety of circumstances con nected with the history of the Raja of Sattara. The Hon. Member concluded his speech by an allusion to Major Carpenter, whose evidence was against the Raja. Now he (Mr. Hume) hoped the House would not be led away by the drag which had just been used, by occupying the time of the House merely upon the ques tion of the guilt or innocence of the Raja. He hoped the Hon. Member f or Roxburghshire wt s not leavin g the House ; .because he (Mr. Hume) was desirous of showing, before that Hon. Member went, how it was possible to read documents with a view of convincing the House that M a j or C arpenter ' s letter was against the Raja, by readin g mere l y a part, and forgetting to read the following sentence. The Hon. Gentleman had read from that thicument a variety of documents, all tendin g to criminate . the Raj a o f S attara . Now, let the House _ look at the facts. Lieutenant -Colonel Ovens was for eight years in charge of the Raja of Satta ra . H e (M r. secreted Hume) would not sa y more up on that document a than that it had been f or th ree year s from the knowled ge o f t h at House and the n(l concealed Court of Di rectors, and was ultimately brought forward in a very extraordinary manner. When that document, purporting to be a copy of one received here,waslsent out to India, Major Carpenter sent back his answer to England. That answer was received in 1847. Major Carpenter sa y s " When the Raja was co n fid e d to my care early in 1840, I considered it necessary, for the efficient discharge of my duties, to make myself fully acquainted with the causes of his dethronement, his general reputation for intrigue, and other circumstances connected with his character and conduct, to enable me to form a just esti mate of the man with whom I bad to deal, and to guard against the consequences which might arise from any laxity of surveillance on my part. To this end I care fully studied the whole of the voluminous documents connected with his case, and the result was a belief in his innocence; and this belief has been confirmed beyond a doubt by subsequent disclosures, and by. his plidging himself to prove it, if permitted to ,do so, in his letter to Sir Henry Hardinge, of the .12th :December, 1844, forwarded through me, and which plec(oe I am fully persuaded he is able to redeem." Now he (Mr. Hume) asked whe ther more could be said in answer to that voluminous paper ? The Honourable Member read everything that tended to discredit the statement, and to show that the statements made by the Hon. Gentle men were incorrect, whereas the document turned out to have been admitted by Major Carpenter to have been substantially true and correct ; and that officer confirms the statement with a strong expression, declaring that after eight years knowledge of the. Raja of Sattara, and after having read ever paper produced before that House, his deliberate opinion, as an officer and a man, was that the Raja wee altogether guiltless of the charges alleged against him.—(Cheers.) But what had the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire brought before the House, in lieu of - that important statement of Major Carpenter's? Why, a statement from a Major Angelo. He (Mr. Hume) hoped that statement would be produced and laid upon the table of the House, because he would venture to state that it was utterly false. Several statements made in it he knew, from his own knowledge, to be utterly groundless. It was only an attempt to take off the House from facts upon which it had clear evidence before it; and so to delude the House, and prevent the truth being arrived at. There was another. ground upon which he had reason to complain of the Honourable Member's statement. Instead of grappling with the facts alleged, as charges against Colonel Ovens. and de fending him from the accusations which had been pre ,- ferred against him by the Hon. Member who introduced the motion, he accused that Hon. Member with being a I•Lhired agent. Why, what were the Hon. Gentlemen, who took office and received their stipends for their duties, but hired agents; as a servant of the public he was paid. Is any man who has not been brought up to the bare but has business to do, to be called a hired agent? • Are his exertions to be reckoned of no value, and an attempt made to place his character and statements in an unworthy position?—(Cheers.) If the Hon. Mem ber for Roxburghshire had attempted, as he ought to have done, to grapple with the facts, and answer the arguments and documents, he would have been entitled to some credit. But it was always the case with those who had no facts to adduce and no arguments to bring forward, that they attempted to blacken the character of the indi viduals opposed to them, and insinuate that they had brought forward their statements merely because they Were paid for them. The lion. Member read a long state , ment purporting to be an account of Mr. G. Thompson's proceedings at Delhi. Sir, that was false. I have my self seen the correspondence which passed between Sir Thomas Metcalfe and the Honourable Member for the Tower Hamlets respecting his mission to Delhi, and be ventured to say that, from an examination of that cor respondence, that Honourable Gentleman would come clear out of any such charge as that preferred against him that night, and with great honour to himself. No thing was done upon that occasion without the know ledge of Sir Thomas Metcalfe. who was then at Delhi, and it was with his sanction that every step was taken by the. Honourable Member. Here, therefore, were in sinuations of Major Angelo brought forward, who seems to have known nothing of-the case, used by the Honour able Member for Roxburghshire for the purpose of black ening the character, and destroying the weight of the evidence- brought forward by his Honourable Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. That was not the first time that the Honciurable Member who had just sat down had done the same thing ; for, during a debate npon the income-tax question he had also tried to blacken the character of the Honour able Member for Finsbury by pandering to revo lution and violence, instead of advancing sound argu ment. The Hon. Member for Roxburghshire then stated, if be (Mr. Hume) recollected rightly, that the Hon. Member for Finsbury was pandering to the vices - of the lowest order of his constituents, and now be (Mr. Hume) supposed that that Hon. Gentleman was again insinuating that the Hon. Member for the Tower Ham -lets was pandering to the vices of the native chiefs in India. There were other transactions in which the Hon. Member was, as far as he (Mr. Hume) knew, en. gaged. He went out to India with a ms a antnenmuch • respected, but since dead , undoubetedly a philanthro pist, with other objects in view than those in which he was subsequently engaged. While there, he was re quested to go up to Delhi, in order to assist by his ad vice and services in obtaining justice for the King o f Delhi against the oppression to which he considered he was subjected by the East India Company. He (Mr. Hume) would not enter into the circumstances of that case, because he believed the matter was settled; he only referred to it to show the unjust aspersions to which that Hon. Gentleman had been subjected. It was nothing but reasonable for him to introduce to the House a subject of that kind, and he had a right to do so without being subjected to accusation in respect to another subject. —(Hear.) Now what was really the question before the Rause? Colonel Ovans, being one of the residents at l . . business Sao era, had necessarily a large share of the connected with the Raja pass through his hands. His conduct in that office had been arraigned, and arraigned too under his own band, end under his own hand the contradiction to those charges came. What were the charges? Did the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in going through the history of the Sattara case come to all the charges, or go through all the charges brought against Colonel Ovans? Why, there were no less than twelve charges printed, and lying upon the table of that House. He (Mr. Hume) had expected that no military man—no officer who had any respect for his character — would have hesitated for one moment to demand an in quiry into those charges.—(Hear, hear.) Inquiry was all that was asked for by the motion. He did expect, and still thought that ought to have been the course pur sued with reference to such serious allegations. When those charges were first laid before the Court of Pro prietors, Colonel Ovens applied to the Court of Direc tors for leave to go to India to defend them. That Court did not take upon themselves his defence, but left him to defend them us he might think best. But what were the charges? for that was the main point. One was his intercepting of letters. It might be that a postmaster-general would think nothing of regularly intercepting and perusing correspondence. The second charge against Colonel Ovens was— that Colonel Ovens did, from the time of his asanming office as resident down to the period of the Raja's de thronement, in the mouth of September, 1839, systema tically intercept, and cause to be intercepted, the whole of the correspondence of the Raja, his servants, and his friends; and that Colonel Ovens did convert such sys tematic intercepting, opening, and perusing of the said correspondence into a means of counteracting and de feating every endeavour which the Raja made to obtain a hearing and to make known his case to the British Government, and into a means of secretly calumniating the friends of the Raja to the British authorities. Did the Hoc. Gentleman reply to-that charge? He took no notice of it. Had any other person answered it ? He (Mr. Hume) had read the answer given by Colonel Ovens, which, fur himself, he must say was not satis factory, or had any bearing upon the subject at all. The Hon. Member for Roxburghshire, or whoever at tempts to answer the charges preferred against Colonel Ovens, should direct their attention to those facts. An other charge was that Colonel Ovens came into posses sion of evidence which would have been important to the case of the Raja of Sattara, and in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, and in the opinion of many others, would have led to the entire exculpation'of the Raja. and the expo sure of the plot which was formed against him. What were the facts connected with that charge ? Colonel Ovens was directed to obtain information. He obtained information in the first instance which was proved to have been false, and sent it up to the Government, who adjudged upon that false information. He afterwards obtained proof of the falsity of the former infor mation, and what did he do ? He kept it back for eleven months.