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

THE SUN,

• Sattara, had necessarily a large share of the busines ,
.
conductc o n o ec teidn wt
hi taht
at bffiec let ahjaad passhee at harror
au
igghn
ehd hn adnadrsr. a i His
too under his own band, and under his own hand the
contradiction to those charges came. What were the
charges? Did the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets
in going through the history of the Sattara case come
to all the charges, or go through all the charges brought
against Colonel Ovans? Why, there were no less than
twelve charges printed, and lying upon the table of that
House. He (Mr. Hume) had expected that no military
man—no officer who had any respect for his character—
would have hesitated for one moment to demand an in-
quiry into those charges.—(Hear, hear.) Inquiry was
all that was asked for by the motion. He did expect,
and still thought that ought to have been the course pur-
sued with reference to such serious allegations. When
those charges were first laid before the Court of Pro-
prietors, Colonel Ovens applied to the Court of Direc-
tors for leave to go to India to defend them. That
Court did not take upon themselves his defence, but left
him to defend them as he might think best. But what
were thescharges? for that was the main point. One
Mss his intercepting of letters. It might be that
a postmaster-general would think nothing of
regularly intercepting and perusing correspondence.
The second charge against Colonel Ovans was—
that Colonel Ovens did, from the time of his assuming
office as resident down to the period of the Raja's de-
thronement, in the mouth of September, 1839, systema-
tically intercept, and cause to be intercepted, the whole
of the correspondence of the Raja, his servants, and his
friends; and that Colonel Ovens did convert such sys-
tematic intercepting, opening, and perusing of the said
correspondence into a means of counteracting and de-
feating every endeavour which the Rsja made to obtain
a hearing and to make known his case to the British
Government; and into a means of secretly calumniating
the friends of the Raja to the British authorities. Did
the Hon. Gentleman reply to that charge? He took no
notice of it. Had any other person answered it ? He
(Mr. Hume) had read the answer given by Colonel
Ovens, whicb, for himself, he must say was not satis-
factory, or had any bearing upon the subject at all.
The Hon. Member for Roxbtirghshire, or whoever at-
tempts to answer the charges preferred against Colonel
Ovens, should direct their attention to those facts. An-
other charge was that Colonel Ovens came into posses-
sion of evidence which would have been important to
the case of the Raja of Sattara, and in his (Mr. Hume's)
opinion, and in the opinion of many oilers, would have
led to the entire exculpation of the Raja. and the expo-
sure of the plot which was formed against him. What
were the facts connected with that charge ? Colonel
Ovens was directed to obtain information. He obtained
information in the first instance which was proved to
have been 'false, and sent it up to the Government, who
adjudged upon that false information. He afterwards
obtained proof of the falsity of the former infor-
mation, and what did he do ? He kept it back
for eleven months.—(Hear, hear.) The Raja was
then under his trial, and no man could say
but this ought to have been inquired into. One director
was as good as another, they were all honourable men;
but he (Mr. Hume) held in his hand the dissent of a
military officer, a member of the Court of Directors,
Major Oliphant, whose dissent was upon the table of
the House. In speaking of Colonel Ovens, he said, "In
the foregoing paragraph I have to make a few observe
tions. It is indisputably proved by the printed
papers, that on the 7th of September, 1837, Colonel
Ovens was in possession of positive information as to
the real writer of the petition attributed to Girjabee."
Those who heard the speech of the Honourable Member
will have learned that the latter proceedings against the
Raja of Suture were founded on a petition attributed to
Girjabee. The instruction from the Bombay Govern-
ment was to ascertain its truth, and find out who was
the writer. Major Oliphant said that Colonel Ovens
wrs in possession of positive information as to the real
writer of thp petition attributed to Girjabee, which in-
formation completely falsified the evidence on that point
previously transmitted home on the 27th of July, ,and
the 12th of August. Major Oliphant said, "it is indis-
putably proved by the printed papers, that on the 7th of
September, 1837, Colonel Ovans was in possession of
positive information as to the real writer of the petition
attributed to Girjabee, which information com-
pletely falsified the evidence on that point pre-
viously transmitted by him on the 21st of July, and
12th August, viz., that one Mandeo Fugree ' was the
writer ; the truth of which evidence, he assured Govern-
ment that he no longer saw any reason to doubt. The
importance of discovering the real writer of the petition
had been repeatedly and urgently pressed by Sir Robert
Grant upon Colonel Ovens, yet that officer did not re-
port, the discovery to his Government (as it was his
bounden duty' immediately to have done), but withheld
it from their knowledge till the 16th of August, 1838.
