The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-03 00:00:00

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

Yesterday a special court of proprietors of East
India Stock was held at the company's house, in Leaden-
hall-street. The court was unusually crowded. In the
strangers' gallery were several ladies.—Henry Sc. George
Tucker, Esq., in the chair.
Mr. Home said he had long taken a deep interest in the
case of the Rajah of Satter*. There was a desire to stultify
the proceedings of the directors on the part of the govern-
ment. He had paid great attention to the affairs of India,
to which place he first went fifty-four years ago. He had
peculiar sources of information relative to what took place in
India. Our power there, though obtained by the eword, had
been consolidated by the sound principles of justice. If they
were now to break through treaties into which they had
deliberately entered, the natives of India would lose all con-
fidence in them. The case of the rajah was one which was
favourably viewed, he believed, by more than one-half of the
directors, particularly by the honourable ,gentleman
who then filled the chair. He disclaimed all hos-
tility to the directors or to the government of India.
He attributed to the government of Bombay the whole of
the disgraceful proceedings adopted in reference to the case
of the Rajah of Sattara, and the directors would make them-
selves parties to the gross injustice that had been done to
him if they persisted in refusing all inquiry into his case.
Ho complained of the continuance of a secret committee,
which completely usurped all the privileges of the court of
proprietors, which on many occasions had exceeded the
powers with which they were invested, got the company
into debt, and risked the permanence of the company's ter-
ritory in India, and in the present case had for years kept
back papers of the utmost importance, without which
no correct opinion could be formed on its merits.
Now that the forgeries that had been committed were
discovered and the truth was known, it was the ditty of the
court of directors to revise the whole of their proceedings,
particularly as the whole evidence against the Rajah,to say the
least of it, was unworthy of credit. In such a case the pre-
vious character of the Rajah ought to hays had some weight,
and the excellence of that character had been testified by a
resolution of the court of directors, and which was followed
up by the presentation to him of a sword of honour. (Hear.)
His death was no reason for stopping all inquiry into the
coarse of proceedings that had been adopted towards
him. The inquiry must proceed. Had they had all
the information which they now possessed the di-
rectors would not have acted towards him as they had
done. Why, therefore, should they not retrace their steps ?
It was said now that all further proceedings rested with the
Board of Control. Let the directors do their duty, and in-
stitute as inquiry, and if the Board of Control refused to
allow such an inquiry to proceed let the disgrace rest with
them. He did not ask the court to affirm that the Rajah
was innocent ; all he asked for was, that a full inquiry
should take place. The Governor-General of India had
given orders that he should have an open and fair trial, but
which order the government of Bombay refused to obey;
they also refused to let him have copies of the evideace that
had been taken against him. One of the witnesses had since
admitted that some of the documents which he had produced
against the Rajah were forgeries. Was that not a sufficient
ground for further investigation? For the honour of the
service, he hoped an inquiry wolffi take place into the
conduct of Colonel Ovens, by whom moot important
evidence in favour of the Rajah had been kept back
for upwards of eleven months. That court, he was sure,
would never make themselves parties to any such proceed-
ings. If the directors could not control the acts of their ser-
vants they were unworthy of the confidence that was reposed
in them by the proprietors. He concluded by saying that
he would never cease advocating the cause of the Rajah until
full inquiry was granted.
Before the motion was seconded the CHAIRMAN rose to
give an explanation on one point. No application had been
made for the removal of the Rajah from Benares on account
of his ill-health ; he was ill, but not from his residence at
Bemires, which was as healthy a place as any in India. Had
such an application been made it would have been imme-
diately granted.—Mr. LEWIS seconded the motion.
Mr. SAVAGE said a few words in favour of the resolutioa.
He knew of no case in which similar injustice had been done,
except that of the unfortunate Baron de Bode.
Mr. WEEDING opposed the resolution, and in doing so re-
plied to many of the observations made by Mr. Hume. He
denied that any witness had admitted that any of the docu-
ments exhibited against the Rajah were forgeries, or that
any important document had been withheld. Ile defended
the government of Bombay from the charges that had been
brought against it, and expressed his conviction of the guilt
of the ex-Rajah, and deprecated any further discussion with
reference to his case ; and, in support of his opinion, read
some long extracts from a letter written by Lord Auckland.
He hoped the resolution would be met by a motion for an
adjournment.
Mr. THOMPSON repeated the charges he had before made
against Col. Ovens, and openly charged the colonel with in-
tercepting and keeping back documents and evidence that
would have proved the innocence of the deceased rajah.
Mr. FRINSP.P and Mr. FIELDER having made a few
remarks,
Col. SEERS said the political rights of the late rajah had
died with him. His knowledge of the laws of the Hindosis
made him acquainted with this fact.
The CHAIRMAN said he wished to support the decision of
the majority of the court of proprietors. He would move
an adjournment, as that decision had been confirmed by
parliament and the Board of Control. The chairman moved
that the court do now adjourn.
Sir .1. L. LI/MINI:4EON (the deputy-chairman) seconded
the motion.
Mr. Hurrs, in reply, appealed to the court of proprietors
as the respoasiblegovernors of India, to vote for the reopen-
ing of the inquiry. The hon. proprietor, at considerable
length, addressed the court.
The numbers were then taken, when there appeared :
For the adjournment, 63 ; and against it, 26. The court
then adjourned.