The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-12 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 12, 1848,

little fortune in that ooantry. He (Mr. 0. Thompson) i
pledged himself to prove tht se charges before a committee.
The next ckarge he had to bring against Col. Ovens related
to the imprisonment of Govind Row, at Ahmednugger,
for the parpme of extorting evidence from him
calculated to criminate the RAjah of Setters;
and the statements of Mr. Hutt, made seven
years after the transaction, proved that such was the case.
Having read various documents conneded with this transac-
tion, the hon. member stated that the mother of Govind
Row had petitioned the Bombay government on his behalf,
but that Col. Ovens neglected to forward the petition for a
considerable time. The hon. member then quoted at great
length extract' from correspondence passing between Mr.
Hutt, Mr. Wapping, end others, relative to a confession
attributed to Grind Row, and much relied on by the op-
, ponents of the rajah, hut which the hon. member contended
had been extorted by fraud, and was not to be taken in
any sense as a trustworthy document. It was obtained by
subornation, was in contradiction to his previous statements,
and was not made until he had been for fourteen doy,
subject to the arts of an influential and unprincipled

relation.
An Hon. MEMBER here moved that the house be counted,
but forty members being present,
Mr. THOMPSON resumed, contending that, for the sake
of Col. Ovens himself, for the sake of his profession, and
for the sake of jueticc, the house should grant the inquiry
fur which he asked.
Mr. HUtIE seconded the motion.
Mr. ELLIOT complained that the hon, member asked for
an inquiry which he himself knew could not be carried out,
because there was no possible way of getting the greater por-
tion of the necessary evidence. The principal charge was
against Col. Ovans, but that gentleman's character stood
too high to fur any assault. (Hear, hear.) The
inquiry proposed was simply impossible. They were called
on to try two governors-general of India who had gone to a
better world, and a gentleman who, acting under the govern-
ment of India, had received repeated tokens of the approba-
tion of that ezovernment. Before the hon. member for the
Tower Hamlets persevered in demanding this inquiry, he
should prove himself tree from pecuniary inferest or personal
iinimmity in the matter. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member '
attacked the characters of men whose names would live long
after his own had been forgotten. (Order.) Ho (Mr. Elliot) I
charged the hon. member with being, or having been, a paid
agent of the late Rajah of Sahara, and he asked whether
that was a fit position for a member of that house. (Hear,
hear.) At all events, it gave him a pecuniary interest
in the matter, and rendered it necessary that his
statements should be received with caution. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. meinner proceeded, on the authority of a letter, to
charge the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets with being
a sort of travelling philanthropic agent for the native princes
of India. The letter, amongst other things, charged Mr.
Thompson with having agreed with the King of Delhi, to
come to England as his raker' to advocate his claims. That
for this service he received 5001. for his expenses to Delhi,
and a salary of 1,2001. a year. That pending his negotia-
tions with the King of Delhi, Mr. Thompson lived in state
at the royal palace, to the great dissatisfaction of the
royal family, who had each to contribute his or her
quota to supply what was called the "Thompson purse."
The letter also charged Mr. Thompson with sending a.repart
of his speech at the Inaliallouse to Delhi, which, it was
stated, made a great impression on the meeting. This pro.
duced so much joy that guns were ordered to he fired on the
occasion ; but when the rajah was informed that the version
of the report sent out was one that appeared in the Indian
Advocate, which wss supposed to be edited by Mr. Thomp-
son himself, and that it was given differently in the usual
London papers, the order was countermanded, and not a
gun was find. (Laughter.) The rajah also said that Mr.
Thompson should not pocket another rupee.
Mr. THOMPSON.—By whom was that letter written?
Mr. ELLIOT.—It was a statement by Capt. Angelo, who
was commandant of the Palace guard at the time these
occurrences took place, and he was ready to verify it before
the committee. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Thompson.) The
rajah was hound by agreement to act in subordination to the
British government, cud to consult the resident on all occa-
sions. fhe rajah had violated those stipulations. The hen.
gentleman said that the rajah was not guilty, but he did nut
say that the evideuee was not etrong enough to convict him.