It thus 'appears that Government was permitted by
Colonel Ovens to proceed for eleven months upon false
information, and that he did not duly submit to them
the declaration made to him on the 7th and 20th of
September, 1837, by Kristnajee, the real writer
of the petition, which was the very informa-
tion that his Government so anxiously desired to obtain."
There wes a suppression of evidence for eleven months.
The Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was perfectly
correct in his statement, because Major Oliphant states
his own words—" No explanation of these extraordinary
proceedings seems ever to have been asked for, or ob-
tained by the Government of Bombay, and is not de-
manded by this draft. Had the true state of the case
been brought at the time to the notice of Government,
the strongest suspicions must have been excited that the
whole was a fabrication, and in all probability the pro-
ceedings against the Raja of Sattara would have in 7
stantly ceased." -That accounted for the high character
they gave to Colonel Ovans, and the manner in which
they referred to him. Why, it turned out that they
never did their duty themselves in ascertaining whether
the thing was true or false. Were they then to be told
in the House of Commons and elsewhere, that that was a
matter not to be inquired into ? If it were possible to
bring forward the matter in the Court of Queen's Bench
in London, the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets
was perfectly ready to prove his charge, or if an inquiry
were instituted in Bombay he would go out and attend
that inquiry; in fact he would do anything to promote
inquiry. But the East India Company were sovereign;
they chose to refuse inquiry, and there was no mode of
obtaining it elsewhere but by an appeal to that House.—
(Hear, hear.) Major Oliphant said that those matters
ought, in his judgment, to be sifted elsewhere.
Nowhere could that matter be sifted save in a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons;" or if his Right Hon.
Friend would allow, they would consent to the appoint-
ment of a Commission. Let them appoint three civil
servants of the company taken from Bengal, Madras, or
any where else; they might even draw them by lot if
they pleased; he (Mr. Hume) was sure from what he
had heard that they would be able to establish fully
their case. After that the man Kristnajee entered into
heavy recognizanees, himself in 5,000 rupees, he being
only a writer, receiving from eight to ten rupees a
month.
Sir JAMES WEIR HOGG—" Hear, hear."
Mr. HUME—And he entered also into recognizances
of 1,000 rupees to prosecute the charges, which if he had
failed to have done successfully would have entailed
cuapsoenohti m
the t hint a
jpauniofs hsmaet
tnatrao f
bad
been
re-opened e
byhole
the
Hon. Gentleman, but it was not the wish of himself (Mr.
Hume) and friends to re-open that case. The fact was
that Khristnajee finding the matter suppressed, pre-
sented a petition to this House through himself
(Mr. Hume),• and another petition to the di-
rectors. All the documents were laid before Mr.
Warden, the agent for Sirders. Mr. Warden told the
individual of the responsibility he was incurring, that
he was charging Colonel Ovens, a man of high rack, with
foul practices, and that he would be punished with great
severity if those charges were not supported. Krist-
najee replied," I am perfectly prepared to support them."
Then Mr. Warden required from him the security which
has been adverted to. That having been done, Mr.
Warden says, " Now you must give me a list of all the
witnesses whom you intend to bring forward." That
list of witnesses was given. It was reasonable to
expect that having taken all those preliminary measures
the trial would have taken place; but no such thing.
They stated, " We will not inquire into this matter, but
we will refer the whole of the charges to Colonel Ovens
himself"—(Hear, hear.)—and Colonel Ovens of course
said that .the charges were false; and though Kristnajee
had entered. into all the recognizances, and had given
his. list of witnesses, and was prepard in every respect,
still be was never allowed to enter upon his proof of the
charges. He (Mr. Hume) would not go into any documents
further than those which he held in his hand. Colonel
Ovens, contrary to the recommendation of Sir Robert
Grant, and also to' that of Lord Auckland, never gave
copies of the evidence taken against the Raja; although
the Raja had complained again and again that such evi-
dence was withheld from him. Lord Auckland said, as
' a first step, " I would, as suggested by Sir Robert Grant,
request that the Raja should be furnished with a written
statement, embodying a full and clear detail of all the
facts connected with the several charges, and of
the names (with any reservations which may
be absolutely required for the safety of the party) of the
witnesses by whom they were proved, with a notice of
the circumstances under which the evidence was ob-
tained, and call for from him, within a certain reason-
able time to be fixed, a similar written statement of
whatever ho may desire to urge in his own behalf." On
the 27th of October, 1836, the gentlemen of the Commis-
sion were occupied the greater part of the day in pre-
pring a 'Mahratta translation of the evidence for the use
of his Highness the Raja of Sattara. That evidence was
never given to him. The Raja applied for the evidence
after the recommendation of Sir Robert Grant, and the
promise of the Commissioners, and also of Lord Auck-
land, and what was the answer given by Colonel Ovens?
