The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-07 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES..

Mr. MOFFATT, io moving that the house resolve itself
into a committee to consider the discriminating duties on
unrefined sugar, with a view to bringing in a bill for their
repeal, observed that the favourable anticipations which had
been expressed respecting the effect of then duties, when
imposed two years ago, bad not been realised. They were
neither productive to the revenue, nor attended with con-
venience to the imparter; and he hoped the government
would see the necessity of repealing them.
Mr. EWART seconded the motion, declaring his hos-
tility to all discriminating duties.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed with
Ma boa. friend, that the effect of these duties had not been
satisfactory. The government bad reserved to themselves
the right of equalising them, but he did net think the
present a fit time for doing so.
Mr. MOFFATT, under those circumstances, and hoping
that the government would next session bring in a bill on
the subject, withdrew his motion.
REMOVAL OF THE POOR.
. . .

Mr. FITZROY moved fo;leantu7ibeiniiii a bill to ex-
plain an act of the 10th year of her present Majesty, for
amending the laws relating to the removal of the poor.
Sir G. GREY would not object to the introduction of the
bill, but could not promise to assent to the second reading.
Leave given to bring in the bill.
GUNPOWDER IN COLLIERIES.
Mr. HUME (on behalf of Mr. T. Duncombe) obtained
leave to bring in • bill to prevent the use of gunpowder and
candles in collieries.
INVESTMENT OF TRUST MONIES.
_ _

Lord COURTENAY fin the absence of Mr. E. Hope) ob-
tained leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the investment of
Cruet monies in the improvement of land.
THE EX-RAJAH OF SATTARA.
The order of the day for the adjourned debate upon the
case of the ex-Rajah of Sattara having been read,
Sir J. HOBLIOUSE and Mr. EWALT rose together. The
former gave way, and
Mr. EWART said he only interposed with a view to save
tke time of the house by asking the right hon. baronet
whether, after what had passed, he did not think it just and
politic to concede a full and fair inquiry into the whole
of this important question, which had taken deep root in
the public mind
- -

Sir J. HOBLIOUSE said he hoped the house would grant
him its indulgence while he proceeded to answer the state-
ments which had been made in reference to this subject.
He could assure the hon. member for Montrose and the hon.
member who had just spoken, that if he thought
he could consistently with his duty advise the court of dire*.
tors of the East India Company, and be a party with them to
re-open this question, no dread of a charge of inconsistency,
or feeling of false shame, would prevent him from entering
into immediate communication with his friends: in Leaden-'
haltstreet, and in advising them to retrace the steps which
now for eight years they had uniformly pursued. (Hear,
hear.) But haviag said thus much, he must, he repeated,
claim the indulgence of the house, on account of the au-
MOTOUS documents which had been quoted by the hon. mem-
ber for Montrose, as he (Sir J. Hothouse) must refer to
many documents and written opinions and evidence, or he
should be unable to make an adequate reply to the state-
ments made, or to afford sufficient grounds to the house to
induce the house to join him in the negative which he felt it
his painful duty to give to the motion of the hon. member
for Montrose, and the suggestion just made by the hon.
member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart). The hon. member for
Montrose, in opening the case, gave • description of the
previous position of the ex-Rajah of Sattara, and had said
that he had been an independent prince, and the friend
and ally of the British government. Now, the fact wee,
that the ex-rajah had been no independent prince at
ell, but, on the contrary, he was • prince created
by this country, on certain conditions conditions
which were not left vague or subject to any mis-
understanding upon the parties to the bargain, but mindi-
tions contained in a specific treaty,. which had frequently
been brought under the consideration of the ex-r,,jah; so
that its meaning could not possibly have been mistaken by
him. These conditions he (Sir J. Hobhouse) would not
detail at length to the house—it was sufficient that he should
state the main condition, that the Rajah of Satter& woe raised
to the throne, not as an hereditary prince, but as the lineal
descendant of one who by his military exploits had raised
himself to the head of the Mahratta race. The rajah
had himself been born in • prison—his father and
grandfather having been, he would not call them
the tributaries, but the imprisoned puppets of the
Peshawar of the Mahratta empire. This man, by
the benevolence of the British government, bad in 1818 or
1819 been raised to the throne of Sattara. He was in fact
a creation of the British power under certain conditions,
which he (Sir J. Hobhouse) before he sat down would chow,
according to testimony which could not be questioned, be
had decidedly violated, and thereby his thrane became for-
feited. But to begin at the beginning, he must ask what
bad been the previous character of the prince? He would
answer the question by quoting the very seam authorities
against him that the hon. member (or Montiose had quoted
last night in his favour. After he was raised to the term's,
under the immediate decision of Mr. Elpbinatone, he was
placed in the charge of a gentleman who was now living,
Captain Bragg. Duff, and who in a very short time
afterwards furnished a report to his government. He wrote :
" Possessed of many good qualities, the rajah is very sly, and
this he mistakes for wisdom. Some of the intrigues end
tricks he practised when in confinement he practises now.