—(Hear, hear.) The Raja was then under his trial, and no man could say but this ought to have been inquired into. One director was as good as another, they were all honourable men; but he (Mr. Hume) held in his hand the dissent of a military officer, a member of the Court of Directors, Major Oliphant, whose dissent was upon the table of the House. In speaking of Colonel Ovens, he said, "In the foregoing paragraph I have to make a few observe. tions. It is indisputably proved by the printed papers, that on the 7th of September, 1837, Colonel Ovens was in possession of positive information as to the real writer of the petition attributed to Girjabee." Those who heard the speech of the Honourable Member will have learned that the latter proceedings against the Raja of Sattara were founded on a petition attributed to Girjabee. The instruction from the Bombay Govern ment was to ascertain its truth, and find out who was the writer. Major Oliphant said that Colonel Ovens wrs in possession of positive information as to the real writer of the petition attributed to Girjabee, which in formation completely falsified the evidence on that point previously transmitted home on the 27th of July, and the 12th of August. Major Oliphant said, "it is indis putably proved by the printed papers, that on the 7th of September, 1837, Colonel Ovens was in possession of positive information as to the real writer of the petition attributed to Girjabee, which information com pletely falsified the evidence on that point pre viously transmitted by him on the 21st of July, and 12th August, viz., that one ' Mandeo Fugree ' was the writer ; the truth of which evidence, he assured Govern ment that he no longer saw any reason to doubt. The importance of discovering the real writer of the petition had been repeatedly and urgently pressed by Sir Robert Grant upon Colonel Ovens, yet that officer did not re port the discovery to his Government (as it was his bounden duty immediately to have done), but withheld it from their knowledge till the 16th of August, 1838. It thus appears that Government was permitted by Colonel Ovens to proceed for eleven months upon false information, and that he did not duly submit to them the declaration made to him qn the 7th and 20th of September, 1837, by Kristnajee, the real writer of the petition, which was the very informa tion that his Government so anxiously desired to obtain." There was a suppression of evidence for eleven months. The Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was perfectly correct in his statement, because Major Oliphant states his own words—" No explanation of these extraordinary proceedings seems ever to have been asked for, or ob tained by the Government of Bombay, and is not de manded by this draft. Had the true state of the case been brought at the time to the notice of Government, the strongest suspicions must have been excited that the whole was a fabrication, and in all probability the pro ceedings against the Raja of Sattara would have in stantly ceased." That accounted for the high character they gave to Colonel Ovens, and the manner in which they referred to him. Why, it turned nut that they never did their duty themselves in ascertaining whether the thing was true or false. Were they then to be told in the House of Commons and elsewhere, that that was a matter not to be inquired into ? If it were possible to bring forward the matter in the Court of Queen's Bench in London, the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was perfectly ready to prove his charge, or if an inquiry were instituted in Bombay he would go out and attend that inquiry; in fact he would do anything to promote inquiry. But the East India Company were sovereign; they chose to refuse inquiry, and there was no mode of obtaining it elsewhere but by an appeal to that House. — (Hear, hear.) Major Oliphant said that those matters ought, in his judgment, to be sifted elsewhere. Nowhere could that matter be sifted save in a Com mittee of the House of Commons;" or if his Right Hon. Friend would allow, they would consent to the appoint ment of a Commission. Let them appoint three civil servants of the company taken from Bengal, Madras, or anywhere else; they might even draw them by lot if they pleased; he (Mr. Hume) was sure from what he had heard that they would be able to establish fully their case. After that the man Kristnajee entered into heavy recognizanees, himself in 5,000 rupees, he being only a writer, receiving from eight to ten rupees a month. Sir JAMES WEIR HOGG—" Hear, hear." Mr. HUME—And he entered also into recognizances of 1,000 rupees to prosecute the charges, which if he bad failed to have done successfully would have entailed e u a p s o e n e h f i m t h e t the Rajap u punishment h s m e e t nt Sattara a o f had beenimprisonment. r e.. 0 p e T h e h d e b w y h t o h l e e Hon. Gentleman, but it was not the wish of himself (Mr. Hume) and friends to re-open that case. The fact was that Khristnajee finding the matter suppressed, pre sented a petition to this House through himself (Mr. Hume), and another petition to the di rectors. All the documents were laid before Mr- Warden, the agent for Sirdars. Mr. Warden told the individual of the responsibility he was incurring, that he was charging Colonel Ovens, a man of high rank, with foUl practices, and that he would be punished with great severity if_ those charges were not supported. Krist najee replied, " I am perfectly prepared to support them." Then Mr. Warden required from him the security which has been adverted to. That having been done, Mr. Warden says, "Now you must give me a list of all the witnesses whom you intend to bring forward." That list of witnesses was given. It was reasonable to expect that having taken all those preliminary measures the trial would have taken place; but no such thing. They stated, " We will not inquire into this matter, but we will refer the whole of the charges to Colonel Ovans himself"—(Hear, hear.)—and Colonel Ovens of course said that the charges were false; and though Kristnajee s t e m: : om P l nottraereder had entered into all the recognizances, and had given rna( i ate t lmrh n svyoo e er ss.rttesoHoea which Hume) the ahhi a wecae n eht) d drwohe w tocfeeu a o still e h foGuh i s vrra an r h l nng h i es s te e r, : s . w c o taohH f n a na a d w etn rvcCuern: Robertl g o e a n n v t e s e l copies of the evidence taken against the Raja; although the Raja had complained again and again that such evi dence was withheld from him. Lord Auckland said, as a first step, " I would, as suggested by Sir Robert Grant, request that the Raja should be furnished with a written niPnuAgdapoaruothdi Auckland, aniokstinlhonahioanasnfpy, dr ev erysnd. p roo f f respect,o the statement, embodying a full and clear detail of all the facts connected with the several charges, and of the names (with any reservations which may be absolutely required for the safety of the party) of the witnesses by whom they were proved, with a notice of the circumstances under which the evidence was ob tained, and call for from him, within a certain reason able time to be fixed, a similar written statement of whatever he may desire to urge in his own behalf." On the 27th of October, 1836, the gentlemen of the Commis sion were occupied the greater part of the day in pre paring a Mahratta translation of the evidence for the use of his Highness the Raja of Sattara. That evidence was never given to him. The Raja applied for the evidence after the recommendation of Sir Robert Grant, and the promise of the Commissioners, and also of Lord Auck land, and what was the answer given by Colonel Ovens? " I beg distinctly to state that the proceedings of the Commission were secret, and could not be given to any person whatsoever." That is the way an individual against wliCtm such serious charges were made was treated. Colonel Ovens suppressed the evidence. All he (Mr. Hume) would say was, that that fact alone fur nished sufficient ground for inquiry. The fact alone of suppressing evidence in a case which involved the death, or at any rate the property and rights, of the Raja was sufficient to call for examination. He (Mr. Hume) would not say that Colonel Ovens might not have just ground for acting as he had done. They might extend their inquiry to the persons under whom Colonel Ovens acted. That Gallant Officer might he innocent, but those who gave the orders must be guilty. Upon those grounds, the case having been made out, and a strong appeal having been made to the India House, which they refused, he (Mr. Hume) put it to the British Parliament whether it was prepared, after what had taken place, to allow the Court of Directors longer to refuse that expl anat i on. They were particeps cr i m i n i s. H e ties which or actuated injure any individuals, man. I . (Mr. Hum e ) wou