" I beg distinctly to state that the proceedings of the
Commission were secret, and could not be given to any
person whatsoever." That is the way au individual
against whom such serious charges were made was
treated. Colonel Ovens suppressed the evidence. All
he (Mr. Hume) would say was, that that fact alone fur-
nished sufficient ground for inquiry. The fact alone of
suppressing evidence in a case which involved the death,
or at any rate the property and rights, of the
Raja was sufficient to call for examination.
lie (Mr. Hume) would not say that Colonel Ovens
might not have just ground for acting as he bad done.
.hey might extend their inquiry to the persons under
rwhom Colonel Ovans acted. That Gallant Officer might
tl
a c.e wasto
ben innocent, but those who gave the orders must be
y•
and Upon
strong
n g thosea appeal
p eal grounds,havn tgh e
beenca s e
madehaving
theo
Indiamade
oguti,
put House,it which
allre they refused, he (Mr. Hume)
that expla to
the British Parliament whether
(Mr. Ruffle)
of those pared, after what had taken
nawtiothe Court of Directors longer to refuse
pthat
earnlyy,oonre
in
which
maectuated°7i
They were particeps crintinis. He
wo:ilid not say, from his knowledge of them,
nddiirveicdtuoaisrs,would willingly act im-
properly,
which injure airy man. There
sad
various were varioustuti t
imo
no s-
p. were placed, officially and (technically;

LONDON',

I but still he thought the case fully required that explan,a-
floe which his Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower
Hamlets asked for. Upon that ground he supported
the motion, and he did so in the hope that the Gallant
Odieer who stood, as he (Mr. Hume) had before stated.
in the opinion of those who had known him for many
years, in the highest respect, before he became con-
nected with the Sattara case, would come forth un-
scathed. He (Mr. Hume) stated it was due to
him, to the cloth which he wore, and to the
character of the East India Company, that those
charges, from his own documents, not from hearsay
trampery evidence, like that which the Hon. Member
for Roxburghshire had read from the statement of
Major Angelo, but from official documents laid upon the
table of that House, documents which had been brought
from India and the truth of which had been fully
substantiated—he (Mr. Hume) trusted the House
would grunt the inquiry, and by so doing allow the
man, if innocent, to stand forth as innocent, and those
who had been guilty of any proceedings, such as those
which were charged by the Hon. Member for the Tower
Hamlets, to have their criminality proved. He (Mr.
Hume) thought enough had been said upon those two
or three charges, without going through the rest.
Sir J. HOGG complained of the manner in which this
case had been brought before Parliament. In April
last, when the case of the Raja of Sattara came on, the
Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, instead of confin-
ing himself strictly to that case, cast imputations upon
every man connected with it whose opinions did not
happen to accord with his own, The Honourable Mem-
ber also placed these twelve most atrocious charges
against a public man on the votes of the House as a
mere matter of course, without saying one single word
in substantiation of them. Was that the way which the
Honourable Gentleman estimated character? But that
was not all. When the debate came on the Hon. Member
was replied to by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control, and then the debate was
adjourned. That adjournment was continued from
week to week without any opportunity being afforded for
any friends of the parties accused standing up and vin- 1
dicating them against the charges made against them. ;
What was the case now ? The form of the motion was
changed. It was no longer a motion concerning the
Raja of Sattara. A charge was now brought against
Colonel Ovens. But it was neither more nor less than
a trick to re-open the whole Sattara debate, and pre-
elude him (Sir J. Hogg) from answering the calumnies
that had fallen from the Honourable Gentleman.
