The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-01 00:00:00

RAJA OF SATTARA.

Such a tribunal would have found no difficulty in
determining every point on which there has been a
difference of opinion; nor any difficulty in reporting
to the House the course which justice and good
faith require should be taken.—(llenr.) Such an
investigation would have been of the highest
importance, not only as tending to the just settle-
ment of this particular question, but as contributing
to the knowledge, so much need( d, of the manner in
which our vast possessions in India are ruled, and
the treaties which have been concluded with nntive
states are observed. Since this question was first
brought fbrward by my lion. Friend the Member for
Montrose until the present time the only request
ever preferred has been, that the subject should be
taken out of the arena of party conflict in this House,
and be submitted to a Committee, to be decided ac-
cording to the nature and value of the evidence pro-
duced. As far as the character of the late Raja is
concerned, and the fate of his family and subjects is
affected by the opinions entertained of his guilt, I
am prepared to demonstrate his entire and absolute
innocence, by the exposure of the falsehood and
worthlessness of every particle of the evidence col-
lected to criminate him. The assertion, that " every
opportunity was afforded to the Reja of defending
himself from the charges brought against him," is
contradicted most flatly by the official documents
which have been laid upon the table of this House.
In the case of the first charge, the Raja heard the
depositions of two of the witnesses read to him
in the Hindustanee language, but never was
permitted to see a copy of the depositions
in the Mahrattas, and consequently never had
the slightest chance afforded him of rebutting
the testimony given against him.—(Hear.) This was
in 1836. Of the other charges he never heard a
word until the 23d of August, 1839, when he was
calle& upon to sign---the .paper submitted to him. by.
Sir Jetties Carnac, the Governor of Bombay, and
for refusing to do so, was dethroned eleven days
afterwards. Now, Sir, if the friends of the late
Raja in this country have been able by an examina-
tion of the ex parte evidence, to unravel every part
of the conspiracy against his Highness, and to prove
the charges against him to be utterly false, how
much more would the accused himself have been
able most triumphantly to vindicate his character and
conduct, if there had been an observance of the
simplest rules of justice, by placing the evidence
taken against him in his hands. Sir, a memorial
sent by the late 'Raja to Lord Hardinge, the Gover-
nor-General in 1844, and for four years kept back
by the Indian 'authorities' has been described as a
" preposterous humbug," because it was. drawn up
by a gentleman in this country, and sent to his
Highness at Benares. For the truth of the contents
of that doeument (which' has at last been brought
to light and laid before the HouF,e), I hold myself
individually responsible.—(llear.) Sir, it was not until
1843 that the mass of secret papers in this case were
ordered to be printed. It was not until the spring of
1844 that they were published, and they could only
then be of service to the Raja, by being examined
by a person- who could read them in the English, and
was competent to analyse their contents. I devoted
myself to the study of those papers, and drew up such.
a statement of the facts of the case as I thought would,.
if placed in the hands of his Lordship the Governor-'
General, convince him that justice had not been done
to the Raja of Sattara. His Highness approved 'of
my statement, and sent it through the hands of
the official agent to the Governor-General. That

document has denounced as "a humbug," but,
Sir, it has never been answered. It has been de-
nounced as a "Inimbug," but no single fact which
it sets forth has been questioned. It has been de-
nounced as "a humbug," but by those who dare not
meet me either here or elsewhere to debate its accu-
racy. I challenge the whole of the Ministerial
bench to show that there is a statement in it which
is contrary to truth. It is to this document that the
agent of the Governor-General (Major Carpenter)
refers, in the following extract, from a dispatch in the
Secret department, addressed to the Governor-
General :

" When the Rsja was consigned to my charge,
early in 1840, I considered it necessary, for the Effi-
cient discharge of my duties, to make myself fully
acquainted with the causes of his dethronement, his
general reputation for intrigue, and other circum-
stances connected with his character and conduct, to
enable me to form a just estimate of the man with
whom I had to deal, and to guard against the conse-
iinences which might arise from any
.laxity of sur-
veillance on my part. To this end I carefully studied
the whole of the ,voluminous documents connected
with his case, and the result was, a belief in his inno•
cence; and this belief has been coVirmed, beyond a
doubt, by subsequent disclosures, and by his pledging
himself to prove it, if permitted to do so, in his letter
to Sir Henry Hardinge, of the 12th December,
1844, forwarded through me, and which pledge I am
fully persuaded he is able to redeem."—(Hear.)