ld not say, from hi s k now l e d ge o f th em , 1 that any one of those directors would willingly act im properly,Thearned v we ar r i e ou v e ar s i i o tu n a s ti m on o s in which men - v were pl aced, officially and jechnically; tt ti tt 114, but still he thought the case fully required that explana tion which his Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets asked for. Upon that ground he supported the motion, and he did so in the hope that the Gallant Olio( r who stood, as he (Mr. Hume) had before stated, in the opinion of those who had known him for many years, in the highest respect, before he became con nected with the Sattara case, would come forth un scathed. He (Mr. Hume) stated it was due to him, to the cloth which he wore, and to the character of the East India Company, that those charges, from his own documents, not from hearsay trumpery evidence, like that which the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire bad read from the statement of Major Angelo, but from official documents laid upon the table of that House, documents which had been brought from India and the truth of which had been fully substantiated—he (Mr. Hume) trusted the House would grant the inquiry, and by so doing allow the man, if innocent, to stand forth as innocent, and those who had been guilty of any proceedings, such as those which were charged by the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, to have their criminality proved. He (Mr. Hume) thought enough had been said upon those two or three charges, without going through the rest. Sir J. HOGG complained of the manner in which this case had been brought before Parliament. In April last, when the case of the Raja of Setters came on, the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, instead of confin ing himself strictly to that case, cast imputations upon every man connected with it who se opinions did not happen to accord with his own, The Honourable Mem ber also placed these twelve most atrocious charges against a public man on the votes of the House as a mere matter of course, without saying one single word in substantiation of them. Was that the way which the Honourable Gentleman estimated character? But that was not all. When the debate came on the lion. Member was replied to by the Right lion. Gentleman the Pre sident of the Board of Control, and then the debate was , adjourned. That adjournme n t was continued from I week to week without any opportunity being afforded for any friends of the parties accused standing up and vin dicating them against the charges made against them. What was the case new ? The fo rm of the motion was changed. It was no longer a motion concerning the Raja of Sattara. A charge was now brou g ht against Colonel Ovaus. But it was neither more nor less than a trick to re-open the whole Sattara debate, and pre clude him (Sir J. Hogg) from answering the calumnies that had fallen from the Honourable Gentleman. What was the last calumny the Hon. Gentleman ut tered? He stated that Sir James Carnac, the late Go vernor of Bombay—as honourable, as high-minded, and as sound principled a gentleman as ever lived in any country—in the discharge of his duty bad proceeded to Setters to determine the case of the Raja, and that he had an intimation conveyed to him from the members of the Council to this effect—" You had better take care. We know your opinions are in favour of the Raja, but take care, don't let him off, for if you do there shall be disclosures made injurious to your character and repu tation." Had the Hon. Gentleman recalled that statement to-night? Had he said that he had been mis led ? Did he recant or apologise for it ? He did not. It was unnecessary to say that this statement respecting Sir J. Carnac had inflicted great pain upon his friends; but the dead and the living were equally unspared by the Hon. Gentleman. The Hon. Baronet then pro ceeded to read a letter written in affliction by the son of the late Sir J. Carnac, and also letters from Mr. .Ander son and Mr. Parish, two members of t he Council. of Bombay, who were now in this country. Mr. Anderson denounced the attack made by the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets upon the late Sir J. Carnac as un founded and calumnious. He was a member of the Council during the greater part of Sir J. Carnac's govern ment, and he declared the statement made by the Hon. Member to be wholly untrue and devoid of any foun dation. He added, that the circumstance alleged could not have occurred without his being acquainted with it. Mr. Parish stated that he was a mem ber of the Council of Bombay, and that he delivered over the government to Sir J. Carnac on his arrival. No circumstance had occurred, within his knowledge of the nature asserted by the Hon. Member (Mr. G. Thompson), and he had no hesitation in stating that he considered the impute• tion to be utterly unfounded. The Hon. Baronet than proceeded to say that it was a providential circumstance that he was able to refute so foul a calumny by the evidence of two members of the Supreme Council who were now in this country, and who must have been cognizant of the transaction if it had occurred. The Hon. Member had also declared that the terms of amnesty presented to the ex-Raja set out by declaring his guilt, and that his objection to affix his signature was, that if he signed the paper it would be an admis sion of his guilt. Now, this statement was inconsistent with what appeared in the papers, because the whole statement of the ex-Raja was that he would sign no paper, that he would not renew the treaty, and that he was sorry he had been induced by Mr. Elphinstone ever to sign it in the first instance. The objection urged by the Hon. Member was, that the Raja had no objection to renew the treaty, but that he would not consent to admit his guilt. Neither when the treaty was first read to him nor subsequently did the ex-Raja object to the preamble; lie objected to sign the treaty because it made him " a mere headman without regal authority." What more could the lion. Member want than this refutation, or what more could he have if he had a hundred com mittees granted?—(Hear, hear.) Sir J. Carnac was no longer living, but they had the statement of the man himself, acting in the discharge of his public duty, and they had no right to discredit it. It was impossible to discuss the case of Colonel Ovens without also going into the case of the Raja of Sattara. The Hon. Member for Montrose had called this a worn-out subject. No, it was not " worn-out," because he would revive a little of it now. When the Honourable Member (Mr. G. Thompson) introduced the question to the House in April he affirmed that restoring the ex-Raja to the throne was no act of generosity on their part, but a mere act of calculation and interest. He also said that Mr. Elphinstone had entered into secret nega nations with the ex-Raja. If his imputations were true, what did they prove ? That at the time we had a treaty subsisting with the Peshawur, the keeper of this captive puppet, Mr. Elphinstone, had entered into clan destine communications with this puppet king, the Raja! The Hon. Member had also cited extracts from a book of Mr. Prinseps to prove that the ex-Raja was in an influential situation, that Mr. Elphinstone had entered into private communications with him and that the Raja owed his elevation to a consideration of what would be better for our private interests. Now, about three weeks before the Hon. Member made that state ment and read those extracts, the Hon. Member had taken the same course at a meeting at the India House at which Mr. Prinseps was present, and that gentleman then got up and repudiated the deductions of the Hon. M . ember, denied his statements, and expressed his asto nishment that he should have read extracts from his book to prove such allegations; and yet, without men toil" the ll g bookto the r House om w b i t c h " ! s b important t i f b a thatcgt , badhimself the author de nied the statements and repudiated the deductions of the Honourable Member, he had read these extracts to the House of Commons! Was there any doubt about that? —(Mr. G. Thompson dissented.) Then he had a letter from Mr Prinseps in his pocket, for it was neces sary to come down to the House prepared with docu ments when this subject was under discussion.