The hon. gentleman Lad recourse to an old Indian expe-
dient, well knawn to those who were acquainted with that
country—namely, of charging the witnesses in the case with
perjury and forgery. The hon. gentleman had accused re-
spf etable and honourable men of being suborners of perjury,
aunt in taking that course he followed the example of the
lowest vakeels. The hon. gentleman mid that Mr. Shake-
speare did not think the rajah was guilty, but he f wget to
add that Mr. Shakespeare died three veers before the
inquiry was brought to a chase. ''he hon ourable
gentleman next appealed to Col. Lodwick, who was
the resident at SALVOS, an 1 said that it he had been
examined, he would Lave borne out his statements. W.
-11,
what did Col. Loolwick say? lie says. "Since 18Sii,
when I remonstrated with the rajah on the impropriety of
his sending commissioners to England to represent his case
without consulting me, as he was bound to do by treaty,
ho
acts as if he was independent of the treaty, and ahave all
control." (Hear, hear.) lie adds, "that the rajah con-
sidered himself an injured prince." (Hear, hear.) But
the injury consisted in the government not attending to his
claims as speedily as he wished. The rajah evidently was
not a person of very shame mind, for on one occasion a
ghost was introduced to him, with whom he conversed for
three hours. The rajah believed Al this, and said he should ,
ask the ghost to dinner. (Laughter.) The whole case had
been investigated by the persons the most competent
to inquire into it, and they were never more convinced of the
truth of any case than of the facts alleged against the rajah.
Mr. Robertaon and Mr. Bled investigated the ease with every
disposition to find the rajah innocent, hut they found the
facts too strong. The hon. gentleman mil that the rajah had I
no trial. Did not the hon. gentleman know that it would
be the greatest indignity to the rajah to bring him into a
court of justice as a witness ? (Hear.) This was a political
case, and the rajah had that description of trial whicu arm
peans in the service Mite government of India had. (" No,
no," from Mr. Thompson.) lie could tell the hon. gentle.
man that the fact was so, and he could give numerous in-
rances in proof of what he advanced. The hon. gentleman
said that Col. Lodwick regretted that he signed the report
made by the commissioners who infra stigated the case of the
rajah. Would Col. Lodwick say that the report was not
true, and that the evidence which lie gone himself before the
commission was net true ? If Col. L olwick was so lust to
all sense of feeling as to say that the report was not
true, and that the evidence was not true, and
that the rajah am an innocent man, why he could only
say then that he would place him (Mr. Elliot) in that posi-
tion that he must rather believe Col. Lodwick on his oath,
than in making a different statement before a committee,
after he had been dismissed the service. The honourable
gentleman, in a speech made at the India House
on the 18th of March, 1846, charged the government
with making overtures to the rajah through Major Carpen-
ter. The government called on Major Carpenter, in con-
sequence
of that a atement, to explain the facts ; and Major
Carpenter in his reply said that a gra at part of the conversa-
tion stated to have passed between them !the rajah and
himself) was purely imaginary—that nothing had passed to
warrant the conclusion that he had made any offer of com-
promise directly or indirectly to the rajah; but still, that
there was much truth blended with what had been stated
(s' hear, hear," from Mr. Thompson), and that he did not
desire to impeach the Tamil. of the rajah, or of his friends
in England. (Hear, hear.) The rajah had been from the be-
ginning the dime of de.igning men, and the greatest of all
misfortunes that cold befall a native prince was to fall into
the hands of European agents. (Hear, hear.) That wee
not only his opinion; it was also the opinion of Sir J.
Malcolm and others, who were well acquainted with India.
What was said to this very prince on his being placed upon
the throne ? Mr. Elphinstone urged h.m to discard the low
intriguing agents from his councils ; and Sir Carnac en-
forced this olinion. Col. Ovens, in still further impressing
the same views, had no doubt given offence to the interested
advocates of the rajah at Bombay and elsewhere. To those
agents the rajah had paid up to 1836 no less than 36,3001.
Why this fact might of itself account for the distresses which
the rajah was reported to have suffered. In feet nothing could
be stronger than the proofs of the dreadful effectsof this system
of European agencies. Some of these European agents had
been known to give private information of a dangerous nae ,
ture to the rajah, and to powers hostile toßritish supremacy. '
Such facts proved the danger of going into inquiries of the
sort now moved for. The hon. member, in one of his news- 1
papers, had given them a taste of what he expected if he
could succeed in this and similar motions.