Had the prayer of that memorial been granted, I
believe the Raja would have been alive at this time,
and sitting upon the throne of Sattara. But, Sir, the
deposal of the Raja was not the only act of injustice
which was doge. He was also stripped of his private
property, and this brings me to a part of the subject
connected with the present circumstances of the sur-
viving family. The Raja, though denied the op-
portunity of proving his innocence, was called upon
to sign a paper admitting his guilt. It has been
stated, that all his Highness was required to do was
to renew the treaty of 1819. This assertion is en-
tirely at variance with the official papers. The articles
submitted were perfectly new. The Hon. Baronet
shakes his head. Well, I will quote from an Hon.
Director, Mr. Shepherd, who has in his Minute of Dis-
sent truly observed, that " The preamble of the con-
ditions which his Highness was called upon to sign
entangled him in an admission of guilt ; it also in-
volved the Government in the glaring inconsistency
of propounding a principle, which required the
strongest proofs of the Raja's unworthiness to reign,
as a necessary condition on which he was to continue

on the guddee. Who will deny that his rejection of
the proposal furnishes presumptive evidence of his
innocence, and raises him more in the estimation of
the world, than if he had ignominiously complied for
the sake of retaining his sovereignty ?" This rejec-
tion of the article and preambles submitted by Sir
James Catlin led to the determination on the part of
the Bombay Government to dethrone the Raja, and
accordingly, orders to that effect were sent to the Re-
sident on the 30th of August, 1839. These instruc.
tions were from the pen of the Governor, and bore
his signature. I entreat the attention of the House to
the eighth paragraph of this letter :
" 8. You will be careful to provide, in the, most
effectual manner, for the personal comfort and con-
venience of the Raja and his family, and to require
the Sattara Government to furnish everything that

may be necessary for their accommodation. lie is,
in fact, to be regarded and treated as an object of
sympathy, and not of punishment. YoU wilt inform
him that he will be permitted to reside within the
Hon. Company's territories, at such place as may be
selected by the Right Hon. the Governor-General of
India, and that an annual allowance will be assigned

from the Sattara revenues for the support and respect-
ability of himself, and those members of his family
who may choose to accompany him. Farther, that

all property belonging to Nina, bona fide private, and not
appertaining to the state, will, on his peaceable submis-
sion, not be interfered with."

In this paragraph two things are distinctly and
solemnly guaranteed; firstly, an annual allowance for
the support of the Raja and his family ; and secondly,
the retention of all property not appertaining to the
State. The condition on which the second pledge
was given was strictly observed by the Raja. Not
only did the Raja not offer any resistance, but he
adopted the most effectual means of preventing any dis-
turbance or conflict.—(hear.) For a time it appeared
to be the intention of the Government to redeem the

pledge respecting the private property, for the Raja,
while encamped a short distance from Sattara, re-
ceived three official notes from the Resident, Colonel
Ovans, in conformity with that pledge. I will read
a brief extract from one of these notes, which is
dated the 13th of September:—
" With reference to your Highness's private pro-
perty, I beg to observe, that that will be at your own
disposal, as distinguished from the public property. of
the State=namely, jewellery, robes, dresses, 6.c.,
money, furniture, plate, and other necessaries which
your Highness may require. On your Highness in-
timating the same, I will order the articles to be sent

Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON then rose to bring
before the House the case of the Raja of Sattara.
The Honourable Gentleman said—Sir, in rising to
address the House on the motion of which I have
given notice, it is my intention to be as brief as pos-
sible, and to avoid, if I can, giving occasion for con-
troversy or debate. In renewing, at this late period,
the discussion of the Sattara question, I yield to a
sense of imperative duty, conceiving the subject
eminently entitled to the consideration of the Go-
vernment, and of this assembly, bound as that Go-
vernment and this House are, to watch over the exer-
cise of the power which has been entrusted to the
hands of a chartered company, to govern a hundred
millions of the subjects of her Majesty. If I may be
permitted to refer to the past debates in this House,
I will do so to observe, that in my opinion this ques-
tion has never yet been fairly dealt with. It has al-
ways been capable of solution, by a reference of the
i
papers in the case, to the calm and judicial nvestiga •
tion of an impartial Committee, aided in their labours
by the evidence of persons in this country, who have
from time to time been concerned in the proceedings.

to you."
In order that no doubt may exist respecting the
authenticity of these d9cuments, I will quote an ex-
tract from a dispatch written by Major Carpenter at
Benares to Sir T. Maddock, the Secretary to the
Supreme Government, Nov. 15, 1840. Major Car-

penter says—
" Par. 8. The ex-Raja has in his possession three
letters, signed by Colonel OVBII3, the Resident at
Sattara, and dated the sth, 6th, and 13th of Sep-
tember, 1839, respectively, to the effect that his
private property would be surrendered to him ; and
suggesting that lists of such portions thereof as he
wished to take away, as well as of those articles he
desired to leave in his palace, might be furnished,
that which properly belonged to the State being
retained."