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baronet then read an extract from a letter from Mr. Prinseps, denying having asserted the Raja's independent sovereignty, and stating that Mr. G. Thompson bad misled the House if he had made any such statement, and he then proceeded to argue that a reference to the treaty itself would show that the Raja had not been treated with as an independent potentate, for never had a treaty been so clogged with restricti\ e conditions, and, right or wrong, the Government had dictated the terms of that treaty. The Hon. Baronet next defended Sir R. Grant from the attacks made upon him, alleging that the Hon. Member for the Tower Ham lets had only read such bits or extracts from the papers as ha d suited his purpose ; after which the Honourable Baronet proceeded to recapitulate the names of twenty-eight of the highest . authorities in India, who i h o tt o d l o e d x i n p g r e s Lord d their con Auckland,vi conviction Lordof the Io o guilt b o r o o f o g t L Baja, ord Hardinge, Sir J. Carnac, Sir Robert Grant, Sir Henry Mr. one s l b y a o k n sp o w a F h e o , ahoadd thatdis - out. Had he seen the t estimon y he would have altered gentleman sPeanytne defarnede t e oh d radt b e eG f p o oi r etl e igeh t n h . e w aT c s o h r Me r corroborative evidence came for his i n opinion. tboy A a r Committee i t t o t e i e n of inquire into wasquiry proceeding now Sattara which bad been already full y inquired into by a wk e as sa d t commission sitting at Sattara. And what had been the proceedings in the Court of Proprietors ? The Hon. Member fer the Tower Hamlets had made 31 motions on the subject. On the 12th of February, 1841, he ventured to take a division, and out of the 2,400 East India proprietors only 20 voted with him. All the rest were deaf to the eloquence of the Hon. Gentleman. Once more he brought forward the question, and on the Bth of February, 1843, he took a vote, w hen the minority that supported him dwindled down to 15. Probably it would be thought that if h e tried the matter again he would find his supporters reduced to 0. .A motion made by the Honourable Member was seconded by Mr. Peter Gordon ; there was an odd kind of rule in the East India Company which permitted proprietors of 5001. stock to talk, but not to vote; and it really had happened that at length the lion. Member ceased to receive any support at an, e n chhivvi aoeeo which wscee n hhv e i left otsoeuuhwfr l:haad theissdisinsedec that t oll h unneoudoi inserted btd c t ot shouldchllhsimarnaatt satisfy gmtcs to hfehyb:ae v rrhre o g7hcu t for when he and Mr. Peter Gordon went out there was fines, ve i rbee n vsim ;ue:tar f ; a ov v huno o nett u aere orr proprietor f api t rna h rnse e tdt propo sitionhoierat og,s aafhe again the Hon. Member was left alone in his gl ' ory. This, wrotewbiob occupied a se s r; t h u i s s u. aleutyterisin; his se letter, therefore, t o h f e ref ure he e nd oc l u e p t i t e e d r three columns. It fortunately happened for him that he January, was wh in en ser th te e d, s full, which his communication occupied was not so valuable p as it was, of misrepresentations, perversion of the truth, and false reasoning—not content with this, he published a pamphlet, of which he sent a copy to every proprietor of East India Stock, and still be had only 19 supporters out of 2,400, of whom a very large proportion resided within 10 miles of London. As to the Court of Direc tors, 18 of them acquiesced in the guilt of th e R a j a, which left only six of that number ; tw o were at t h e time too ill to be present, and four had signed a dissent. The Honourable Me mb e r circulated the dissent of Mr. Tucker, but why did he no t put f orward the opinion expressed by Mr. Edmonton, who must certainly be considered the best authority upon that subject? Fur ther, it must be remembered that the subject n ever h a d escaped discussion in Parliament, but the Hon. Member never ventured ou a division except once. There was one other point to which he wished to advert b e f ore h e proceeded further, it was this, that the British Resident at Sattara, General Lodwick, reportad attempts made by the Raja to corn )t the Sepoys.—(Hear, hear.) Then the inquiry being resolved upon, it was agreed to nrlte LI 14 v I. Nfill it by I-nestle of a oonaraission, and that commission was appointed in the most impartial manner that it was possible to imagine. The instructions they received were, that they were to conduct the inquiry in the way which they in their consciences thought best ; and accordingly they found that the manner of doing so was such as every unbiassed person must approve. An exception had been taken to the decision by which an English barrister was not allowed to appear in the Raja's favour; but that decision he thought was a right one. He had been a member of the bar himself in India; and he was of opinion from his experience there, that no English barrister should be permitted to appear in such a case. While the Raja was refused a barris ter, however, he was permitted to have the assistance of an agent or friend. Complaints had been heard that the Raja was not, from the first, called in, but the reason was, that till a prirni fcroie case was made out against him, it was net thought proper to take any step by which he night appear to be implicated. Ist every respect, how ever, he was treated with the most impartial justice. The evidence of the witnesses was read over to him; and yet it was attempted to be said that he did not know the charges brought against him. Reference had been made to the opinions of Sir R. Grant and Lord Auckland; but he former considered the Raja guilty, though he recom mended what, under the circumstances, was a lenient course, and the latter likewise, after the conclusion of the commission, deemed the Raja guilty to the extent at least of countenancing- the attempt to seduce two native officers of the British army from their allegiance. Subse quently, when the whole rustier was pcnninated and all the papers were sent to Lord Auckland, that Noble Lord felt it his duty to state that he was compelled to concur in the opinion that the other two charges preferred against tne Raja were established. Then came the question when the proceedings were closed—what was to be done with the Raja? Sir R. Grant suggested that he ought to have a copy of the charges. While this matter was under discussion Sir R. Grant unfortunately died; but Lord Auckland recorded in a minute that for certain given reasons he was satisfied it would not be right to persevere i❑ the course he had before recommended of presenting the Raja with a written statement of the charges and proofs against him, as such a course might lead to embarrassment to the public interest, and expose the witnesses to persecution; and therefore he referred the whole matter to the Court of Directors. What was done when the matter came before the Court of Directors? Sir J. Carnac, one of the Court, who had all along taken a favourable view of the itaja's case, went out, at his own request, to Sattara, and used every endeavour to induce the Raja to sign a declaration that he would ob serve the original treaty; but in vain. The consequence was, that the Raja was deposed, and his brother reigned in his stead. The Hon. Gentleman had charged Colonel Ovens with subornation of perjury; but, it appeared that a witness, who had heard of the proceedings insti tuted against the Raja, came forward and volunteered to procure treasonable papers for Lieutenant Horne, who was at that time in charge of the residency. At the same time he went to the Raja, and told him that the officers of the residency were getting up forged papers against him, and that if the Raja would give him money, he would find out the whole matter for him. When Colonel Ovens discovered this double-dealing, he ceased to place any reliance on the testimony of the wit ness, and this was the case which the Hon. Member cal led one of subornation of perjury. With respect to the third charge, the facts had been suppressed. By the treaty, the Raja had no right to receive a letter except through the resident, and the Government were right in taking any means in their power to prevent a correspon dence which had been intercepted and which, being clandestine, must be traitorous. But, contrary to that treaty, the Raja did carry on such a correspondence, which had been intercepted, and which fully proved his treason. It had been stated by the Honourable Member, that the confession made to Mr. Butt by the Raja, at Ahmednugger, was extorted from him, but Mr. Hutt had declared that that statement was perfectly voluntary. He denied that the Raja was confined in a dungeon, or that any bribe was given. Another charge made by the Hon. Member against Colonel Ovens was that of suppressing the evidence of Kristnajee. Now, the fact was that Kristnajee went to Colonel Ovans, and stated that he had written the petition, and had been promised 1,250 rupees by Girjabee for doing so ; and to show the truth of his statement, he produced a copy of the petition. Colonel Ovens instituted an immediate inquiry into the matter ; and, to show that no unnecessary delay had taken place, he (Sir J. Hogg) might: state that the last deposition was taken on the 10th of July, and that the whole of the documents were handed by Colonel Ovens to the Go vernment on the lath of July. This fact at once dis proved the charge that Colonel Ovens had suppressed the evidence for thirteen months.—(hear, hear.) And yet the Honourable Member for the Tower Hamlets stated in the Court of East India proprietors that Colonel Ovens was the greatest unpunished criminal in the world ; and the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had said that the Gallant Officer had no regard for the honour of his cloth. Now, he (Sir J. tiogg) begged to tell that Honourable Gentleman that there was not in the service a man of higher honour and in tegrity then Colonel Ovens, and there were few who had rendered greater services to their country both in the field and iu the closet.—(Hear, hear.) This was the opinion of the whole Court of Directors.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had, two years ago, accused Colonel Ovans, in that House, of bribery and corruption in having obtained from the Raja a pension of 1,5001. a year fur his father-in-law, and afterwards for his brother-in-law. Why was not that charge repeated to-night ? Because it had been repudiated by the House with disgust and indignation when it was formerly made by the Hon. Gentleman.— (Hear, hear.) It had also been asserted that when his wife and family left India, Colonel ()vans obtained 50,000 rupees fur them from the Raja. And on whose authority was this charge made ? On that of Krist najee, who after stating that he had written the petition at the request of Girjabee, declared that that asser tion was a he, and that he had written the petition at the desire of Colonel ()vans, who had paid him for it. He (Sir J. Hogg) would ask the House whether this was a man on whose evidence they would allow the honour and integrity of Colonel Ovens to be impeached? When Colonel Ovens heard of these charges he at once expressed his desire, although ho was suffering from ill health, to go out to India and prosecute his calumniator. But the Court of Directors would have been unworthy of their position if they had not refused to attach Any importance to these statements.