He is an adept at dissimulation. There are great excuses
for him, but his confinement has gives him a taste for in-
trigue. Some of his dependents have persuaded him that
it was by his own council and their exertions that the happy
change (that was his elevation to the throne) bad been
effected, and in vain have I told him that it was done by the
governor-general's orders." This was the opinion of a gen-
tleman who had been quoted as being favourable to the
*all. Again, another gentleman who bad the prince In'
G B charge, Lien. riggs, gave the following prophetic opinion'
of him : " he is, however, tenacious of his prerogative, and
will every day more and more resist our control. He has
lately been flattered by those around him into an erroneous
estimate of his own importance, and be already evinces a
strong inclination to extend his connexion beyond the
limits permitted by the treaty. It will be fortunate if events
afford the government an opportunity of giving him timely
warning of the danger he is incurring by secret communica-
tions with those who, at some future period, may involve him
in a system of intrigue which may lead to his ultimate ruin."
That was the language of General Briggs in 1820. Next
came the opinion of another gentleman—that of General
Lodwick—as given in evidence on oath, in 1826, before the
commissioners who had decided that the rajah had forfeited
all the advantages of the treaty of 1819. General Lod-
wick deposed It came to my knowledge that his
highness had appointed an agent to go to England
to seek an interview with the government in his behalf. I
pointed out to his highsseu the impropriety of this without
having consulted me on the subject, as he was bound to do by
the treaty. From that period his highness exhibited almost a
hostile disposition towards me, and now he hardly ever con-
sults me on any subject: he acts as he pleases, as if he was
independent of the treaty and beyond all control." Now
this conduct alone was &complete forfeiture of the rights of this
, even if there were no other grounds to put it upon
prince
Bound
by the treaty to put himself under the guidance ciao
British resident at Satan, it was obligatory on him to con-
sult the resident on all matter§ and this report of General
Lodwick would have justified the government in re-
moving him from the throne, if they had not desired
to give him another chance of acting up to every
pa
rt at the treaty under which he held his throne.
was another witness, General Robertson, to
whose se4lamialbs(l34 J *Rebhan's) wished to direct the atten •
Yea stein lama Gan. Robertson lays, "I have heard of the
ateaveri at Ras. I thought it a foolish thing, and as I did not
see say likelihood of the prince repeating that sort of con-
duit i did not report the matter to the government" Now
he (Sir J. Hobbes's') cantered that prior to December,
1838, the court of directors considered themselves so much
pleased with the conduct of the prince that it was resolved
to send him a mark of their favour—to present him with a
sword. This was done - and he (Sir J. Hobhouse) had been
a party to it, in having signed the dispatches which ac-
companied the gift. This fact, therefore, proved that
the court of directors had not a prejudice against the
prince when they had to peas a judgment on him; but
that, on the contrary, they were inclined to look with a
favourable eye upon the acts done by one who was the child
of their favour. (Hear, hear.) But, in 1836, General Lod-
wick wrote • despatch to the Bombay government, which
was communicated to the court of directors. In July, 1836,
he reported to the Bombay government that certain native
officers of the 23rd Regiment of Native Infantry had in-
formed him of an attempt made by the rajah is corrupt the
fidelity of certain sepoys, and on the 9th and 10th Septem-
ber of the same year, that it wasplaced beyond doubt that
the rajah had proved faithless to his engagements with the
British government; and the general, in his next communi-
cation, stated, " that deeply as he regretted the errors of his
highness, he could not discover one extenuating circum-
stance." The government of Bombay were, therefore, com-
pelled to take into consideration what ought to be done with
respect to this Final, and eventually they issued • commis-
sion to examine into the charges preferred against him. This
commission, dated Oct. 1838, was issued, appointiag three
gentlemen, than whom he would fearlessly say, none more
fit or impartial could possibly have been selected :—The first
was the then British resident at Sattere, General Lodwick,
who was to give proper information and to afford the prince
every opportunity of answering any questions that might be
put, and of refuting the charge made against him. The next
gentleman named in the commission was Mr. Willoughby,
the government secretary at Bombay ; and the third commis-
goner, Colonel Grans. These three gentlemen were ap-
pointed to inquire into the alleged misdeeds of the prince,
and his alleged infraction of the treaty. The commissioners
met on the 12th October, and sat no lees than 24 dam They
examined all parties upon oath.