Mr. O. THOMPSON.—I deny all you say, and I chal-
lenge you to the proof. (Order.)
Mr. ELLIOT.—The hon. member may have forgotten
it. He may have a short memory. It is were likely he has;
but my authority is good, and I can prove that the hoot:
member asked for remuneration from the King of Delhi.
Mr. G. THOMPSON (emphatically).-1 deny it. I deny
it. It is not true. (Order.)
Mr. ELLIOT.-1 repeat, the hon. member may have
forgotten it. Scm' time has passed, and his memory may
be short. But what I say is this,—if the ban, member
carries this committee, ho may, if ho pleases, go out to
Delhi. and he may, also, it he pleases, come back with
100,0001. in his pocket. All the dissatisfied would rally
round him. He would have as many constituents in India
as he pleased. Once let his success be known there, and all
the people in the country who have any complaints to make
will resort to him. And not only will he enrich himself,
but I say emphatically he will do more than any one has
ever done to ruin the British rower in India. He conjured,
then, upon these grounds, the refusal of the committee.
Mr. HUME said his experience in India did not warrant
him in giving such a character of the government as that
given by the last speaker. He believed the natives were
grossly aggrieved. But what he wanted was to bring back
the house to the motion now before them. The hon. mem-
ber had endeavoured to evade the question. He had draw*
a red herring acrstis the scent with the view to draw off the
hounds. But the trick would not succeed. He accused his
hon. friend with being an hired agent. Why, what was the
hon. member himself? (Hear, hear.) He was nothing but
an haired agont. (Hear, bear.) He meat nit think
to blacken the character of an individual by such
insinuations instead of dealing with the facts. :The
hon. member was very fond of this sort of attack. lie
had once assailed the hen, member for Finsbury in the same
way, and his attack had retailed upon himself, Nothing
could be more unjust or unfair than his reference to Delhi •
and his insinuations were as groundless as they were hide:
feasible. The charges against Col. Ovens were twelve in
number. An inquiry into them was asked. What did they
think of an officer, a man of honour, forsooth, trying to pre-
vent that investigation ? (Hear.) One of the charges was for
intercepting correspondence. Wu it in bia former capacity of
a postmaster that the hon. gentleman declined to grant a com-
mittee as to that charge ? (Laughter.) Another charge was,
that Col. Ovens suppressed the most material evidence ' • that
he gave the government information that was wholly false
and suppressed all that which he knew to be true. Why,
was that s fact or not ? Let it be inquired into. It was as a

last resource they came to that house. But he did not ask
pegarglfroidriay.comifmtihteteey
didof nthoattihtokuse..o.lll
iaattiLedthfoarprt-
gper tribunal, let them appoint a commission. (Hear, bear.)
Let their commiuion consist of an men they pleased ; he
did not care who they were. (Hear, hear.) It they did
this he should be satisfied. But without inquiry neither he
nor the country would be satisfied, and certainly Col. Ovens
and his friends, and his fellow soldiere ought not to be satis-
fied with less.
Sir J. W. HOGG stood before the h3llO to vindicate the cha-
racters of men as honourable as any who ever served in India,
men with whom, if they were guilty, he himself was pa rficeps
crinsinis. He disapproved of the way in which this motion
had been brought forward. It had now been upon the
paper ever since December. The discussion had been from
time to time postponed to impoesible days. The motion had
been allowed to lapse. It had not been brought forward
when it might; and yet the hon. member had allowed
calumnies of the basest kind to hang for months not only
over Colonel Ovens' head, but over some of the most
honourable men in India. (Hear, hear.) One of
his calumnies was against Sir James Carnac, one of
the most honourable men who ever served in India. Ile
said that Sir James Carnac was threatened in council with
disclosures personally disgraceful to himself, if he did not
throw overboard the Rajah of Setters. Did be attempt to
substantiate that charge tonight t D.d he venture to
repeat it? Not a bit. He did not even allude is it:
he did no attempt to apologise for it, which he ought to
have donet . Such a charge had, of course, given the
greatest pain and suffering. Fortunately the only two mem-
bers of council at the time, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Parish,
were at this moment in this country, and he would read a
letter from Mr. Anderson, enclosing a letter from Sir J.