—(Hear, hear.) It so happened that a new resident was appointed to Sattara, Mr. Frere, who, not knowing all that had come out, wrote to say that he was afraid the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) did not know the character of this man, " who had taken to memorializing Mr. Huine and the Queen in Council."—(A laugh.) Mr. Frere thought it right to inquire into these charges; the man named four individuals to be sent for, and it turned out that one had been dead fourteen years, and the others knew nothing about the matter.—(A laugh.) Mr. Frere was convinced that the whole petition was a tissue of falsehood.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member (Mr. G. Thompson) had been continually complaining of the absence of an address which the Go vernment of India were said to bo withholding, in order that the people here might not know the truth of the case. At every court the directors were "roasted"about it. Now it had come home; and what was it ? An English document, concocted in this country by the Raja's agents, cut and dried, in the English lan guage; and Major Carpenter stated that the Raja merely put his seal to it that it might be in form, and sent it to the Government.—(llear, hear.) And the Government of India were charged with withholding evidence essential to substantiate the Raja's case I He (Sir J. W. Hogg) must use a homely word, and ask— was there ever such preposterous humbug attempted to be foisted upon the public?—(Hear, hear.) The dis cussion of that night would, he trusted, have the effect of disabusing the public mind with respect to this question.—(Hear, hear.) lie hoped it would expose the preposterous humbug which had been practised with regard to the case of the Raja of Sattara, and that the vote of the House would satisfy public servants in India, civil and military, that as long as they discharged their duties honourably and faithfully to their Sovereign and their country, there existed that honour able and gentlemanly feeling in the House of Commons which would make them repudiate and spurn charges like those which had been preferred against the distin guished and honourable individuals whose characters had been calumniously assailed on the present occasion.— (Loud cheers.) Mr. BROTIIERTON observed that the House bad now been sitting for 12i hours, but the Hon. Member resumed his seat without making the motion which for merly was expected from him as a matter of course. Mr. ANSTEY stated that having ou a former occa sion taken part in the debate on the case of the Raja of Sattara, he could not allow that op portunity to pass without expressing his conviction, after mature ex amination of the papers laid before the House, that, although the case of the Raja of S attara remained where it was against the Government, the character of Colonel Ovens had been completely vindicd at of ed. the old cas The former debat e h a d been adjourned insteae being „ e have been upon the merits of ingqui into, which it might ry, had it been limited to the conduct of Col onel Ov ens. He had some diffi culty in deciding upon which way he sh ou ld vote upon the present occasion, because if his vote was to be taken in any way affecting the character of the Gallant Officer named in the motion, he must say that it a ppeared to him that that officer had done no m ore than what strict duty d emanded, but if t h e object of the motion was, as contained in the concluding words of the notice, to ask for a Committee to be appointed, in conformity therewith, to en t e r into the pr oceedin g s of the G overnment b oth i n Bombay and in this country, and the entire case with re gard to the Raj a of Sattara, t hen he should certainly vote for the motion. It mattered not whether the wrong had been done by the Board of Control, in Westminster, or the Court of Directors, in Leadenhall-street, or the Governer-General in Calcutta, or the Governor, at the Presidency. It justice had been d one towards the late Raja, those pa rties had evidently given a greedy ear to wen whom they themselves were afterwards obliged to discard. If Kristnajee deserved the censure which the Hon. Member for Honiton had cast upon him on the authority of the documents he had read, what then be came of the statement respecting Kristnajee's evidence, made in the earlier part of the debate? Let it be re membered that the only evidence upon which the judgment of Colonel Ovens and the Government was founded to establish the authenticity of that document, upon which the Raja was charged with treason and thrown into prison, was upon the evidence of the man characterised by his very employers as a disre putable informer, seeking by means of falsehood and ca lumny to establish himself in the profitable position of running the risk of having his face whitened, and being paraded on the bac k of a j a ckass, and expelled the country, to the ordinary mode of dealing with such ,crimes in native states,—(Hear, hear.) It was ~~,~(' ~r ift4ll, evident the Raja had reference to the pream ble of the treaty in refusing to sign that document, because that preamble stated, that the Raja having been misled with evil advisers, had, in breach of the treaty, entered into communications hostile to the British Government. The Raja stated that if the Go vernment chose to make the treaty still more stringent he was willing to sign it, but he would not do anything to acknowledge that he had been guilty of a breach of the treaty, or done anything inconsistent with his honour and Isis religion. Upon looking at the motion of the Hon. Member for the Tower, Hamlets, in every view of its objects and its consequences, he (Mr. Austey) felt bound to give his vote in favour of the resolution for inquiry, Mr. H. BERKELEY, as he had presented a petition from, Bristol, purporting to be signed by the startling numb , r of 1,500 names, and praying for investigation into the case of the Raja of Sattara, had felt it his duty to make some inquiry with respect to that petition. Ile found the whole 1,500 signatures were in the hand writing of two persons. He wrote to ascertain whether t here was any excitement in Bristol on the subject of the R.ija of Sattara. One Gentleman said in reply, Really we are not acquainted with the en tleman."— ( ughter.) Another said, "If it was Mr. Brooke who was the Raja—(Laughter;—there was a great deal of s)mputhy ft,r him; but as for the Rajo of Sattara, nobody knew anything about him."—(L:tugh ter.) He held in his hand a return with the name ot Lord Jocelyn on the back of it—a return of Europeans in the employment of native states and princes in India, with the amount of the payments made to them; and there he found the name of George Thompson connected with the payment of 1,000 rupees per month. There was an opinion abroad that this part of the return applied to the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. The Hon. Gentleman would be glad to have an opportunity of contradicting what was extremely prejudicial to his case, and therefore of answering the question whether he was in the pay of the Raja of Sattara?—(Laughter.) Sir E. COLEBROOKE thought, after haviug gone into the case, that Colonel Ovens had come clear out of it. He (Sir E. Colebrooke) was still of the same opinion with regard to the case of the Raja of Sattara. Had that Prince been living he should still have maintained his cause, but being then dead he thought it was better to put an end to the disagreeable and vexatious dis cussions which had been carried on in his name. It had, indeed, been said that there was an adopted son, but he believed that the question connected with the case of that boy would be found to be not the most simple to determine. Under the circumstances he felt bound to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. Mr. URQUHART then rose amid loud cries of " Divide," and " Adjourn." The Hon. Member for Bristol, he said, had amused the House with the history of the Bristol petition; but this question did not depend upon petitions. The facts were not contained in any petitions, but in the documents before the House, which no petition could either add weight to or con trovert. He conceived this the most solemn case that had ever been brought before a delibe rative assembly, and the greatest blot that was ever cast upon the fair fame of a nation. He de manded, therefore, in the name of the honour of the nation, that an investigation should be instituted. From the last papers presented to Parliament on the subject he was ready to acquit Colonel Ovens of the charges that had been brought against him; but, in his opinion, that would only bring the charges home to the greater delinquents who employed him. He would, therefore, vote for the inquiry proposed by the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said, that in the autumn of the year 1842 Sir James Carnac sought an interview with him, and he (Sir James) then told him the reason why he was indnced to depose the Raja of Sattara, and enjoined him to state it, if ever the question should be raised. He stated that the reason was to be found in the single and simple consideration that, on investigation, he found that the Raja of Setters was unfrien dl y to those articles which formed the basis of the treaty of 1819. As to whether the charge against the Raja was trip or false, Colonel Ovens had nothing whatever to do with it. The charge was made by Colonel Lodwick, and it was utterly impossible for the Government to hesitate to follow up the suggestions made by that Gallant Officer. Colonel Ovens had no more to do with originating the matter than the man in the moon. Mr. THOMPSON then rose, and, in reply, addressed the House as follows:—Sir, I am sure I shall not ask in vain for the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I do justice to my feelings and intentions in bring ing forward this motion. But, before Ido so, lam cer tain that those who heard the speech of the Hon. Member for Roxburgbshire will suffer me to make a few re marks on those observations which have per sonal reference to myself. I do not blame that Hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the document he has received from India; on the contrary, I would have thanked him if he had shown me the ordinary cour tesy of giving me notice of his intention. His remarks referred to some transactions of mine with the present King of Delhi. Sir, Ido not think it derogatory to the character or position of any man to receive a just remu neration for services honestly rendered in an honourable cause—the labourer is worthy of his hire—and I do not think a standard should be applied to a humble individual like myself, which, since I entered this House, I have never seen applied to any other gentleman.