HUM—Bat it was a secret ooramiation.

Sir J. HOBEIOUSR—Yes ; but ethe whole proceedings
rpm is the book now is the hoaoerable taember's
hand. It was • secret commimica, but. he would ex-
plaia y the eitoometandes of that score y. The
eem~imioseti~ he repeabel, tat twenty-four days. The
gentlemen who forbid the eseembiion, and the way in
eibite they tranductad the Veep, malcieutly posed their
°lm. Now es to the that the rajah had not
Own beard. On thtel3th big et the emnatiesion, Um rajah
attended the sitting, aosseePsnini by a bother Miser. Mr.
Willoughby detailed to him the endemics, particularly as to
the four events proving him to be engaged in the conspiracy.
Mr. Wilknighby advised him, if he bad been deluded into
error, to ackuowledp it, adding that the commission was
ready to hear any statement he bad to make, or any wit-
nesses he wished to be examined. He contented himself
with • simple denial of the facts. He was pressed to hear
the evidence from the mouths of the without' themselves ;
but he declined, and said he had perfect confidence
in the fairness of the GOMMiIMMI. He was perfectly
self-pomessed, during the interview of three hours,
though he appeared at first embarrassed. Oa the
lath day he sent an agent to forward depositions. and
the witnesses were ordered to be called. On • third occasion,
the 16th day, six witoesees were accordingly examined on
his behalf, and two other depositions were afterwards taken.
After this no one could say that he had not been heard ; that
his witnesses had not been examined; and that he had not
received every consideration from the commissioners. At the
end of this prolonged inquiry the commissioners reported
their opinion, and sent the whole of the proceedings to the
government f Bombay, by whom the subject was taken in-
to consideration, and the documents were submitted to the
secret committee, consisting of the members of the Board of
Control, and the chairman and deputy-chairman of the Rut
India company. They refused to interfere until the govern-
ment o/ Bombay had thoroughly invedigated the affair.
While they were doing so, other facts came to light;
and, upon the whole matter being brought to their cogni •
since, and after the most patient investigation of the
whole case. Sir Robert Grant, who had taken a bid-
ing part (and no man would discharge his duty more
uprightly, and would more shrink from any act which
might be deemed culpable in the sight of God), declared
himself convinced that the plots of the rajah had long been
carried on undetected, and that he must be regarded as the
victim of his own blind and insensate ambition. (Hear.)
Would that man have left on record each an opinion, had he
not been thoroughly convinced of the justice of the accusa-
tions against the rajah? (Hear, hear.) Mr. Fanelli, one of
the council of Sir R. Grant, had also avowed hie belief that
the case was so fully made out that any justification appeared
impossible; that his defence had made the matter worse;
and that the terms held out to him seemed to hare rendered
him more culpable. Mr. Anderson, another member of the
council of Bombay, said the rajah had entertained, from the
first, ideas different:from those which had led to his being
placed on the throne, and had supposed himself enti-
tled to the dominions of the whole of the Mahratta
princes ; that his 'Oman had been futile; but that
he bad endeavoured to seduce the native officers from
their allegiance, thereby striking at the very root of the
British power, and placing the matter beyond compromise.
These opinions were handed up to Lord Auckland, and that
nobleman, in a minute of the 23rd of December, 1838, said
the proceedings of the commission had left no doubt on his
mind of the rajah's guilt, to the extent of attempting to
seduce two native officers. He was compelled to concur in
the opinion of the government of Bombay that the two
other charges, the treasonable intercourse with the authori-
ties of Goa, and with the ex-rajah of Nutter, had been
fully established. However incredible these intrigues
seemed, their actual existence was placed beyond doubt, and '
his ambition and treasonable practices were established.'