Major Carpenter then adds, in the next paragraph—

/
" 9. I have carefully exa2nineel),Le documents re- '
,t,
~.„40,,,,,-, i
r..., 1 ferrediic%,e to inithe
rafnrdonthtehreefeoxre.
IKI A 42
• V 4
V the statementsit ( i ,
remonstrating against the claims
Appa Sahib to his private property), contains to
be substantially correct ; and if it be the pleasure of _
------- i Hon. the Governor-General in Council,
the original; or thereof shall be sub-
mitted to his Lordship's further consideration."
In addition to these proofs of a solemn engagement
to respect the private property of the Raja, I may be
permitted to quote from the minute of Sir James
Carnac, forwarded to the Governor-General and
the Court of Directors, dated the 4th of September,
detailing his proceedings and intentions. In this he
distinctly refers to the pledge given, that the Raja
should retain his private property, in addition to re-
ceiving an allowance for his permanent support. The
Governor says—
" 32. My instructions to the Resident erjein, that .
every effort should be made to obviate cullision, hat
that should such unhappily occur, that every precau-
tion should be taken to prevent injury to the well-
disposed, and to guard zwaitet irregularities on the
part of our troops. They likewise enjoin that every
attention be paid to the personal comfort and conve-
nience of the Raja and his family, and secure to him
his private property and a suitable maintenance for
his future support-. The question of his future dis-
posal is left for consideration hereafter. I have every
confidence in Lieutenant-Colonel Ovens' judgment
and discretion, that he will secure that these instruc-
tions are scrupulously attended to."
I am satisfied that no Member of this House, having
these official documents before him, would conceive
it possible that the Government of Bombay would
afterwards confiscate the whole of the Raja's property,
and leave him without a shilling beyond the allowance
fixed for his maintenance.—(Hear.) Yet, in a
dispatch to the Supreme Government, dated the 25th
of November (eighty-six days after the pledge of Sir
James Carnac), we find the determination expressed
by the Council of Bombay, to consider the whole of
the private property of the ex-Raja forfeited, and the
pension as satisfaction in full of all demands. The
fact that the Raja of Sattara was possessed of a very
large amount of private property is not disputed.
The Resident, Colonel Ovens, while under the im-
pression that the pledge of the British Governor
would be redeemed, described in his dispatches the •
esaanneroin
swVela _ the ex-RajaJaackbecorle po, , ses `:
te iV esose °ilia lie.afth, namely, by appropriaVng a ifi rte* e, - ''' '''' ''` - '''''' '
sum for the private expenses of himself and his
family, and then laying aside the balance, which he
either allowed to accumulate, or expended in jewels.
Every previous Resident at the Inea's Court is able
to confirm the truth of this statement, and to prove
that so scrupulously and accuratelet were the public
accounts separated: from the priva, and the pro-
perty belonging to the State distinguished from that
which was persool, that no difficulty at any tiroe
existed in the /ay of accounting to the, Raja fd'r
that which was bond fide his own: The following is\
the view taken of this transaction by 'a member of Ik.,
the court of dirOctors, Mr. Shepherd :--
" There canbe no question but that the treasure
and jewels food in the palace were the fruits of the '
economical inebagement of the Itaje's resources. Un- ' "
like the gene 'lity of native pf,hces, he had governed' '
his -people th' prudence nm 4 mocreratiOn;. and ye-
strained his ei expenses wit l# the dimits.of 'his in-
come.
The Bombay' Governuliell nt decided,' however,
that the pro rty Should •be f ade over tothe present
Raja, and at the ex-Raj -be -informed thet -the
pension is a igoed to hirusei and-his family in satis-
faction of all emandli whate ron the Governtrient Of -
Sattara. Su is like; to be the climax of the oishappY",
Raja's fates- A 'prin who had been for many years, .
,and -up to a e ver latei' period, the deserving 't
object of 'Abe .Co rt's sand the Government's -.
highest favour and '4lchniiations stripped eof his- raj . - ''-:;`- --
'and his property; he now the degraded. leositiper - 'se. '
of ',that brother what assisted in .hiada-,4-7e-
To me, it appears 6 -the 'confis'
cation" . ' agsfer • o
of his-property to`the ' esent Raja is an'''ridditional
penalty- inflicted on tkis unfortunate Pet_ e,s
, ~net ' i - -
es s
warranted by any 'consMerations whatever: -Indeed,-
in the absence Of. Stapler sional oPiniOn, I must con-
tend
that the, act• is: i gab; ._theregillations- of ;Our '
GOvernment guarantee' to all'Setir subjects.the frie -
possession of the ;,isrope i held..bye-thetwuntilthey eo ,
shall be deprived of its re-judgenent 'Of. a court laf-a'ss.
. e 524,-
competent jurisdistion. - f I Aainented -the extreme ' ,e
measure of his depoSal re dteply do I lament this e - 1 _
aggravated severityo It t :the\greet;prerogative of -
the home authariteeeeedi -ia' the ',Valance of ;justice -
between our local'Sgoyern 'efuts; add:, the natives of
India. Removed far from' the -,scene- of action;'-tlegi : - _ -
can review, with' dispasienate calmness, every turn se
-es ~,. and movement of the actprs; and whilst they are -
bound to afford every prpper support to their own
servants, it is equally thfir sacred duty to protect.
their native subjects, andeito withhold their sanction - ,