—(Cheers.) Sir, I am ready to make a clean breast of it, and put her Majesty's Government in full possession of all parti culars in reference to the transaction alluded to. The l ion Member stated, on the authority of a letter from a gentleman in India, that when I was in Calcutta I saw and replied to an advertisement for a philarthropic in dividual to undertake the King's cause in England. I beg to say I neither saw nor heard of such a document. In the month of March, 1843, I was unexpectedly visited by two Mussulman gentlemen who informed me they were authorised to wait unon me and put certain questions in reference to a question pending between the King and the British Government respecting the abolition of the King's rights to recieve Nuzzers from persons not connected with his own household or private jagheers. The first individual I consulted for counsel and guidance was Dwarkanauth Tagore. He gave me much information upon the subject, and referred me to the eldest son of Ramohun Roy, the distinguished Brahmin, who some years ago was charged with a mission to this country on behalf of the late King. I afterwards saw a distinguished civil servant of the East India Company, and freely communicated the nature of the overtures which had been made to me. Before I gave any answer to the proposals made to me I took much pains to ascertain, from the papers drawn up by Ramohun Roy, and from an examination of the Welle sley dispatches and other documents the nature of the King's claims. Satisfied that the King had a just and reasonable claim on the consideration of the Court of Directors and of the British Government, I consented to visit his Ma jesty. Large offers were made me in regard to future remuneration, but I refused to stipulate for any acknow ledgment of my services until I had seen the King and was perfectly master of the whole subject. I therefore left Calcutta entirely free from any engagement, and put the King to no more expense than the amount necessary to cover my travelling charges, which were as low as it was possible to make them. Let me say also that I took no step without the most frank communication of my plans to the Government. The object of my visit was well known, and being known, I was still favoured with letters of introduction from servants of the Hon. Company, which secured me the kind attention and hospitalities of many persons at the stations I visited. I here bear my willing and grateful testimony to the liberality exhibited by the Governments of India, and their readiness that I should avail myself of all information in their possession not strictly secret. Let me assure the Hon. Gentleman (the Member for Roxburghshire) that so far from requiring the King to provide me with a house in Delhi, it was my anxious wish to save him from all expense in that matter, and that the assertion that I stipulated for the payment of 200 rupees a month for my table expenses is equally at variance with the truth. The King did provide the pa lace of the Begum Sumroo for my accom modation, and did allow 100 rupees a month for my table, but not one line did I ever pen on the subject, still less stipulate that these arrange ments should be made for me. Arrived at Delhi, I re frained from crossing the threshold of the King's palace until the Lieutenant-Governor of the North WestoruProvinces had intimated officially:to his Majesty that he was not prohibited from appointing me his agent to this country. My first engagement with the King was this, that he should allow me a certain sum fur one year in this country—that sum was paid before I left India and since I arrived here I have neither asked nor received further re muneration. I have certainly said, that should the King wish me to go to further expenses here on his account, he would have to furnish the means. So far from seeking to bring the King under any future en gagements, I voluntarily and spontaneously gave him a paper, expressly relinquishing all further claims upon his Majesty. Such are the facts of the case, and the House is now competent to judge whether there is anything in this transaction which should throw discredit upon my statements on a question relating to the government of India. In regard to the cause of the Baja of Sattara, it is within the knowledge of many persons in this country that I freely devoted myself to the advocacy of his claims long before I had any thought of ever seeing the shores of India, coming frequently from Edinburgh or Man chester to London at my own expense to attend meetings at the India House, influenced solely by a desire to co operate with those who had previously interested them selves in behalf of the unfortunate Prince, and to ob tain for him the justice to which I thought him entitled. The two Hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-night do me too much honour in ascribing to me all the merit of the agitation in favour of the late Baja. I have only been one of many who have shown a zeal in behalf of that Prince which is not less now than when the case was first brought forward. I have only humbly co-operated with others, and their names and station are as honourable as those of any gentlemen who have been vindicated from my charges. My course on this ques tion has not lost me their society, which I am proud to enjoy, nor their friendship, which I most gratefully ac knowledge. I must say a word upon the insinuations which have been cast upon my motives in regard to a return for certain papers of which I have given notice. The Hon. Member for Boxburghshire seemed to think that I meditated a rich harvest by taking up the cause ol'jagheerdars and landholders,who,had been dispossessed t t h e ...D o i in Wednesday,lndia.TlleCouncil whensimple truthl wasin this matterTisdt.hats tiTaLuasse, Mr. Jolla Sullivan, late Member of motion at Madras, placed that thought the papers in my hands, saying he thought the . I have referred to ought to be produ ce not the most distant idea the co ntents of those a pe i e r r e s n , ra a s n t d a n s e h e o u r e l d fe n r r e e v d e r to.h I think from the charge ins a ve l o fa s h s d t e s dft rswainthem, i b t u e e t d. for , t p ii h teahnde, , the Hou. Gentleman who made it btu said one word to I me previously on the subject, I should have stated to I him whAt I have now deemed it my duty to state thus publicly to the House. I am not one of those who have any wish to live by preying on the people of India. I have been charged with inspiring false hopes in the minds of persons seeking redress from the Government of this country. Now, Sir, it has ever been my wish to represent the difficulties in the way of success here; and I took special care when in India to explain these difficulties to both the Raja of Sattara and the King of Delhi. So far from abusing any opportunity which I enjoyed while in India, I may state that when I twice visited Benares, where the Raja of Sattara lived, I declined his proffered hospitali ties, never visited him at his residence, never even saw the house in which he was placed, and never saw the inan himself, save under the roof of Major Carpenter, end never spoke a word to him except through that officer, acting as my interpreter. All this was the con duct which my own judgment prescribed, and I should be glad if every letter I ever addressed to that Prince could be made public, in explanation of my motives in seeking to aid him, and the advice I have felt it my duty to give him. I will not conceal from the House, as the Hon. Member for Bristol ha 4 referred to a, that I told the Raja that if the duties he wished Inc! to perform fer him here withdrew me from other occupations, it was but just to my family that I should be compensated tor my services. Should an inquiry be granted I shall be most happy to put the Commit tee in possession of every fact connected with money matters, and they will learn with surprise with how small a sum the efforts have been made in this country to diffuse infor mation and excite the legitimate attention and sympathy of the British public. Sir, I have yet to learn that it is degrading to accept compensation for faithful services in a good cause. It the practice is to prevail in this House of inquiring how far men are interested in the questions they bring forward ; and if all paid servants are to have their testimony rejected, then from the highest dignitary in Church and State down to the humblest labourer in the streets, all will be rendered ignoble and base who work for their living either by the toils of the body or the exertions of the intellect. I can challenge my bitterest enemy to say, that I ever, either for the sake of money, or to gratify my ambition, defended a cause which was not the cause of truth