This being the opinion of the Indian authorities, how could
the authorities at home come to any other conclusion An
hon. and gallant member now in the house (Gen. Morrison),
then • distinguished member of the council of India, bad
also declared himself quite satisfied of the treachery and
extraordinary machinations of the Rajah of Satter*, adding
that facts had come to light, by the examination of emis-
saries taken up at Madrmand elsewhere, which more strongly
proved his guilt. The general bad been opposed to putting
the rajah on his trial, because he could not be tried by his
peers be thought that he ought to be deposed from his
sovereignty, in a manner to be directed by the government.
Another gentleman, also in England, fbrrnerly a member of the
council of India—Mr. Wilberforce Bird—had stated, that the
papers and documents submitted proved the rajah to have
been long engaged in • treasonable conspiracy, by which he
had infringed the treaty of 1819: that the case ought not to
be treated judicially; but that a critical end dispassionate
inquiry having established his guilt, and condemn, d him,
he ought to be set aside. Mr. Robertson, who became a
member of the council while the proceedings were pending,
who was also a man of the highest character, and who had
conducted the government of the north-western provinces,
drew the conclusion, from an accurate summary of the whole
ev:denoe, that his highness had incurred the penalty pre-
scribed for a breach of the fifth article of the treaty of 1819.
All these proceedings had been transmitted to the home
authorities. Still there was the greatest disinclination
on the part of the Board of Control, to proceed to en.
tremities; and when Sir J. Carnac was sent out to India, the
last words he (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) addressed to him, were a
request to deal leniently with this prince. Before reaching
Bombay, Sir James became acquainted with the opinions of
the Indian government aa to the deposition of the rajah;
but, preferring to act on his own kindly feeling., and in con-
formity with the instructions of the Court of Director., he
wished to give the unfortunate prince an opportunity of re-
tracing his steps. He resolved that the rajati should remain
on the throne on eandition simply of his renewing the treaty,
which was couched in terms that could not for a moment be
supposed objectionable to his highness. The rajah did not
object to the preamble (as bad been stated by the hon. mem-
ber for Montrose), though it contained a statement that the
government of India had suspicions of him fidelity. His ob-
jections were to the second article of the treaty, which be
alleged would reduce him to the condition of a mere steward
or puppet. But this was, in fact, an objection to the
original treaty, which made him in all things subject
to the advice and control of the British government.
This objection was of itself a conclusive proof that the
charges against the rajah had been justified. (Hear.) Could
anything have been more fair or reasonable than to ask him
again to ratify the original treaty ? (Hear.) This was dodo
in the most kindly spirit ; and even when the refusal was
made, Sir James Carnac gave the rajah every opportunity of
retracting it, by refusing four times to accept his answer,
and sending after him to his country-house to press for a
more favourable reply. But as no compliance could be
obtained, Sir James proceeded to take that course which the
Indian government might meet properly have taken long
before—to deprive him of his sovereignty. It had been
alleged by the hon. member for Montrose that the govern- I
meat had deposed an independent prince (which he was not),
and had sent him a beggar through the world. When on
his throne he had an income of between 130,0001. and
140,000!. a year, out of which he had his forces and house-
hold to pay ; he had now 12,0001. a year, in addition to a
further allowance recently made ; so that he was probably
a richer man than before. (Hear.) The fact that he had
700 followers proved that he was aot at all in indigence.
He now came to deal with the accusations that had been
made as to the manner in which the rajah had been removed
from his throne; and great stress had been laid by the bon.
member for Montrose on the way in which his highness had
been transferred from Sattara to Etenares. A petition had
been presented to that house in 1841, signed by a person
named Charles Forbes ; fortunately it had not been printed,
for it contained a most libelous letter. That petition charged
Cols Ovens with having invaded the ex-rajah's psthoe at dead
of night, and dragged him from his bed, the present rajah being
without, assisting in the outrage. He was hurried off to
&mares, under such circumstances of cruelty, that his cousin
died on the road, and his wife was refused a short stoppage
when she was confined. To these charges Col. Ovens replied,
by solemnly and unequivocally declaring that they were
false, and stated he was ready to depose to the facts on oath,
and offered to give the depositions on oath of the officers who
were with him. He declared that the ex-rajah had three
months to prepare for his journey, and that the journey of
927 miles took 109 days to perform • and all his expenses,
amounting to eight thousand pouads, were defrayed by the
present rajah—that a halt was allowed for the confinement
of the wife of the cousin of the rajah ; and that that prince
himself died suddenly, but of apoplexy. The hon. member
for Montrose, in the debate on this subject in 1846, charged
Col. Ovens with using seals which, if he had not forged him-
self, he knew to be forged. In the debate the other night,
however, the hon. member accused him only of subornation.