What was the last calumny the Hon. Gentleman ut-
tered? He stated that Sir James Carnac, the late Go-
vernor of Bombay—as-honourable, as high-minded, and
as sound principled a gentleman as ever lived in any
country—in the discharge of his duty had proceeded to
Sattara to determine the case of the Raja, and that he
had an intimation conveyed to him from the members or
the Council to this effect—" You had better take care.

e know your opinions are in favour of the Raja, but
take care, don't let him off, for if you do there shall be
disclosures made injurious to your character and repu-
tation." Had the Hon. Gentleman recalled that
statement to-night? Had he said that he had been mis-
led ? Did be recant or apologise for it ? He did not.
It was unnecessary to say that this statement respecting
Sir J. Caruac had inflicted great pain upon his friends;
but the dead and the living were equally unspared by
the Hon. Gentleman. The Hon. Baronet then pro-
ceeded to read a letter written in affliction by the son of
the late Sir J. Caruac, and also letters from Mr. Ander-
son and Mr. Parish, two members of the Council of
Bombay, who were now in this country. Mr. Anderson
denounced the attack made by the Hon. Member for the
Tower Hamlets upon the late Sir J. Carnac as un-
founded and calumnious. He was a member of the

Council during the greater part of Sir J. Carnac 's govern-
ment, and he declared the statement made by the Hon.
Member to be wholly untrue and devoid of any foun-
dation. He added, that the circumstance alleged could
not have occurred without his being acquainted with it.
Mr. Parish stated that he was a member of the Council
of Bombay, and that he delivered over the government
to Sir J. Carnac on his arrival. No circumstance had
occurred, within his knowledge of the nature asserted
by the Hon. Member (Mr. G. Thompson), and he had
no hesitation in stating that he considered the impute,.
tion to be utterly unfounded. The Hon. Baronet than
proceeded to say that it was a providential circumstance
that he was able to refute so foul a calumny by the
evidence of two members of the Supreme Council who
were now in this country, and who must have been
cognizant of the transaction if it bad occurred.
The Hon, Member had also declared that the terms of
amnesty presented to the ex-Raja set out by declaring
his guilt, and that his objection to affix his signature
was, that if he signed the paper it would be an admis-
sion of his guilt. Now, this statement was inconsistent
with what appeared in the papers, because the whole
statement of the ex-Raja was that he would sign no
paper, that he would not renew the treaty, and that he
was sorry he had been induced by Mr. Elphinstone ever
to sign it in the first instance. The objection urged by
the Hon. Member was, that the Raja had no objection to
renew the treaty, but that he would not consent to admit
his guilt. Neither when the treaty was first read to him
nor subsequently did the ex-Raja object to the preamble;
he objected to sign the treaty because it made him " a
mere headman without regal authority." What more
could the Hon. Member want than this refutation, or
what more could he have if he had a hundred com-
mittees granted?—(Hear, hear.) Sir J. Carnac was no
longer living, but they had the statement of the man
himself, acting in the discharge of his public duty, and
they had no right to discredit it. It was impossible to
discuss the case of Colonel Ovens without also going
into the case of the Raja of Setters. The Hon. Member
for Montrose-had—called this'a worn-out subject. No,
it was not " worn-out," because he would.revive a little
of it now. When the Honourable Member (Mr. G.
Thompson) introduced the question to the House in
April he affirmed that restoring the ex-Raja to the
throne was no act of generosity on their part,
but a mere act of calculation and interest. He also
said that Mr. Elphinstone had entered into secret neg -
nations with the ex-Raja. It' his imputations were true,
what did they prove P That at the time we had a
treaty subsisting with the Peshawur, the keeper of this
captive puppet. Mr. Elphinatone, had entered into clan-
destine communications with this puppet king, the
Raja! The Hon. Member had also cited extracts from a
bock of Mr Prinseps to prove that the ex-Raja was in an
influential situation, that Mr. Elphinstone had entered
into private communications with him, and that the
Raja owed his elevation to a consideration of what
would be better for our private interests. Now, about
three weeks before the Hon. Member made that state-
ment and read those extracts, the Hon. Member had
taken the same course at a meeting at the India House
at which Mr. Prinseps was present, and that gentleman
then got up and repudiated the deductions of the Hon.