and justice. If I have been guilty of errors in regard to temper, or errors in regard to tact, I am sorry for having done so, but the error has been that of in firmity, and lack of judgment, and has not sprang from either selfishness and malignity. Dismissing all matters of a personal nature, I must complain of the charge brought against the Honourable Member for Montrose, regarding the adjourned debate. It was his anxious desire, and my own to bring it on, but found it placed constantly at the bottom of the paper. " Trick" or subterfuge there was none. The days may have been unfortunately chosen, but there was a sincere wish to resume the debate on the motion. I have listened to every word said to-night in reference to my present motion, and repeat my deliberate declaration, that I am able to establish every one of my charges against Cel. Ovens. My defini tion of his offences may not be in every case legally correct, but I will prove the commission of every one of the acts out of bis own letters and the papers he sent to Govern ment. The Hon. Member who followed me in this de bate did not condescend to say one word in reply to these charges, and as respects the Honourable Baronet the Member for Honiton, I am ready to reply to every word he has uttered, and to prove that he has not answered my speech or refuted one of my charges. Why have not these specific indictments,so long on record,with abundant references to official authorities, been dealt with? Simply becanse Colonel Ovens' own letters, apart from all other evidence, prove their truth. Why have I chosen to arraign Col. Ovens? Because he is the connecting link between the acts I specify and the Bombay Government, upon whom I conceive the heavier censure should fall as the superiors and employers of Colonel Ovens. From them I ascend to the Supreme Government, and thence to the authorities in this country, and hence my inquiry, which connects all parties concerned, covers the whole ground. So far from ex empting the Court of Directors from blame, I will ven ture to say what I believe I could prove, that those who sanctioned the deposal of the Raja, with the exception of Mr. Edmonstone, never read the papers in the case. I will venture to say that the Hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton, when he signed the dispatch, approving the conduct of Sir James Carnac, had never read the papers, and that the Honourable Member for the city of London was in the same state of ignorance. It is said this would be a six years' inquiry. Not so. The evidence is all within the covers of the blue books, and, as for witnesses, all who are necessary are here. Governors-General, Governors, Members of Council, Residents, and others. We want no native testimony—no commission in India. If there be a sin cere desire to come at the truth, all the means are at hand for developing every part of the subject and doing justice to all parties. Sir, there is one other topic to which I must allude, or I should be thought guilty of an intentional neglect ; it is in the matter regarding Sir James Carnac, and the motives which influenced him to abandon his original intention of granting an unconditional amnesty to the Raja of Sattara. The Hon. Baronet has appealed to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Farish. The words which are stated to have fallen from my lips in the Times newspaper are not precisely the words I used; but it the Hon. Gentle man will move for a Select Committee, or a secret one, if he chooses, I will second his motion, and establish the truth of what I alleged upon this subject. I have a second time to thank the House for the atten tion which they have been pleased to extend to me. I ask now for inquiry, and again lay my charges on the tab!e, declaring before this House, before my country, and in the presence of my God, my belief in my ability to prove every fact alleged on these papers.—(Cheers.) The House then divided, when there appeared — For the motion Against it ... 77 Majority against the motion ... —69 The remaining business was then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter past Two o'Clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Coninwns: TUESDAY, JULY 11. LIEUTENANT-COLONEL OVANS. Motion made, and Question put, " That a Select Com mittee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of Lieu tenant-Colonel Charles Ovans ( of the Bombay Army), while British Political Resident at the Court of Sattara ; and into the proceedings of the Bombay Government, and the Court of Directors of the East India Company, in relation to cer tain charges preferred against that officer." The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 8. Anstey, T. C. Thompson, Colonel TELLTILS. Lushington, C. Wawn, J T. Thompson, George llapkael, Alexander Williams, John Hume,; Joseph Stuart, Lord D. Wyld, James MAJORITY-NOES, 77. Armstrong, R. B. Heald,7james Rich, Henry Berkeley, Captain Heywood, James Hominy, Sir John Berkeley, H. F. Ilobhouse, Sir John Russell, Lord John Berkeley, Craven Hobhouse, T. B. Rutherford, A. Boldero, Henry Hates, T. L. Sandars, George Bolling, William Hogg, Sir J. W. Sheil, R. L. Bouverie, E. P. Hotham, Lord Shelburne, Earl of Brotherton, J. Labouchere, Henry Somerville, Sir W. Buller, Charles Lascelles, W. S. Spearman, 11. J. Christy, Samuel Lewis, G. C. Spooner, Richard Clerk Sir G. Mackenzie, W. F. Stanton, W. H. Clive, Henry B. Maitland, T. Stuart, Henry Cobbold, John C. Mangles, R. D. Sutton, H. M. Colebrooke, Sir T. Maule, Fox Tenison, E. K. Craig, W. G. Meux, Sir H. Townley, It. G. Dundas, Admiral Morison, Sir W. Townshend, Captain Dundas, Sir D. Morris, David Tynte, Colonel Ebrington, Viscount Mußings, J. R. Ward, H. G. Egerton, Sir P. Paget, Lord A. Watkins, Colonel Elliot, J. E. Paget, Lord Clarence Willoughby, Sir H. Ferguson, Sir R. Palmerston, Viscount Wilson, James Frewen, C. H. Parker, John Wilcox, Matthew Galway, Viscount Pigott, Francis Wood, Sir Charles Grey, Sir George Pilkington, James Grosvenor, Lord R. Plowden, W. H. Hawes, Benjamin Price, Sir R. Ilay, Lord J. Rice, E. It. TELLIRS. Tuthell, Henry Bellew, R. M. OPENING OF THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY TO WATERLOO-BRIDGE.—In The Sun of yesterday we gave a short account of the opening of this line. During the day the traffic continued with undiminished activity, and we are happy to say without any accident or interrup tion. The chairman and most of the officers were in attendance from a very early hour. The temporary sta tion, though constructed entirely of wood, is really a handsome and commodious building. The great book ing-office is 70 feet long by 30 feet wide. There are ladies' waiting-rooms on a superb scale, and the usual accommodation for clerks, superintendents, parcels, lamps, and all the countless et ceteras of a station on the most extensive scale. We have been favoured with an inspection of the designs for the permanent station, by Mr. Tite, the architect of the company; it will be an elegant building in the Italian style, having a covered way in front 250 feet long, and the great shed at the back 600 feet long, and inclosing altogether a space of more than two acres. The works of this per manent station, and also the great engine-house, have been delayed on account of the difficulties of the foundation. It being found that the piers of the via duct yielded slightly, it was thought better to postpone the more permanent buildings until all subsidence had t ceased. For the convenience of our read ers we beg o explain that the access for passengers going fraL oLon don is by the inclined road, and entra ece in the Water loo-bridge-road, 11 the southernmost of the two e ntrances, or that nearest the Victoria Theatre. , F h o u r , f i o n ot a p d a a s say or gers at present the access is the same • two there will be an addition al accessle: footpath from For passen the York road, at the end of Vine-s t r gers arriving there are several exits which it is not ne cessary to specify, as they are all apparent, or readily pointed out by the servants of the company. In con cluding this notice, we cannot but congratulate the public on this greatly increased accommodation ; and we trust that the directors and proprietors will reap th e a d va ntage in improving dividends and increasing suc cess. The Southampton line has always been a favourite with the public, and we cannot but feel they have evinced their gratitude by this exercise of their libe rality, by which the various ramifications of their ex tensive line, for the dwellers in " the far west," and the royal inhabitants of Windsor and our suburban crowds, are all equally convenienced and serv e d. Th e total cost of the work, when completed, will, as we are in formed, not exceed 850,0001. CHATHAM, JULY 11.—This day was promulgated the finding and sentence of a 4t rneral court-m a rti a l held at the garrison on th e of t3, March , o f N 1 0 a . 