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

EVENING, JULY 12, 1848.

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 his religion. Upon looking at the motion of the
Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, in every view of
its objects and its consequences, he (Hr. Anstey) felt
bound to give his vote in Livour of the resolution for
inquiry,
Mr. H. BERKELEY, as he bad presented a petition
from Bristol, purporting to be signed by the startling
number 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. He
found the whole 1,500 signatures were in the hand
writing of two persons. He wrote to ascertain whether
there was any excitement in Bristol on the subject of the
Raja of Sattara. One Gentleman said in reply,
" Really we are not acquainted with the gentleman."—
(Laughter.) Another said, "If it was Mr. Brooke who
was the Raja—(Laughter)—there was a great deal of
sympathy for him; but as for the Raja of Sattara,
nobody knew anything about him."—(Laughter.)
He held in his hand a return with the name of 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 questio❑ whether he was
in the pay of the Raja of Sattara?—(Laughter.)
Sir E. COLEBROOKE thought, after haviug gone
into the case, that Colonel Ovans 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 Ovans 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 11. 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 induced to depose the Raja of
.Sattara, and enjoined
him
stated to
state
that
the
it, if
reasonever t the
s esq ut
ee she
t lo nfu
shnodu lidn bt
he e rsaiinsge dl
e.
He
and simple consideration that, on investigation, he found
that the Baja of Sattara was unfriendly to those articles
which formed the basis of the treaty of 1819. As to
whether the charge against the Raja was true or false,
Colonel Ovans 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
Ovans 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
tam that those who heard the speech of the Hon. Member
for Roxburghshire 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
ho 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
i ton. 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 upon 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 redeye Nuzzers from persons not connected
with his own household or private jagheers. The first
individual I consulted for counsel and guidance was
I)warkanauth Tagore. He gave me much information
upon the subject, and referred me to the
eldest son of Bamohun 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 Welles-
ley 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
wmtwasisk p
wF Loco islss it bite
opl
ne
otwwht to
ent
,hmGao anuokdtveebtrthenhien
ten mgme
n.
kot.sntoLwt,eri
natl
emkl
to cover my travelling charges, which were as low as it
teiolnlf alsote a
tt
iho ant
ofl
eecwhojsameaseymts
f na
vyo uv it
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
Western Provinces 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
for 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 hero 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 Raja of Staters, 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 Raja. 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 1 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 Roxburghshire seemed to think
that I meditated a rich harvest by taking up the cause
ofjagheerdars and landholders,who,had been disposseLs
d'a House,
Wednesday, when I was at the In
iu India. The simple truth in this matter is•this:— aS
motion
at Madras, placed that notice
the
Mr. . John Sullivan, late Member
papers
in my hands, saying he thought
I have
be produced.
referred to ought to
contents of those
not the most distant idea of the of Council
Council
pa-
pers, 11 stand acquitted, then,
circumstance referred to. I sha
ted against me. Had
I think from the charge insinuated and should never have asked for them, but for the