from acts of oppression and injustice.", - '-•
Mr.. Tucker, Sir C. Forbes, ]`r. Cotton, General
Robertson, Colonel Sykes—all took the same
view -of that - question. Sir; eSea4l4-- iti+giit--04
the Raja at his place of exile, he called upon
the Governor-General's agent to take an inventory
of the articles be had brought with him, which,
with the exception of the personal ornaments of
the female members of his family, were of very incon-
siderable value ; he also handed to the same agent a
schedule specifying the property left behind him at
Sattara, and I have no doubt that an inquiry would
have established the perfect accuracy of the Raja's
statement. According to that
,schedule, and to all
1 the other information which has reached me, the Raja
was deprived of property, bona fide private, of the
value of not less than 300,0001. sterling. What then,
Sir, becomes of the boasts which have been uttered
in this House of the liberality of the East India
Company ? From the time the Raja was dethroned
until his death, he received (during a period of eight
years) about 100,000/, in all, for the support of him-
self, his family, and 1,200 persons of all ranks who
followed him into banishment, and were entirely de-
pendent upon him—or about one-third the amout of
his private property, the savings of twenty years, and
about one-fifteenth or sixteenth part of the revenues
of the territory from which he had been driven.
The liberality of the company has cost them
nothing, for every farthing has been taken from
the treasury of Sattara—(Sir John C. Hob-
house nodded assent)—while they have secured
to themselves, by the second treaty, the rever-
sion of Jagheers, yielding 50,0001. a year. In-
sinuations have been thrown out calculated to lead
uninformed persons to suppose that the late Raja had
it in his power to expend lavish sums upon agitation
in this country. It is true, that out of of his allow-
ance helound the means of supporting a native gen-
tleman -as his representative in this country; but it
is not true that the Raja, since his dethronement, has
had it in his power, even if lie had felt the wish, to
cause in England. The efforts w
spend any large sum for the advahoicciaimie,natveofbeleinis
made in his behalf have been of the most spontaneous
and disinterested character. No one in this assembly
will imagine that Sir Gore Ouseley, Sir Charles
Forbes, Sir Harford Jones Brydges, Alderman Sa-
1m
SdullEivaasnt,lnAdljra.
Johna n
isloy Generalnder,
Norris
an s;directors like General Robertson, Mr. Tucker Mr.
oB
Dirtriggs,
Charles 111 r.
NShepherd, Mr. John Forbes, Colonel Sykes,Major
Oliphant, and Mr. Cotton ; or gentlemen like Ser-
geant Storks, Sergeant Gaselee, and Mr. Lewis,
were in the habit of receiving bribes from the
deposed Raja of Sattara—("Hear, hear," from Sir
J. C. Hobhouse)—yet all these gentlemen, and many
more, have been strenuous advocates for the re-
opening of this case, and for its adjudication upon
just and upright principles.—(Hear.) Let the
Right Hon. Baronet the President of the Board of
Control cite, if he can, such a list of
names from amongst those who, being free from any
connexion with the proceedings against the Raja,
have come forward to oppose the claims of that Prince
to justice. It is true that, previous to his deposaij;
the Raja expended a large sum of money inlain
of a breach of treaty by the
endeavours to send agents to this country
to
but camp
his
expenditure was necessary, because the Bombay
Government refused a port clearance
- company;to the ships
that would otherwise have brought those agents, and
these
a vessel to convey his representatives to shores.
the Raja was driven to the expedient of purchasing
The following extract from one of the dispatches of
Major Carpenter, to the Government of India, will
show how far the Raja possessed the means of keeping
up an agitation here, and will also throw some light
upon the question of his private property :
" ' The Raja informs me that since his deposition
' he has been much distressed for want of funds, which
I really believe to be the case, and I know he has not
even had the means of purchasing necessary clothing
for his family since their arrival in Benares, as my
advances to him have been merely sufficient to sub-
sist his family, followers, and cattle, lest I should
exceed the spirit of your instructions.' With regard
asNevisde I
tihrpvaei)etaisir,sssoh
ute‘h(rilac
bteyi
thnthahcevaeat
iso)atffli.tdacGlet.peircrnasonpafeptsiravttiiy.incnies
ewttatiuts;
to the private property Major Carpenttr ob-
serves,
treasuries
aei
Npsr,
eut
radrii
}vne
asa t
nefwr,dee
ri m. i i
eti .
and his A faintly
o
whidi VA or the sums allotted fu. support of the Prince
were deposited the other for the public
purposes f Sae State,
wherein there were upwards of
six lacs and 40,00 rupees, at the time the Raja was
dethroned, which form .no part of his claim ; but he
declares the whole of theetnoney, jewels, and other
Property, claimed by him as private, are the savings
of his privy purse, or surplus of the private treasury."
But I may be asked to show in what way these facts
bear upon the present state of the case, and I will,
therefore, briefly describe the condition of the Raja's
family and followers who are now at Benares.
Since the death of the Raja, on the 13th of October
last, not a shilling has been received by the Raja s
widow, or the adopted son, from the British Govern-
ment. Application was made to the Age it for the