But Col. Ovens did not depend on these lath for proof of the
conduct of the rajah—and stated, in his despatch to the
Bombay government, that they were not those usually used
by the rajahthus showing that he placed no reliance upon
them. He (Sir J. Hobhouse) knew a man so abused
as Col. Ovana ; and If ever there was • conspiracy against a
public servant, it was against him. He would not
trouble the house with reading the character given to Colonel
Ovens, as what he had said would rafficiently exonerate him.
He now came to the opinions of Lord Auckland. The right
hon. gentleman then read the minute of Lord Auckland,
which was to the effect that after the obstinate refusal of the
rajah to needs to the tame offend to him, there was no
course left but is depose him—and to this step he gays his
full sanction sad approval. This being resolved on, all the
proceedings wme sent home, and he (Sr J. Hoblurase) was
never more surgebod than to find that his obstinacy had
brought this mammy of justice upon him. The pa mi were
laid before the Court of Director., end they concurred in the
opinion, and added their sanction anti approval to the pro-
ceeding. (The right hon. gentleman then read the
opinion of Mr. Edmondson, to the effect that this was
a political and not a judicial proceeding.) He would
now advert to the proceedings in this country. The
case had been submitted to the Court of Directors and
the Court of Proprieton repeatedly ; and when the
against Colonel Ovens were brought in a specific flitr;
Mr. George Thompson, before the Court of Proprietors, the
remelt was that not one person voted with. the mover—the
question being negatived 14*Mifle confradicente. This was
to be accounted for by Mr. G. Thempeon's not having stock
enough to entitle him to vote, though he had enough to
allow him to make a speech. Such was the good feeling and
sense of justice of that meeting, that the charge against this
gentleman was negatived. On the last octagon the
Court of Proprietors, by a large majority, decided
against this case being proceeded with. In conclud-
ing this long story, it appeared to him that it would
be a fatal example, if they were to take away, except
in a matter of argent necessity, and upon the clearest and
moat unquestionable grounds, from the authorities entrusted
by act of parliament and by the constitution a cam of this
kind, and leave it to be investigated by the House of Com-
mons. If those authorities misused their powers if
there were many instances of such misuse—if these authorities
did not govern for the benefit of the people over whom they
preaided, let parliament re-consider the nature of the powers
entrusted to them, let it diminish them, and subjest them to
the supervision of this house; but he would warn his hon.
friends behind him that if they broke through the general
principle, except in a case of the very clearest kind, the
would etrike a blow at our greet Didion empire fromwhich

it would not soon recover. (Beer' hear.) They would do
it mere effectually if they showed a distrust of the authorities
sent to govern that country, who, he was not afraid to say, bad
not hitherto abused thefr trust. In this case they bad the
decisions of three governors of Bombay, of one governor-
general of India, of two councils of this and of the other
house of parliament. Aad when the subject wee brought,
in May, 1846, before the other house of parliament, Lord
Brougham said that, if their lordships wished to have all the
case before them, it would be necessary to read the report of
Sir R. Grant, from the perusal of vellieh document he him-
I self came to the conclusion that the decision against the
rajah wet a just one. Such was the opinion of Lord
Brougham. Let them, then, not abandon their public ger-
vests, but let the house stand by them. If they abused
their trust, let them be punished; but do not on every
trifling occasion abandon them to calumnies which may
send them prematurely to their graves. (Hear.)
Mr. EWART thought that they should not lightly aban-
don their public servants, but the question was whether this
was not a case that ought to be inquired into. He did not
think that this was to much a case of inquiry into the
charges against the Rajah of Setters, as of inquiry into the
conduct of those who tried and convicted the rajah. He thought
that the speech of the right hon. gentleman had failed to
niche out a good case for those who so deposed that prince.
The right hon. gentleman said that Lord Auckland and Sir
It. Grant came to an opinion averse to the rajah, but he did
not tell the house that they were of opinion that the case
deserved to be re-investigated. (Hear.) The right bon.
gentleman quitted the opinions of General Briggs and Gene-
ral Lodwick ; but their censures on the rajah were very light
indeed, and they afterwards changed their opinion with
regard to his guilt. He considered that the rajah had been
meat harshly dealt with by the commission, in not having
been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who were
. .

