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

THE SUN,

WEDNESDAY

t by means of a commission, 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 bad 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. lie 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 refusal a barris-
ter, however, he was permitted to have the assistance
of an agent or friend. Complaints had been beard that
the Baja was not, from the first, called in, but :he reason
spas, that till a prime/ facie case was made out against him,
it was net thought proper to take any step bT which he
might appear to be implicated. In every reject, how-
ever, he was treated with the most impartial jestice. The
evidence of the witnesses was read over to gin; and yet
it was attempted to be said that he did not know the
charges brought against him. Reference hadbeen made
to the opinions of Sir R. Grant and Lord Atekland; but
the former considered the, Baja guilty, thougi he recom-
mended what, under the circumstances, was a lenient
course, and the latter likewise, atter the conclusion of
the commission, deemed the Raja guilty to tle extent at
least of countenancing the attempt to seduce two native
officers of the British army from their allegiance. Subse-
quently, when the whole matter was terminated 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
tee 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 tha; for certain
given reasons he was satisfied it would not be right to
persevere in 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 ;he Court of
Directors? Sir J. Carnac, one of the Court, who
bad all along taken a favourable view of the
Raja'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; bu:, 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 ;old 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. Witt 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 Ahmeduugger, was extorted from him, but
Mr. Butt 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 Ovans was
that of suppressing the evidence of Kristnajee. Now,
the fact was that Kristnajee went to Colonel Ovens,
and stated that he had written the petition, and had
been promised 1,250 rupees by Girjabee for doing
s) ; 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 16th of July. This fact at once dis-
proved the charge that Colonel Ovens had suppressed
the evidence for thirteen months.—(llear, 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. Hogg)
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 in the closet.—(Hear, hear.) This was the
opinion of the whole Court of Directors.—(blear.) The
lion. 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 1,500/. a year for 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.—
( near, hear.) It had also been asserted that when his
wife and family left India, Colonel Ovans obtained
50,000 rupees for 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 lie, and that he had written the petition at
the desire of Colonel Ovens, 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 he 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. Hume 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 tor, 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.—(hear, hear.) And the
Government of India were charged with withholding
evidence essential to substantiate the Raja's case ! 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.) He 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. BROTHERTON observed that the House had
now been sitting for l2i hours, but the Hon. Member
resumed his seat without making the motion which
tfor-
merly was expected from him as a matter of course.
Mr. ANSTEY stated that having on a former occa-
sion t oßajax .
taken part in the debate
on he
after case
f the
mature
of Sattara, he could not allow that opportunity to pass
iithout expressing his conviction,
amination of the papers laid before the House,
that, although the case of the Raja :of Sattara
remained where it was against the Government,
the character of Colonel Ovans bad been completely
vindicated. The former debate bad been adjourned
instead of the old case being gone into, which it might
have been upon the merits of inquiry, had it been limited
to the conduct of Colonel Ovans. He had some diffi-
culty in deciding upon which way he should 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 'notion, be must say that it
appeared to him that that officer had done
no more than what strict duty demanded, but
notice, to ask for a
if the object of the
of the wa39 as contained in
the concluding words
Committee to be appointed, in conformity therewith, to
enter into the proceedings of the
Government both in
Bombay and in this country, and the entire case with re-
gard to the Raja of Sattara, then he should certainly
vote for the [notion. It mattered not whether the wrong
had been done by the Board ot
Controbin Westminster, or
the Court of Directors, in Leadenhall-street, or the
Governer-General in Calcutta, or the Governor, at the
had evidently •
Presidency. If justice hadbeen done towards the late
Raja, those parties given a greedy ear to
teen whom they themselves were afterwards obliged to
discard. If Kristnajee deserved the censure which the
Hon. Member for lioniton had cast upon him on the
authority of the documents he had read, what then be-
camea respecting
of the debate? Let it be re-
membered
made oinf
the
ee statementear
Membered that the only evidence upon which the
judgment of Colonel Ovans and the Government was
earlier part r
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 back of a jackass, and expelled the
country, to the ordinary mode of dealing with such
crimes in native states.—(llear, hear.) It was