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

JULY 12,

evident the Raja had reference to the pream-
We 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
lion. Member for the Tower Hamlets, in every view of
its objects and its consequences, he (Mr. Anstey) felt
bound to give his vote in favour of the resolution for
inquiry,
Mr. H. BERKELEY, as he had 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 Setters, had felt it his duty
to snake 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
t here was any excitement in Bristol on the subject of the
Reja of Sattara. One Gentleman said in reply,
" Really we are not acquainted with the gentleman.
(Laughter.) Another said, "If it was Mr. Brooke who
eas the Raja—(Laughter)—there was a great deal of
sympathy fur him; but as for the Raja of Sattara,
nobody knew anything about him."—(Laughter.)
lie 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 au opportunity of
contradicting what was extremely prejudicial to his case,
and therefore of answering the question whether he was
in the pay of the Raja of Sattara?—(Laughter.)
Sir E. COLEBROOKE thought, after haviug gone
into the case, that Colonel Ovens bad come clear out of
it lie (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 thn dead he thought it was better
to put an end to the disagreeable and vexatious dis-
cussions which had been carried mein 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 Ovens 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 H. WILLOUGHBY said, that in the autumn of
hthime
an
an r 1 d
111342 e(sSiirrJa
James)
C)tahrennatcolsdouhgimhttahn e
reasoninterview
wh with
yho
was induced to depose the Raja of Sattara, and enjoined
him to state it, if ever the question should be raised.
He stated that the reason was to be found in the single
and simple consideration that, on investigation, he found
that the Raja 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 Ovens had nothing whatever to do with it. The
charge was made by Colonel Lodwick, and it was utterly
the suggestions
impossiblefor
t h e
made by that Government
Gallant tohnet Officer.sitatet coon
to follow up
Ovens 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
tain 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
he has received from India; on the contraty, 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
tike 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
l ion, 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 unon 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 recieve Nuzzers from persons not connected
with his own household or private jagheers. The first
individual I consulted for counsel and guidance was
Dwarkenauth Tagore. He gave me much information
upon the subject, and referred me to the
eldest son of Ramohun 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 Welle-
sley 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
the
t oc
KingoC
cover
el
rcunatt
ot)a.nentirely
more
travellingor e ef
xr
charges, anfrsrgeoemst
,haanny engagement,the nmou
nt
necessary and put
e
iss it
known,
to
ot
withoutwht to
en ,mGa anokdveebtrthenhien mm.ostLfreatnmk
which were as low as it
toowwm
aay planssskwpn eeol
being
nt .
known,The I o
wb jaesc ts t
iol
if
saym
uanl
coa
ttiho ant
ofl
ecom
f ma
vyo u r e visit
with letters of introduction from servants of the Hon.
Company, which secured sue 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 posse • men not strictly secret.
Let me assure the Hon. Gentleman (the Member for
Roxbur •
ghshire) that so far from requiring the King to
provide me with a house in Delhi, i t 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-
mWatinns 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 here 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 Sattara, 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
cu-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 I 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 Roxburglishire seemed to think
that I meditated a rich harvest by taking up the cause
oljagheerders and landholders who bad been dispossessed
in India. The simple truth in this matter is this:—Lasst
Wednesday, when I was at the India House,
Mr. John Sullivan, late Member of Council
at Madras, placed that notice of motion
in my hands, saying ho thought the papers
referred to oug p
ht to b e roduced. I have
not the most distant idea of the contents of those pa-
pers, and should never have asked for them, but for the
acquitted; then,
I shall stand acquit
circumstance referred to.
me. Had
I think from the charge insinuated against