Member, denied his statements, and expressed his asto-
nboisonknateon
pt
rt
ohvaet
she%
ks h
ao
lul
el dg aht
isovnee read ey extractswithout
men-
tioning to the House this important fact, that the author
of the book from which he was quoting had himself de-
nied the statements and repudiated the deductions of the
Honourable Member, he had read these extracts to the
House of Commons! Was there any doubt about that?
—(Mr. G. Thompson dissented.) Then he had a letter.
from Mr Prinseps in his pocket, for it was neces-
sary to come down to the House prepared with docu-
ments when this subject was under discussion.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Baronet then read an extract from a
letter from Mr. Prinseps, denying having asserted the
Raja's independent sovereignty, and stating that Mr. G.
Thompson had misled the House if he had made any
such statement, and he then proceeded to argue that a
reference to the treaty itself would show that the Raja
had not been treated with as an independent potentate,
fur never had a treaty been so clogged with restrictive
conditions, and, right or wrong, the Government had
dictated the terms of that treaty. The Hon. Baronet
next defended Sir R. Grant from the attacks made upon
etsmboerr foorxttrhaeolts'owterromHamt
the
recapitulate the names
proceeded to
papers as had suited his purpose ;after which the
Honourable Baronet
lheitms ahlaidegionnglythraetatdhe sHucohn. Member
had expressed their conviction of the guilt of the Raja, ht of the highest authorities in India, who
of twenty-eight
Robert Grant, Sir Henry
Hardinge, Sir J. Carnac,only
had
d Gough. The one whodis-
sented
including Lord Auckland, Lord Ellenborough, Lurd
Payne, and Lor ,
hkandthat
gentleman died before the corroborative evidence camed
out. Had he seen the testimony he would have
askedaltered
from that opinion was Mr. b a spea.re,
his opinion. A Committee of Inquiry was now
for in the year 1848 to inquire into proceedings at
Sattara which had been already fully inquired into by a
commission sitting at Sattara. And what had been the
proceedings in the Court of Proprietors ? The lion.
Member f. .r the Tower Hamlets bad made 31 motions
on the subject. On the 12th of February, 1841, he
ventured to take a division, and out of the 2,400 East
India proprietors only 20 voted with him. All the rest
were deaf to the eloquence of the Hon. Gentleman.
Once more he brought forward the question, and on the
Bth of February, 1843, he took a vote, when the
minority that supported him dwindled down to 15.
Probably it would be thought that if he tried the
matter again he would find his supporters reduced to
0. A motion made by the Honourable Member
was seconded by Mr. Peter Gordon ; there ass
an odd kind of rule in the East India Company
which permitted proprietors of 5001. stock to talk, but
not to vote; and it really bad happened that at length
the Hun. Member ceased to receive any support at all,
for when he and Mr. Peter Gordon went out there was
no one left in the court to vote in favour of the propo-
sition of the Hon. Member for Montrose. When he
came to his second charge, however, one proprietor said
he should stcond that charge, but vote against it, for
ho wished that it should receive a hearing, and again
wohwioehve:,,as diidnsenrotetd
in the Hon. Member was left alone in his glory. This,
h
satitshfye Rimes, and
whichwrote occupied
letterepied
three columns. It fortunately happened for him that he
sent his letter in the mouth of January, when the space
which his communication occupied was not so valuable
as it usually is ; his letter, therefore, was inserted, full,
as it was, of' misrepresentations, perversion of the truth,
and false reasoning—not content with this, he published
a pamphlet, of which he sent a copy to every proprietor
of East India Stock, and still he had only 19 supporters
out of 2,400, of whom a very large proportion resided
within 10 miles of London. As to the Court of Direc-
tors, 18 of them acquiesced in the guilt of the Raja,
which left only six of that number ; two were at the
time too ill to be present, and four had signed a dissent.
The Honourable Member circulated the dissent of Mr.
Tucker, but why did he not put forward the opinion
expressed by Mr. Edmonston, who must certainly be
considered the best authority upon that subject? Fur-
ther, it must be remembered that the subject never had
escaped discussion in Parliament, but the Hon. Member
never ventured ou a division except once. There was
one other point to which he wished to advert before lie
proceeded further, it was this, that the British Resident
at Sattara, General Lodwick, reported attempts made by
the Raja to corrupt the Sepoys.—(Hear, hear.) Then
the inquiry being resolved upon, it was agreed to make