Carnac's son, requ sting him to solicit Sir J. llobhouse or
Sir J. liogg to retute in the House of Commons the calum-
nies cast upon his father's memory by Mr. G. Thempsom and
that he would state all he knew of the transaction. Mr. An.
demon in his letter denied in the most positive manner that
any such threats had been uttered as were alleged by the hon.
member to have been made to Sir J. Carnac by his council,
or either of them, so far as he was aware, and added that
such threats could not have barn made without his know-
ledge. Mr. Anderson concluded by stating that a man of
higher honour or more strict integrity had lever lived. He
had also received a letter from the only other member of the
council, Mr. Principe, to the same effect. Mr. Anderson, who
accompanied Sir J. Cainac in his interviews with the ex-
rejah, also distinctly denied that there was any truth
in the statement of the hon. member for Moat-
rcse that the ex rajah bad objected to the preamble
of the treaty. lied he done so, Sir J. Carne
would have been nestled with the signing of the stipula-
tions. Upon these matters they had the statement of Sir
.1. Carnac in the blue book, and of Mr. Anderson now, and
if they had 100 committees, they could obtain no more
infor.oation. In the debate in April last, the hon. gentle-
man (Mr. G. Thompson) said there was no generosity in re-
storing the ex-rajah—that he held an influential and inde-
pendent pesition at the time. Had that been the case, Mr.
Elphinstone could never have entered into negotiation'
with the Peshawar, who was the real representetive of the
sovereignty. The hon. gentleman had at the India-house,
previews to the debate in the House of Commons, referred to
Mr. l'rinceps' book, to show that the'. xmajah was in an
influential station, and that Mr. Elphinstone had entered
into private negotiation with him; and though on that occa-
sion Mr. Princeps got up end denied that the statements in
his book bore any such construction or were intended to do
so, the hon. member again referred to them in the House of
Commons. (War, hear.) He did not deny that the ex•
rajah had managed his country well. Phis had been
acknowledged both by the Court of Directors reel the Bom•
bay goverment; and it was et the r. coalmen:laden of
that government that the address and complimentary
sword Is .d been sent to the rejeh, which arrived
at the very period of the Jugadah squabble.
When the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets brought for-
ward his charges against Col. Ovens Defer° the court of
director', both the mover and seconder being only holden of
stock to the extent of NU (which entitled to speak but not
to vote), were obliged to walk out of the house before the
division, and every one of those charges were negatived.
stern. con. (Hear, hear.) His " raw head and bloody
bones" stories did very we.l for old ladies and tea parties,
hut they would not go down with the intelligent h..ilt rs of
East India Stock. As for the hon. member for Montrose,
he hail never been seen at the E tat India House but once,
notwithstanding all he had said of gross outrage and injus-
tice to the liejah of Setters. A letter appeared from him,
of thri e columns in lenteh, in the Tunes newspaper, which
Was full of the most false conclusions, misstatements, and
perversions—he had had that letter published as well, in
the form of a pamphlet, and sent one of them to every pro-
prietor, and then he did come to the East India Howe and
reiterated the charges contained in it. But what good did
the letter do him, and what was its elf, et? Why that,
although unaccompanied by any antidote except what it c.n-
Mined within itself, and after ringing the bell and sounding
the trumpet, he got 19 supporters to his ameication out of
2,100 —( near ar.d a laugh)—while, out of 30 directors only
four had signed' a dissent from an acquiescence in the guilt
of the rajah. Although the question bad never been one
session ell the vote paper, the hon. member for Montrose
always satisfied himself by making his speech, but never
went to a division but once. In his letter he stated, and
this was the gravamen of the whole case, that the rajah hail
been condemned unheard and without even knowing the
charges against him ; and he (Sir J. Hoeg) was willing to
place the whole ease up) a that Single issue. What said the
resident at Batten, who caused the commission to be issued ?
—that attempts were made to seduce our sepoys. This
infermation had been given by General Lodwick himself,
end it was impoesible for the government to reluse an in-
quiry into the ch urge. That inquiry had been conducted by
a commesion impartially chosen. At its herd had been Ge-
neral Lodwick, the resident at the court of Sattara, Mr.