1848,

the Hon. Gentleman who made it but said one word to
me previously on the subject, I should have stated to
him what I have now deemed it my duty to state thus
publicly to the House. I am not one of those
who have any wish to live by preying on the
people of India. I have been charged with inspiring
false hopes in the minds of persons seeking redress
from the Government of this country. Now, Sir, it has
ever been my wish to represent the difficulties in the
way of success here; and I took special care when in
India to explain these difficulties to both the Raja of
Sattara and the King of Delhi. So far from abusing
any opportunity which I enjoyed while in India, I may
state that when I twice visited Benares, where the
Raja of Sattara lived, I declined his proffered hospitali-
ties, never visited him at his residence, never even saw
the house in which he was placed, and never saw the
man himself, save under the roof of Major Carpenter,
and never spoke a word to him except through that
officer, acting as my interpreter. All this was the con•
duct which my own judgment prescribed, and I should
be glad if every letter I ever addressed to that Prince
could be made public, in explanation of my motives in
seeking to aid him, and the advice I have felt it
my duty to give him. I will not conceal from
the House, as the lion. Member for Bristol has referred
to it, that .1 told the Raja that it' the duties he wished
me to perform for him here withdrew the from other
eccuputions, it was but just to my family that I
should be compensated for my services. Should
an inquiry be granted I shall be most
happy to put the Committee in possession of
every fact connected with money matters, and they will
learn with surprise with how small a sum the efforts
have been made in this country to diffuse infor-
mation and excite the legitimate attention and sympathy
of the British public. Sir, ,I have yet to learn that it is
degrading to accept compensation for faithful services in
a good cause. It the practice is to prevail in this House
of inquiring how far men are interested in the questions
they bring forward ; and 'if all paid servants are
to have their testimony rejected, then from the highest
dignitary in Church and State down to the humblest
labourer in the streets, all will be rendered ignoble and
base who work for their living either by the toils
of the body or the exertions of the intellect.
I can challenge my bitterest enemy to say, that I ever,
either for the sake of money, or to gratify my ambition,
defended a cause which was not the cause of truth
and justice. If I have been guilty of errors in
regard to temper, or errors in regard to fact, I am sorry
for having done so, but the error has been that of in-
firmity, and lack of judgment, and has not sprang from
either selfishness and malignity. Dismissing all matters
of a personal nature, I must complain of the charge
brought against the Honourable Member for
Montrose, regarding the adjourned debate. It
was his anxious desire, and my owe to bring
it on, but found it placed constantly at the bottom
of the paper. " Trick" or subterfuge there was
none. The days may have been unfortunately chosen,
but there was a sincere wish to resume the debate on
the motion. I have listened to every word said
to-night in reference to my present motion, and repeat
my deliberate declaration, that I am able to establish
every one of my charges against Cel. Ovens. My defini-
tion of his offences may not be in every case legally correct,
but I will prove the commission of every one of the acts
out of his own letters and the papers he sent to Govern-
ment. The Hon. Member who followed me in this de-
bate did not condescend to say one word in reply to these
charges, and as respects the Honourable Baronet the
Member for Honiton, I am ready to reply to every word
he has uttered, and to prove that he has not answered my
speech or refuted one of my charges. Why have not
these specific indictments,so long on record,with abundant
references to officialanthorities, been dealt with? Simply
because Colonel Ovens' own letters,l apart from all other
evidence, prove their truth. Why have Ichosen to arraign
Col. Ovens? Because he is the connecting link between the
acts I specify and the Bombay Government, upon whom
I conceive the heavier censure should fall as the
superiors and employers of Colonel Ovens. From
them I ascend to the Supreme Government, and
thence to the authorities in this country, and
hence my inquiry, which connects all parties
concerned, covers the whole ground. So far from ex-
empting the Court of Directors from blame, I will ven-
ture to say what I believe I could prove, that those who
sanctioned the deposal of the Raja, with the exception of
Mr. Edmoastone, never read the papers in the case. I
will venture to say that the Hon. Baronet the Member
for Honiton, when he signed the dispatch, approving
the conduct of Sir James Carnac, had never read
the papers, and that the Honourable Member
for the city of London was in the same state of
ignorance. It is said this would be a six years' inquiry.
Nut so. The evidence is all within the covers of the
blue books, and, as for witnesses, all who are necessary
are here. Governors-General, Governors, Members of
Council, Residents, and others. We want no native
testimony—no commission in India. If there be a sin-
cere desire to come at the truth, all the means
are at hand for developing every part of
the subject and doing justice to all parties.
Sir, there is one other topic to which I must allude, or
I should be thought guilty of an intentional neglect ; it
is in the matter regarding Sir James Carnac, and the
motives which influenced him to abandon his original
intention of granting an unconditional amnesty to the
Raja of Sattara. The Hon. Baronet has appealed to Mr.
Anderson and Mr. Farish. The words which are stated to
have fallen from my lips in the Times newspaper are
not precisely the words I used; but it the Hon. Gentle-
man will move for a Select Committee, or a secret one, if
he chooses, I will second his motion, and establish
the truth of what I alleged upon this subject.
I have a second time to thank the House for the atten-
tion which they have been pleased to extend to me. I
ask now for inquiry, and again lay my charges on the
table, declaring before this House, before my country,
and in the presence of my God, my belief in my ability
to prove every fact alleged on these papers.—(Cheers.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Fur the motion
Against it ... „, 77
Majority against the motion ... —69
The remaining business was then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter past Two o'Clock.