5 4 t, 4, on f Gunner and Driver Archibald Al'mu the Royal Artillery, who was tried for returning drunk off leave at the Drop Redoubt, Dover, on t h e morn i ng of the 17th of February,B", and for having at the same time and place struckand used violence to Ser geant David F oster, of the Royal Artillery, his superior officer. The sentence was transportation for 14 years. TO THE §Etitti4=ihr - of• -- T - irk BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. Sir,—On Monday, the 10th, more on Sugar. A wonderful faculty is that, which enables an Opposition Member to speak four hours and a quarter on whether the duty on Sugar should not be fourteen shillings instead of thirteen. _ _ An ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the debate, said something about " throwing away revenue." One of the earliest witticisms of the _Edinburgh Review when it was young, was the re mark that all hunters acquire a delight in the multiplication of their game ; and it proceeded to instance the individual of entomological pursuits, who in those days scandalized royalty by a board near the Royal Exchange, intimating that he had the honour of clearing the beds of Majesty from vermin. Something like this feeling overcomes an o'd Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has accustomed himself to count his gettings, till he thinks that ail he does not get is thrown away. For my own part I feel a doubt, whether revenue can he thrown away ; intending always, before it is g o t. lt would be an od speech which should tell a man, he had thrown away that fifty pounds, by leaving it at his banker's undrawn. A Chancellor of the Exchequer may at some time arise, who will tell you the people are his bankers, and what he leaves with them he leaves to fructify, in the assurance that he may have it when he wants. It may be doubted whether he would be the worse, for this kind of what bankers call " keep ing a good account." The Ministerial proposition was finally carried by 180 against 124. On Tuesday the principal debate was connected with the subject of the Rajah of Sattara. Though ti division was feeble, it may be surmised that the ef fect of similar discussions is salutary, as impressing on governments the necessity for caution, or at all events a sense of the inconvenience arising from leaving openings for attack. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. PERRONET THOMPSON. Blackheath, London, July 12,1848. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. LIVERPOOL RACES. LIVERPOOL, TUESDAY EVENING, FIVE o'CLocK. The great superiority of two or three of the horses engaged in the Two Hundred Guineas Stakes, Mersey, and St. Leger, and the untoward result of the handicap for the Cup, render it certain that the fields in most cases will be very small; there is no doubt, however, that the interest which invariably attaches to the appearance of great public favourites, such as the Flying Dutchman, Elthiron, Garrick (all in the Derby), and Flat catcher, will, irrespective of the Cup, have the effect of attracting a good muster of sporting men, or that the extreme fineness of the weather, and the number of events to come off each day, will ensure a full attendance of general company. By the death of Mr. Etty, the management of the races has devolved upon his son, whose arrangements, as far as they have come under our notice, show a determination to command success. We subjoin an outline of the three days' amusements:— WEDNESDAY. Croxteth Stakes.—Seven horses entered, and all here, viz.:—Maid of my Soul, Godfrey, Voyager, Mentor, De Witt, Pilot, and Romance. Sefton Stakes. (6 Subs.)—Miss Orbell and Aspasis the probable runners. Mersey Stakes.—Elthiron, Strongbox•, Magician, Gar rick, and Abbot of 11eaux, are here. Produce Stakes. (6 Subs.)—Red Knight and Archery are here. Free Handicap, (10 Subs.) Shargton, Romance, P,almsinger, Master Downes, Elimea, Discontent, The Prince, and Reality, are here, and all likely to run but Discontent. Two Hundred Sovs. Stakes—The Flying Dutchman, colt by Lanercost, out of Alice Hawthorn's darn, Esca lade, and one of Lord Glasgow's, have arrived. Plato of 601. (heats)—Givendale, Rosalinda, Idle Boy, and Josephine, are entered, and are here. THURSDAY. Derby Handicap.—Sharston, Ulysses, Betty Swipes, All's Well, De Witt, and Aspasia, are here; Jest and Jovial expected. Cup.—Arrived: Miss Sarah, Cawrouch, Grimsten, Montpcnsier, Executor, Ulysses, All's Well, Voyager, Miss Harrison, Tuscan, Glen Saddel, Maid of my Soul, Otterburn, Sylvan, and Prince Charlie. Chanticleer is here, but not likely to run; Jarral expected. Foal Stakes. (3 Subs.)—Miss Orbell, Crazy Lad, and Coal Tar, are here. Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, with 25 added. T.Y.C. —The following are entered, and likely to start: — Mother Carey's Chicken, 3 yrs—Sister to Wanota, 3 yrs—Lillie, 2 yrs—br g by Charles XII., out of Manilla, 3 yrs—b c by Coronation, out of Vignette, 2 yrs— Elimea, 5 yrs—Lady Mary, 3 yrs—Our Ben, 2 yrs—and Miss Fish, 2 yrs. Match .—Uriel (arrived) agst Fitzpatrick. Grosvenor Stakes.—Red Knight, Flatcatcher, and Sister to Wanota, are here. _ Queen's Plate (heats). —Entered: Crazy Lad, Otter burn, Godfrey, Givendale, Mentor, Reality, Maid of my Soul, Sylvan, The Prince, Fanny, Red Knight, Pilut, and Grinisten. FRIDAY. Knowsley Stakes.—Cauezou and De Witt are expected o St. Leger.—Arrived: Canezou (51b extra), 1)e Witt, g by Charles XII., out of Manilla; Corsican, and Flat catcher (91b extra). Bentilick Testimonial Stakes.—De Witt, Idle Boy, Godfrey, All's Well, Aspusia, Discontent, Mentor, and Romance, are here. Stanley Stakes Entries.—Archery, 3 yrs—Red Knight, 3 yrs—Jest, 3 yrs—De Witt, 3 yrs—f by the Provost, (1 by Actmon, 2 yrs—f by Morning Star, out of Miss Fitz, 2 yrs—Lantircosta. (sister to Diplomatist), 2 yrs— Muid of my Soul, 3 yrs—and Sister to Wanota, 3 yrs —Miss Fish, 2 yrs. All here. Selling Stakes (entered and arrived).—Mother Carefa Chicken, 3 yrs—John Harris, 6 yrs—Givendale, 3 yrs —Reality, 3 yrs—Rosalinda, 4 yrs—and Comme-il-fala i 4 yrs. Aintree Stakes.—Arrived: Abbot of Meaux, Hard shot, and Strongbow. Lord Derby and Lord Sefton will entertain large par ties during the races. WRITTLE RACES.---TIIESDAY. The Sweepstakes of 3 sovs. each, and 20 added, one mile and three quarters (4 Subs.), were won easily in two heats, by Mr. B. Laud's Streamer, 3 yrs, 7st 71b (Dunton), beating Dick Turpin, 3 yrs, ist 101 b, Amazon. 5 yrs, 9st 61b, and Nottingham, aged, 9st 111 b. The Writtle Handicap of 10 sovs. each, h ft, and 3 ft only if declared. One mile and three quarters. (16 Subs., 4 of whom declared.) Mr. White's Redleg, 5 yrs, 7st 51b ... (Crouch) 1 Mr. fliggins'a Tapia, 3 yrs, 7st ... 2 • Captain Sand's Royalty, 5 yrs, ist 121 b „. 3 Mr. Hobson's Ipecacuanha, 5 yrs, ist 121 b, and Mr. Anderson's Chance, aged, 7st 91b, also started, but were not placed. Won by two lengths. The Thorndon Cup, for farmers' horses, three miles, was won by Mr. G. Simpson's Oliver Cromwell, 12st (Bonbow), beating four others. Plate of 501. One mile and three quarters. Mr. T. Parr's Morsel, 4 yrs, 7st 41b (W. Butler) 1 Mr. G. Higgins's Tapis, 3 yrs, 7st 21b ••• 2 Mr. G. Hobson's Passion Plower, 6st 81b Six others started. Won easily. COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen and Prince Albert, accompanied by the Prince of Wales and Prince Alfred, took an airing yes terday in an open barouche and four. The Equerries in Waiting, Major-General Wemyss and Colonel Bouverie, were in attendance on horseback. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, atttended by Colonel Bouverio, Equerry in Waiting, went yesterday morning to the review of Prince Albert's Own Hussars, at Wimbledon Common. His Royal Highness Prince George, and his Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, were also present at the review. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent visited her Majesty yesterday at Buckingham Palace. The Princess Royal, the Princess Alice, the Princess Helena, and the Princess Louisa, took airings yesterday in the garden of Buckingham Palace. Her Majesty and Prince Albert, attended d Camoy by the C o untess of Charlemont, Hon. Miss Kerr, rs, and the Equerries in waiting, honoured the performance at her Majesty' s Theatre yesterday evening with their presence. Lord Duncan bad an interview with Lord John Rus sell yesterday. ay T w b eith S t o h li e ci N to o r b - l G e e L ne o r r a d l , e h t a n d is a e l ffi so ci a a n l r in e : mn t i h n e gi Custo ms , had sr wa f the Exchequer ' street. e b si a dr S d ve inirte:nweTi i n t o v u i n r v a ° i s w e n w F i ' w e g e: t m h a t n h t e l e Chairman n cerlmionrinDgo hfo o Company, and Mr. a on n diti 3 r f c.onLhdelytytda; reside n ceh str i ou s lni o cc ffi ittio c o i rn al toiah Bt Townsend, Solicitor to Messrs. Brown and others, bad an interview with the Commissioners of Railways yes terday, at their office in the Board of Trade. Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial office, from the Governor of the Mauritius. The Bishop of Gloucester had an interview yesterday with Lord J. Russell. -- - - _ THE SUPPLEMENT TO BURKE'S " GENEALOGICAL AND HERALDIC DICTIONARY OF THE LANDED GENTRY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND," has just appeared. containing 500 additional families, with references to upwards of 10,000 persons connected with them, and new particulars respecting the families comprised in the first two volumes. The vast number of new names in troduced into this volume greatly increases the value and interest of this laborious work. The care and ac curacy observable in the history and genealogy of these families fully sustains the reputation of the larger publication, to which this volume forms an indispensable supplement ; and when the whole shall have been com pleted by the publication of a general index, it will form the most comprehensive work of reference of its class that has ever been accomplished in this country.—Atias• PATRONAGE or TUB QUEEN TO TRE PAISLEY TRADE.—We are glad at being enabled to state that her Majesty has again been kindly pleased to bestow her patronage on the Paisley manufactures. An assortment of fine wool tartan plaids of the newest designs, having been prepared for the approaching season, were, through the very kind offices of her Grace the Duchess of Suther land, exhibited to the Queen, when her Majesty, with her accustomed good taste, made a selection from the patterns.—Glasgow Saturday Post. FALMOUTH, JULY 10.—The Jeune Polletais, Cond. ler, from Shields to Bona, put into this harbour yester day leaky, having struck on the Gedges, off Helford harbour. s in the that with Drl3llll mast K 1 to year,