<~..

:.
t`

./~K

3

~4
may-'
.... _

means of defraying the funeral expenses, and the
President of the Board cf Control, in answer to a I
question which I put to hlrn stated, that 50;000 rupees
had been offered for that: purpose, and had been re-
fused, because not accompanied by a pledge to con-
tinue to the family the ten thousand rupees, monthly
allowance, niade to the late Raja.
Sir j. C. HOBIIOUSE—He would not give a
realipt.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON—Such, I under-
take to say, are not the real facts of the case. The
money, I admit, was offered and declined ; but
not for the reason stated, but because
the agent would not take a receipt in the name of
the adopted son, who was the only person entitled to
receive or to acknowledge the proffered sum. lam
also informed that other moneys have been declined
for the same reason. I can scarcely suppose the Right
lion. Gentleman to be so ill-informed respecting the
laws and usages of the Ilindoos, as not to know that
neither the Ranee nor the Minister could receive the
iraaney, except in the name and by the authority of
the son ; or that he can fail to be aware of the fact
that the youth who has been adopted stands in pre-
cisely the same position as a son born of the
body of the late Raja. Sir, I see no reason why
800 persons should be left without the means of sub-
sistence, because those upon whom they depend re-
fuse to violate the immemorial and universal custom of
their own country.—(Hear.) If I have been rightly
informed, the sum of 2,500 rupees, monthly, has been
offered to the Raja's widow for the maintenance of her
establishment. This, if it be the case, cannot be re-
ceived, except on behalf of her son, and in his name ;
and if it could, it would be utterly insufficient for the
support of the family and their 800 dependents. But,
Sir, why is this course of treatment adopted,
while the company are accountable before
man and before God for the whole of
the private property of which I have been speaking,
and are at this moment in possession of the territory
and revenues of Sattara ?—(Hear.) It may be said
tha't the Baja had no rights, or that having died, his
rights have died with him. But, Sir, the pledge that he
shauld enjoy the possession of his private property,
was given before his deposal—it was part and parcel
of the measure decided upon—his private property
was guaranteed in the very document that described
him as a guilty man, and directed that he should be
dethroned, and there is not a lawyer, either in this
country or in India, who would dispute the Raja's
right to adopt a son as his heir to the personal
property of which he died possessed, or to which he
might be declared legally entitled. We ask, therefore—
and we have -reason, and justice, and the solemn
pledge of a British governor, and all law human and
divine on our side—that the property taken from
the father at the time of his deposal be accounted for to
his son and heir.— (Hear.) We ask, too, that, pending
the question of sueuebssion to the raj, the living and legal
representative of the late Raja shall enjoy the stipend
assigned to his father. To what purpose more just
and lawful can the revenues of Sattara be applied?
But we ask more, and we think we do not ask too
much. We ask that the -adopted son of the late Raja
be placed on the guddee, and succeed to the sovereignty
of his father, according to the treaty of 1819, by
which the territory of Sattara, as an independent
sovereignty, was ceded to Pertaub Shean; his " heirs
and successors in perpetuity." What says one of the
highest authorities on this subject, the late Chairman
of the Court of Directors, Mr. Tucker :

".Admitting that the liaja was guilty of an infrac-
tion of the treat, it does not follow that it was such
as to cause his blood to be attainted. If the Raja
should have no legitimate issue, it was competent to
him to adopt, and his heir might be perfectly itmo-
cent, awl be justly entitled to the inheritance under
the treaty."
And again he says :
" The Government of Bombay seem to anticipate
that the principality may escheat at no distant period
to our Government by the demise of Appa Sahib ;
,but the principality is hereditary, and should the
R aja leave no issue or natural hei7s, he may adopt,
and adoption with a llindoo is not only a right but a
duty. I have the highest authority for stating, that
even in the case of a fief or dependency, a legal
adoption cannot be barred by the Government or
itord paramount."