producedagainst him, or to employ counsel in his defence.
One of the facts alleged against the rajah was that he held a
correspondence with Don Manuel De Goa, for the introduc-
tion of 30,000 French and Portuguese troops into India. But
Don Manuel De Goa himself denied that ho ever had any
correspondence with the rajah; and he (Mr. Ewert)
believed that he did not even know the name.
The rajah, when taken, was conveyed to a small cottage
overrun with rats and other vermin; and that was quite as
bad as aka had been at once hurried off to a distance. The
house had been referred to the opinion of Mr. Edmonson,
that the case was a political one. Such a defence as that, if
admitted at all, would justify any kind or degree of oppres-
sion. The right boo. gentleman justified the secret commis-
sion by raying that in India all commissions were a secret ;
ground as untenable as the defence of the inquisition, by
saying that its proceedings had always been of a private na-
ture. (Hear, hear.) He could not admit that the special
pleading of the right hon. gentleman justified the course pm-
sued by the Indian government. It would be wise and jest
to establish some new species of tribunal to decide this case •
all existing means of redress having repeatedly failed. Thi
character of the Indian government and of the British na-
tion imperatively required that justice should be done to the
deposed rajah.
Mr. BORTHWICK said the impression created in his
mind by the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. C.
Hobhouse) was that he had completely establishedthe ease
of the hon. member for Montrose, and that he had, in fast,
a secret leaning to that hon, member's motion. (Hear.)
The right hon, gentleman had spoken of the rajah as sly.
He would ark for which of the rajah's qualities was It
that the Indian government gave him first a throne and then
a sword ? (Hear, hear.) The latter event took place after
21 years' experience of the rajah's character, and it was a most
unusual event in India. He would not weary the
house by repeating the details of the case, but it was
evident that the competent authorities of India had declared
that the rajah was innocent. He agreed with the right hon.
gentleman as to the necessity of supporting the dignity of
public servants in India ; but there could be no better means
of doing so than by granting an inquiry which would prove
the truth of their statements. If the rajah were guilty of
the damning crime which had been imputed to him, it could
not be right that he should be enjeying 120001. a year at
Benares. (Hear, hear.) It was due to the Rajah of SaUara,
to the British officers in India, and to English interests,
that as inquiry should take place under the authority of
parliament.
Dr. BOWRING urged that there had been five agents at
the court of Sattara, of whom four had given strong evi-
dence in the rajah's favour. The Court of Directors had
themselves, not many years since, paid the highest possible
tribute to the excellencp. of the rajah's government. There
were absolutely, at the present time, 18 of the directors who
were favourable to the case of the rajah. The late chairman
(Sir J. W. Hogg), who was accustomed to the administration
of justice—
An Hoe. Miutia: East India justice. (Loud laughter.)
Dr. BOWRINO —Even that learned chairman had found
the utmost difficulty in making out anything hke a charge.
Out of doors the feeling was widely extending itself that this
unfortunate prince was grossly abused, and that no justice
was to be expected for him in India. The preseat appeal
might be made in vain, but ultimately justice would—it
must be—triumphant. (Cries of " Question.")
Mr. B. ESCOTT observed that there bad been no answer
given to this charge. The late chairman of the Board of
Directors sat mute. (Hear, hear.) Did he fear that
he could rant prove the justice of the rajah's de-
position? What had the right honourable baronet
(Sir J. C. Hobhouse) proved ? Nothing. (Cheers.)
Why had he not laid before the house the evidence upon
which he =tamed the ease to rest ? (Hear, hear.) On that
evidence the house might have parsed its judgment. The
right bon, baronet said the ease rested on documentary evi-
pence, and that evidence had not been produced. He had
made a very clever defence for his own purpose, but he had
not stated the treaty, or the evidence of its infraction, and
'he bad only read a string of opinions from servants of the
Indian government in support of the views of that govern-
ment. (Hear, hear.) Was not the time come when this
question must be inquired into in deference to the feeliag
of the public. (Hear, hear.) The general feeling was. that
the man had been unjustly deposed, and the reluctance
which had been shown to enter into an examination of the
case gave ground for the suspicion that justice was deniedto
him, and that there was no substantial case to be =ads out
against him. (Hear.) It was a grievous thing to think that
charges should be made against a man teethe British govern-
ment which there was no attempt to sustain ; and, until this
case was cleared up, it would remain a blot on English jus-
tice to the end of time. (Cheers.)