Willoughby, the chief secretary at Bombay, and the ap-
pointment of the third commissioner showed how anxious
Sir It. Grant had been that the inquiry should be impar-
tially conducted. He applied to Lord sae, then the
commander of the forces, to name an officer who was ac-
quainted with the language and habits of the people, and
Lord Keane appointed Colonel Ovens, who was then quar-
ter-master-general of the forces, who km w no one at Sat-
' Ws, had never been there, and consequently could have no
bias. The instructions issued to the commission hail been to
conduct the inquiry in such a manner as iu their judgment
would be best calculated to arrive at the troth. On the first
inquiry they were not setistielwith the statements of the two
native officers, upon whose testimony the charge of seducing
the Sepoye rested, and they required ieformatien as to the
character of those two witnesses, and from Major Wilson and
others they ascertained their characters to be good. The
assistance of an agent, or vakme was offered to the
rajah on the inquiry, but declined. As Boon
as a prima facie case had been established, the
rajah was called in—the whole of the evidence read over to
him, and an offer made to recall the witnesses. in order that
they might Im re-examined in his presence. This the rajah
declined, observing that they would only say the same thing
over aza n. He attended the inquiry four or live times—he
gave in written memoranda and statements, called witnesses,
and examined thee, sod yet it was said he had beer kept in
ianotance of the charges which had been made aeainst
and that he had been afforded no opportunity of repudiating
them. The report made by the commissioners declared the
70.01 to be gull y. No doubt Gen. Lodwick had si es
changed his o inion, and stated that thou-;h he had settled
the report, yet be had ineuciel the other c mmiesione rs to
make such changes and alterations in it as to enable him to
reconcile it to his conscience to sign it under protest. This
was denied be Mr. Willoughby and Cal. Ovens, who de-
clared that they had never heard from the lips of Gen. Lad.
wick one word of dissent; and the original draft of the report
exhibited no such chances or alterations es had been sug-
Rested. The whole proem. dings of the commission had beeu
submitted to Sir Hebert Grant and Lord Auckland, both of
whom concurred in the opinion that the rajah had been
proved to be guilty, not only of attempting to seduce the
wpm, from their allegiance, but of traitorous intercourse both
with the authorities at Goa and with the ex-rajah of Nagpore.
One member of the court, Sir James Cantu, had taken a
very favourable opinion of the rajah's cam before he went
to Setters; when there, he remonstrated with the rajah,
and used every possible ar,eumenteo induce hjm to sign an ad-
herence te the original treaty, which he doubtless would have
done but for the interference of agents, who taught the
nteives to believe that they might disregard the local au-
thority, having the court of directors, the board of centrol,
end parliament to refer to. If this system were allowed to
be persevered in there would he an end of oar Indian em-
pire. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. Ceram only sought from the
rajah a declaration of adherence to the original treaty ; but
being unable to obtain this the man was necessarily con
demned. The (+lry which had been brought forwent was no
charge against Col. Ovens,' but a mere attempt to rip up the
whole case of the rai ere It was a common course
in India, in order to re-open a ease, to charge
all the witnesses with perjury, and say that all
the documents wen forged ; and this was precisely the course
Pursued here. (Hear, he. r.) He denied that Cul. Ovans
had entered into cemmunieetion and treaty for procuring
Was
:at: aetnitcdhe
ei htdchuyet wereywit witnesses
:ha' ht
co: dr
procure voluntarilyfo, treasonable wtroedm papers.t themselves,
t
lepers to be produced ?r Most undoubtedly ; for there would
beno security against treason even in this country if the
officers of government were not to act on such information
when they received it. It was trao the s tine fellow who bed
offered to produce these treasonable p spars had also gone to
the rajah, and endeavoured to obtain money from him for
omf ece tei not:1110e
vcshatr g
he
e,•
sea nnelt
Informationw en h es
omf e
theto wholethe k nuopwtloe (It gh ee
government. notad discharged his duty fully and honour-
aely, and ough to have been selected by the hon. mem-
ber for the Tower Hamlets for this attack, which would
more properly have been directed against the Indian
government, or the court of directors, or the board of
control. (Hear, hear.) The second charge, of obtaining
copies of the rajah's letters, was true, but it was perfectly
justified by the suspicions entertained against him. Even
his agent, Runge Bapojee, had written several treasonable
letter ,--one of which, written at the time of the Affghan
war, gave information of all the intended movements of our
troops, and expressed a confidence that the English would
seen be expellee from the country. (Hear, hear.) The
next charge was the removal of Govind Row. He had been
found guilty of treason at the Caine time as the rajah. After
he was sent to Poonah he continued his treasonable tricks,
and had to be removed again. It was said. he had been used
to extort a confession from his mother, which was actually
made eight or 10 months before Govind Row was sent to the
implicated, hear.) Li this charge Mr. Hutt had been
; but as soon as the charge reached India Mr.