These opinions I know to be those of gentlemen
profoundly versed in questions relating to adop-
tion amongst the Hindoos. Let me quote one other
passage, taken from the petition presented by the
Hon. Member for Montrose the other night, and
signed by a number of respectable and influential
East India proprietors. They say by their petition,
" That the raj (kingdom) of Sattara having re-
cently become vacant by the death of Appa Sahib, the
late Raja, they have heard with the greatest surprise
and concern that the assumed guilt of the Raja Per-
taub Sheen is advanced as a pretext against the ad-
mission of the claims of the rightful heir under the
treaty of September, 1819. But they trust and
humbly pray that such member of the Raja's family
as fills the character of heir' in the terms and ac-
cordiag to the true meaning of the treaty, may be re-
cognised and admitted as his successor, and that this
House will not permit the violation of that treaty, by
sanctioning any act, in contravention of the rights of
such ' heir,' secured and guaranteed as those rights
are by the faith of the British nation."
Sir, I must now beg permission to trespass upon the
attention of the Hi use for a few moments, while I
attempt to show, as I believe I shall he able to do,
that the dethronement of the Raja was a direct and
flagrant violation of statute law, made and provided
in such cases; and that the whole of the proceedings
of the Indian authorities are null and void, when tried
by that law. By the 33d Geo. 111., chap. 52. sec.
43, it is enacted, " that forasmuch as to pursue
schemes of coequest and extension of dominion in
India are measures repugnant to the wish, the
honour, and the policy of this nation, it shall
not be lawful, either for the Governor-General
of India, or fur the governor of any presidency, to
make or issue any order for commencing hostilities,
or levying war, or to negotiate or conclude any
treaty with any Indian prince or state (except in
cases of sudden emergency, or imminent danger,
when it shall appear dangerous to postpone
such hostilities or treaty), unless in pursuance
of ex eress orders from the Governor-General in
Council, or from the Secret Committee, by the
authority of the Board of Control." Had Sir James
Carnac the " express orders," which by this Act he
was required to possess, before he was competent to
commence hostilities, or conclude a treaty ? He had
nothing of the kind. He was sent out expressly to
assure the Raja of the friendly feelings of the home
authorities, and to treat him with the favour and re-
spect shown to him in former years, before the con-
spiracy against him commenced. There may be those
in this House who are ignorant of the view taken of
the proceedings against theßaja by the Supreme Go-
vernment of India, after the whole of the evidence
had been laid before them, and I will therefore
read a brief extract from one of the last dispatches on
the subject, addressed from Calcutta to the Govern-
ment of Bombay, and leave Hon. Gentlemen to judge
whether it points to the dethronement of the Raja
and the seizure and confiscation of his private peo-
perty :---" His Lordship in Council would close the
proceedings, apprising the Raja that, although several
suspicious circumstances regarding his Highness had
beefs elicited during the progress of this inquiry, yet
the British Government is unwilling, without the
clearest proof of guilt, to condemn any of its allies,
especially one who has been so pre-eminently the ob-
ject of his favour and generosity; that further
investigation is deemed inexpedient with reference
to the general inconvenience it creates; and that the
Right Hon. the Governor in Council is therefore
pleased to close the ii.quiry, Kith the expressim n of
his hope that the Raja will so conduct himself for
the future as to avoid the predicament (no less
painful to the British Government than to his High-
ness) in which he has been recently placed." Here,
then, is the deliberate judgment of the Supreme
Government, ignorant at the time, altogether, that
the Resident at Sattara had in his possession the in-
dubitable and conclusive proof that the very evidence
upon which this judgment was pronounced was a mass
of perjury, and that the Raja of Sattara was as innocent
as the Governor-General of India of the crimes laid
to his charge.—(Hear.) After the dispatch already
cited, we have one addressed to the authorities at the
India House, expressing the Governor-General's pain
at the proceeslings of the Bombay Government, and
stating that he had ordered those proceedings to be
brought to a close. In perfect sympathy with the
Government of India, we find the Court of Directors
writing a dispatch, dated the 22d of January, 1839
at a time, be it remembered, when the whole of the
i
evidence, was before them, save the proofs of the
,
ia !. nnocence, and of the plot to destroy him, which
ere in the secret keeping of Colonel Ovens, in which
dispatch, they
(the directors) say, that it is their
" decided opinion that it would not only be a waste
of time, but se •
their Government, detrimental to the character of
quiry into the matter."-tc. carry on any further in-
One of two things was want-
ing il`o make the deposal of the Raja a legal act, an
express command from the home authorities, or open
and declared hostility on the part of the Raja. Sir
James Carnac hail no authority from home, and the
Raja MI 'lever been charged even with anything
worse than a secret desig injure the British Go-
j a therefore, wag
vevnment. The depose), of the
Raja,
in direct contravention of the Imperial
p
b re equally
realm, and a violation of the unrepealelatutes of this
ovieions of
the charter, granted in 1793. It will
la n a
violation of the charter and the law of the
should the local Government in India place
d,
any other Prince cn the throne, or make any
disposition of the Sattara territory, without the
express command of the home authorities."--(Hear.)
Sir, I have before, ashen discussing this question,
laid considerable stress, and I think properly so,
upon the fact that the intercepted correspondence be-
tween the Raja and his most confidential agents and
friends, for three years previous to the dethronement,