Sir E. COLEBROOK E supported the motion.
Sir J. W. HOGG considered that the case of the hon.

member for Montrose had been completely demolished by
the right hon. baronet opposite. The hoe. baronet having
recapitulated the circumstances of the case, which have
already been fully reported, proceeded to contend that the
rajah's case had been fairly investigated and justly decided
upon. The commission appointed to ihquire into the cir •
cumstances sat for 26 days, and at the end pronounced him
guilty. The finding was signed by Col. Ovens. The com-
mission sat in Setters, the very spot on which the crimes
was alleged to have been committed; and yet the hon. mem.
ber was not satisfied. The hon. member now contended
that a
.commission sitting in London, ten years after the
facts, would have been better. The hon. member eked,
why give a guilty man 12,0001. a year ? It was the prac-
tice of the Indian government to provide for deposed princes:
they gave the held of the Mahratta confederacy 80,0001. a year.
But it was complained that the rajah had been removed frem
his palace ; but where had he been removed to after his
deposition ? Why, to his own country seat, within seven
miles of his palace, where he remained full three months
making preparations for his journey to Benues, which was
quietly performed at the rate of nine mites a day. So
much, then, for that cause of complaint. Then it was
charged that Colonel Ovens had suborned witnesses
against the rajah, and had obtained documents which bore
forged seals. It appeared, howeverAfrom the blue book,
that when Col. Ovens sent these papers to the government,
he distinctly informed them that the seals appended to the
documents were not the seals of the rajah. But then it was
said that he paid 400 rupees for certain papers, to be used in
evidence. What was the fact ? It was notorious that in
India nothing was more common than to pawn papers, title.
deeds, and documents of all sorts and description. On in-
formation be received, Colonel Ovens reported to the
government that these documents had been pawned for 400
rupees, and the government furnished the money, and directed
the papers to be redeemed; and that was all the evidence
purchased, except the payment of 160 rupees for the expenses
of a witness who refused to come forward unless those ex
penes were paid. The hon. member for Bolton had stated
that out of the twenty-four directors, eighteen had been
favourable to the rajah. This was erroneous. At the time
the decision took place there were nineteen directors preeent,
of whom fourteen voted that the rajah was guilty, and
five voted the opposite way. With respect to the
charges insinuated against Colonel Onus, he believed
the character of that gallant officer stood too high to make it
necessary for any inquiry into his conduct. Indeed, if he
himself were to ask the court of directors for an inquiry, he
trusted they would have the firmness to refuse it. (Hear.)
If public servants were not supported is painful duties LI
the authorities, the results would be most fatal. To the
honour and integrity of their officers, the company owed the
prosperity of their empire ; and, se they never shrank from
punishing them when they departed from the line of duty,
so was it their duty to support them when they acted
uprightly. (Hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS said he should roes in favour of the
inquiry sought by the hon. member for Montrose. An
inquiry was most desirable, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the sentence had not been unjust; and he believed
that the refusal arose from a reluctance to disturb that de-
cision. There was a feeling on the part of all official and ex-
official gentlemen against reversing any of their decisions.
The contradiction between the two opinions expressed by
Genera Lodwick was of itself a very etre , reason for in-
quiry. Nor did he believe that the 12,1111. a year which
the rejah was said to possess could at all influence the com-
mittee who should conduct that inquiry. The instances that
had been adduced of the absurd schemes entertained by the
ragas, such as his fitting out a ship for Europe, could not be
accepted as proofs of his entertaining treasonable designs, but
rather of his incapacity for such projects. Though it was
said that no inquiry would be granted to Colonel Oran*, that
was no reason for refusing the inquiry demanded by the hon.
member for Montrose, which he considered essential to the
integrity and prosperity of our Indian empire. (Hear.)
Kr. HUME, in reply, said he was in possession of
offers from an individual to prove the whole conspiracy.
The numbers were—For going into supply 44
For Mr, Hume's amendment 23-21.
The house then went into committee of supply pro forma,
and afterwards, at a quarter put one, adjourned.

FOREIGN AGENTS IN INDIA.—We hear that the
Austrian government, imitating that of Francs, is about to
send a consul to Calcutta, and that the Austrian Lloyd Com-
pany has named agents for the three presidencies of Cal-
cutta, Madras, end Bombay, for the enterprise of the steam-
packets, which will begin their service in the mouth of
August neat, direct from Alexandria to Trieste.