Hutt at once rebutted it, ar.d solemnly declared that the
confession of Govind Row was perfectly voluntary, and that
Col. Ovans was IA miles distant from the place at the time.
(Hear, hear.) Mr. Hutt also denied tout the man had been
imprisoned in a dungeon, er that any coercion bad beenused.
There vid
was one charge more to which he would allude,
namely, to the suppression, so it was called, of eence.

--------------
Now there was a summary of all the evidence in the case
under the hand of Col 01SIM and the weight of the charge
against Col.Ovans was tee suppression from the summary of a
petition. Now, the petition itself was of
.no consequreenacer,
but it implicated a Isrge number of parties who
.we
who
-
rested, and it therefore became important to consider
andee
e?
tparticularsthree yearsand
ha!
published because they implicated third parties, but the go-
vernment knew all about It. Why, was there ever
.an
thfwo be-
fore evidencete
thet rajah Inquiries
w wreassenwdteisurmepiamtaddte.l4 The particular' were not
stance of a public man in the discharge of his
.duty
attempted to be hunted down upon such false maw:options?
(Hear, hear.) But what had become of the charge of cor-
ruption urged three years airoagainstCol.Oviths? Not sword
was said upon the subject tomight. They did not dare
on this
to
say a word upon the subject. C• I. Ovens' honour
point was impeached on the evidence of one of the basest
and most infamous of the natives, and so reckless and
groundless was the accusation that rn,mbers of the colonel's
family were absolutely charged with participating in the
corruption who had never been in India in their
lives. But the hon. members were certainly complaining
of the suppression of a document several years old,
which was commonly known as Major Cartwright's docu-
ment. " Where is the document," was the universal cry—
and echo answered "Where:" The house would be surprised
when they heard what this document was. It was nothing
me re than a statement of the rajah's case in the
English language prepared by his agents in England
and sent out to India, where the rajah put his
seal to it. Why, was such preposterous humbug ever heard ?
He did not regret the discussion also, because it would tend
to show that there was a public spirit and an honourable
feeling in that house which would protect public servants
against charges like that which had been brought forward
that evosing. (Cheers.)
Mr. ANSTEY admitted that the character of Col. Ovens
had been completely vindicad—(hear, heir)—at the same
time that he believed the case of the Rajah oft me
re-
maied whe it was. The speech of the hon. baronet who
hadn just sat down was in itself a proof that a mature and
calm inquiry was necessary, beeausc that speech contsieed
many inarcuracies, not of conclusions merely, but of state-
ment. (Cries of " Divide.") As he understood that it was
the object of the motion to obtain such an inquiry, he would
vote for it.
Mr. H. BERKELEY said that on a former occssinn he
presented a petition from Bristol. signed by 1,500 persons, in
favour of inquiring into the rajah's case. This be thought
to b • a large number on such a subject, and on inquiry he
found that all the signatures were in the hand-writing of
two persons. (Hear, hear.) Oue person said that the rajah
was no friend of his—(laughter)—and another said that if the
rajah was the Rajah of Sarawak, he had many eriends in
Bristol. (Loud laughter.) He saw by a return of the
Europeans who received salaries for services in India the
name of O. Thompson, for 1,000 rupees a month. It was
generally believed teat the hon. gentleman was in the
rajah's pay. (Hear, bear.)
Sir E. COLEBROOK E defended the conduct of the
Bombay government in respect to this case. He had voted
for investigation when the rajah was alive, but now that the
rajah was dead he thought that this long agitated question
should be allowed to rest. (Hear.) He would therefore
vote against the motion.