was found to coctain. nothing. contrary to the letter
or spirit of the treaty which placed tee Raja on the
throne. It bas been. imputed, however, to the native
gentleman who represents the family of the Raja in
this country, I mean Rungoo Bapojee, that when at
Bombay, in 1838, he wrote certain letters to his
sovereign, which contained treasonable matter. Now,
Sir, I hold in my hands the correspondence, ex-
tracted from the blue books which have been
laid on the table, and I challenge the most
skilful lawyer in this House to lay his finger
on a sentence that can be made to show that
a feeling of hostility towards the British Govern-
ment dictated the writing of any one of these let-
ters.—(Hear.) They refer, it is true, in some parts,
to the political events then occurring, or anti-
cipated; but they merely convey the information
which was furnished to the writer in conversation
with two of the company's officers, Mr. Baber, a
magistrate, and Dr. Milne, the medical superin-
tendent of Bombay. Yet, these are tl. jecuments
and the only ones selected out of hundreds, to prove
that the late Raja carried on a treasonable correspond-
ence. Sir, I shall not at any greater length trespass
upon the attention of the House. My excuse for
what I have said is, that I deemed it important to
bring these facts, some of them new, under the atten-
tion of Parliament, and particularly of the Right
Hon. Baronet, in the hope that it may receive at the
hands of the Government the consideration to which
I think it is fairly entitled.—(Hear, hear.) The
present state of the affairs of Sattara affords the
Indian authorities a favourable opportunity of setting
at rest a question of deep interest to many beyond
these walls, and to some at least who are within
them.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The point which
I would particularly urge on their attention is that of
the succession and the claims, both by consanguinity
and adoption, of the y oung Raja, now at Benares.
Should I be told by the President of the Board of
Control that there are many nice points of law in-
volved in this queetien, some of which might be ar-
gued and determined against the adoption of Shahoo
£laharaj, I will observe in anticipation of such an ob-
jection that, admitting the question to be one
that might be litigated, if there existed any
rivals, there is really no impediment eel at-
ever in the path of the Right Honourable Baronet,
or of the Court of Directors, since they
have only to decide in favour of the adopted son,
who is undoubtedly the nearest relation to both the
deceased Raja', in order to enable that person to
ascend the guddee with the consent and approbation of
all parties concerned.—(Hear, hear.) I earnestly
hope that this subject will receive attentive and
generous consideration, and that no objections will
be gratuitously urged by the Government in bar of
the indisputable claim, on all moral and equitable
grounds, of the young Prince on whose behalf I
make my present appeal. A decision in favour of
that individual would be one alike honourable to the
Government and satisfactory to all those who have
taken a view similar to my own of this question. It
would heal remaining wounds, it would be regarded
as some reparation of the wrongs that are complained
of, and end those discussions which, unless such a
decision be arrived at, are likely to go on, both here
and elsewhere, until something like justice is ob-
tained.—(Hear, hear.) I know I shall be reminded
of the small numbers who have voted with me at
the India House, in comparison with the gross num-
ber of qualified holders of East India Stock.
I do not deny the fact that I have al-
most invariably been in a minority; but
the majority has been composed of the directors
voting in their own favour, of tnc members of the Bye-
law
parties implicated, and of those who attend and vote
with the directors in the hope and expectation of
sharing in the immense patronage which the Execu-
tive body have at their dispose!. —(Hear.) Sir, if I have
been in a minority, I have only been treated as
another member of that Court, Mr. John Poynder,
who, though for many years a conspicuous and
zealous advocate of an important religious question,
has never been favoured with the support or presence
of one of the hundred clerical gentlemen who are pro-
prietors of stock.—(Hear.) There are other and more
impartial tribunals to be appealed to, and to these we
must resort should we be compelled, sustained by the
conviction that the truth is mighty, and must ulti-
mately prevail. Such appeals will, I trust, be ren-
dered unnecessary by the course shortly to be adopted
by the Indian authorities. Happy shall Ibe to wit-
ness the final settlement of this long debated question,
and to tender my humble but sincere thanks to those
who havecontributed to b.ing it about. Grate-
ful to the House for its attention to my observations,
I shall conclude by moving, "That in the opinion of
this House it is required, by justice and good faith,
that the private property of which his Highness
Pertaub Shean, late Raja of Sattara, was possessed at
the time of his deposal, in 1839, and which property
was seized and confiscated in violation of a written
pledge given by Sir James Carnac, the Governor of
Bombay, should be transferred to Shahoo Maharaj,
the adopted son and heir of his late Highness, or full
compensation be made in lieu thereof."
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE, referring to the numerous
discussions which had taken place upon this subject,
and to the impossibility of stating a single fact with
which the select audience whom the Lion. Member
had been addressing (there were not more than a
dozen Members present) was not painfully familiar,
thought that he would stand absolved from blame if
he were to abstain from making any observations on
the present occasion.—(Hear, hear.) In order, how-
ever, that the Hon. Member might not have any
ground of complaint he would, trusting that the
House would bear with him, once more go over the
ground which had been so often travelled before,
and state the reasons which induced him to come to a
conclusion respecting the Sattara grievance directly
opposite to that at which the Honourble Member
had arrived. The Right Honourable Baronet then
proceeded to detail the usual statement of fat's ap-
pertaining to this case, drawing from it the same de-
duction as that which he formerly submitted to the
consideration of the House. With respect to the
private property,of the ex-Raja, the Hon. Member's
observations were nothing but a continuation of the
debate of the 11 th July. The real truth was that
Pertaub Shean had no private property at all when he
was elevated to the throne by Mr. Elphinstone.
When he was deposed he left behind him several lacs
of rupees, but the Government of India decided that
this was state property, and not private property.
A sum of not less than 3,0001. a year had been had
been assigned to his family as a provisional allowance
until a final arrangement could be made, and about
2,0001. a year had been settled upon his eldest
daughter, who had retired with it to Benares, attended
by a large number of the ex-Raja's followers. He
(Sir John Hobhouse) could assure the Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Thompson) that there was no intention on
the part of the Government of India to act otherwise
than justly in the case. He might depend upon it,
that every consideration would be given to the wants
of the family. He was not now talking of the ques•
tion of the succession of the Shahoo Maharaj to the
throne, but respecting the wants of the family,
and the Hon. Gentleman might take his assur-
ance that they should be properly attended
to. With respect to the succession, he (Sir
J. Hobhouse) was not prepared to decide the
question off-hand. There were various opi-
nions respecting the rights of the adopted son to
the throne. He admitted, with the Hon. Gentleman,
that the boy adopted by Pertaub Sheen had been
adopted according to all the Eindoo forms and cus•
toms, and was entitled to any private property be-
longing to the adopting father; but the right to suc-
ceed to the throne was another question altogether.
The Hon. Gentleman knew, also, that the brother,
the reigning Prince, had adopted a son on his
death-bed; but the British Resident was away
at the time, and as the paramount power had
not concurred in that adoption, it was not a
political adoption; so that the two adoptions
might be considered as on a par e ech other.
Whether the young man adopted by the late Raja
Appa Sahib, or. the one adopted by the deposed Raja,
should succeed, was a great question, to which the
Government would have to apply itself; as also
whether one of these should be chosen at all, or whe-
ther it would be wise to set up any person whatever
over the territory of Sattara as its future ruler—these
were questions to be considered hereafter by the Go-
vernment of India. As he had told the Ron. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Thompson) the other day, no opinion
had yet been given by Lord Dalhousie, who in a
letter received by the last mail had expressed his
regret that he (Lord Dalhousie) had not yet received
the necessary information from the Bombay Govern-
ment, and had stated that when the expected
dispatches arrived from Bombay, the subject would
receive immediate attention by himself and council.
If he might be permitted to do so, he would take the
liberty of giving the Hon. Member a little advice.
The Hon. Member was personally acquainted with
India, and no doubt felt considerable interest in its
welfare and, prosperity. The Hon. Gentleman
could not be influenced by a few grains of personal
advantage^2 Let him then direct those abilities
which he undoubtedly possessed, not to the detrac-
tion of the deed, but to the eulogium of the living.
India afforded a field for the display of every virtue,
and men were not found wanting when the occasion
presented itself. It was only yesthday that the
Government received the news of a great exploit
performed by a British officer, young in years, and
only a subaltern in rank, who performed it under
every disadvantage, unaided, and it might be said
alone, for he had not the assistance of a single
fellow-countryman, or even one of his own
coleur. In one month, alone, and, as he had
said before, quite unaided, with levies which
raised
be hadhimself only a month be-
fore, and
which he had himself disciplined, under
a burning sun, in countries inundated by great
rivers, that young man overthrew a formidable foe,