Ur. URQUHART said that as the dignity and honour of
England were concerned in the result of this matter, he did
not think that the death of the rajah altered the question.
He did not understand that he should be cried duwn be-
cause he was anxious to do his duty to India. (Divide.)
The hoe. member for Bristol had jeer. d at the petitions pre-
sented on this subject; but this case was not to be demoted
of in this way. A more solemn ease never came before
them, and the fair fame of England was tarnished by the
proceeding. (Oh.) The charges against the Rajsh of Sat-
tara would be ridiculous, if they were not atrozious. Col.
Ovens ho was ready to acquit upon the evidence in the
papers before them ; but he did so only upon that evidence ;
and to acquit that officer was only to baiug home the accusa-
tions to higher authorities.
Sie H. WILLOUGHBY said that in the autumn of 1842
Sir J. Carnac sought en interview with him, and told him
why he had deposed the Rajah of Sefton, and charged him
if ever the question occurred to vindicate his character. His
reason was that the rajah refused to accept the basis of the
treaty made with him in 1819. (Hear, hear.) But whether
the charge; against the Rajah of Satter' were true or false,
Col. Ovens had nothing to do with the originating of them.
A more honourable man than Cul. Ovens never existed.
Mr. G. TIIOMI'SON rose to reply. Before ho proceeded
to vindicate his motives, he begged to say one word
on the speech of the hon. member for Roxburghshire.
If that hon. member had given him notice of his intention to
refer to the transaction concerning the King of D. 116, he
would only have acted with the ordinary courtesy of members
of the house. But for the satisfacti cof her Msieaty's go-
ys rnment he would make a clear breast of it. He had been
conferreil:with by two eminent mussulmen in Calcutta on the
affairs of the King of Delhi. He had consulted on those
affairs with Dwarganath Tagore, the sea of Ramohun Roy,
and persons eminent in the British service in India. Ile
had advised upon the case. The deputies were no doubt
authorised to make to him large offers, which,
however, he was sufficiently experienced to know would
never lie redeemed. He, however, went to Delhi, and whet-
ever he did there he did in entire communication with the
officers of the British government in Calcutta. He asked
for nothing; he stipulated far nothing; he never demanded
a penny remuneration from the king; and when the king
offered to pay him he refused to receive a farthing. Ile did
nothing except consent to act as the king's ageet in Eng-
land for one year; and he never since his return asked for or
received a single farthing iu any shape from the King of
Delhi. (Hear, hear.) Then as regarded the Rajah of Set-
ters, members did him too much honour when they attn.
buted to him personally the getting up of this agitation.
With respect to the Rajah of Sattara, he had never had any
intercourse with that prince save through the medium of
Major Carpenter, and he had never applied to him for any
agency or received from him any stipend. He had been ac-
tuated solely by a desire to see the rajah righted. But he
would tell the hon. member for Bristol that he (Mr. G.
Thompson) bad stated to the rajah that if he devoted his
time to his affairs instead of applying it to the purpose of
gaming his own livelihood he expected to be held harmless,
es he depended entirely on his own exertions for his live-
lihood ; aid if an inquiry were gone into, the house would
be astonished at the small sums remitted to him by
the rajah, considering the vast efforts that had been made on
his behalf. To advert to the ease of the rajah he thought
it would be more satisfactory to enter iuto a regular investi-
gation instead of relying upon the statements of individuals
with respect to the facts. lie stood upon the contents of the
blue books, and he was prepared to implore the house to grant
him a committee, in which case he would undertake to prove
the statements he had made respecting Col. Ovens. The
house had been told that the inquiry was to be of six years'
duration, but it would be no such thing. There were twelve
distinct charges against Col. Ovens, and he was prepared
to sustain them, and to prove 300 distinct cases of suppres-
sion of corer apondence by him. With respect to the state-
ment he had made as to the conduct of Sir James Carnac,
ho was prepared to maintain their truth before a secret com-
mittee, it such was granted.
The house then divided.—For the motion 8
Against it 77-69
BANKRUPTCY LAWS.
Mr. BOUVERIE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the bankruptcy and insolvency laws.
TRUSTEES RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill went through committee, and was reported to
the house.
The house adjourned at a quar'er-past two.