and by his own light heed end sagacious head saved,
he might say, from great peril a distant part of our
Indian empire. The Hon. Gentleman would, he was
sure, find more satisfaction in adding to the praises
which would be for ever, he thought, bestowed on
Lieutenant Ed wardes—(Cheers)—than in finding
fault with what he considered to be the misdeeds of
Colonel Ovens.
Mr. HUM cordially united with the Right Hon.
Baronet, who had just sat down, in the eulogium
which he had pronounced on the gallant and suc•
cessful achievements of Lieutenant Ed wardes, and
deeply regretted that the existing regulations pre-
vented that officer from receiving the honours and
rewards he so eminently merited. As that officer
was only a subaltern in the service, he could not
even receive the title of C.D. He hoped that some
alteration would be made that would enable the
Right Hon. Baronet to do justice to the claims of
that gallant officer.
Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE—It is already done.
Mr. HUME said he was extremely glad to hear
it. He (Mr. Hume) would now briefly refer to the
question before the House. lie agreed in the
desirableness as a general rule of not introducing
Indian questions into that House, but when acts of
oppression and cruelty were committed and appeals
for redress were rejected elsewhere, it was then right
that the matter should be brought before Parliament,
and the present was a case of that description. As for
the numerous decisions at the India House which had
been referred to they were merely decisions not
to re-open the case or to correct the original error—
they were not decisions on the merits of case. In
fact, for the most part they bad been votes of adjourn-
ment, and had no reference to the specific questions
which had been debated.—(hear, hear.) There was
much which might be urged in excuse for those who
had in the first instance come to a hasty decision
upon the subject. They were utterly unacquainted
with the merits of the question wheri they so decided.
Although the Right Hon. Baronet had expressed his
opinion of the guilt of the Raja, be (Mr. Hume)
begged to express his own honest conviction that
Pertaub Shean was ruined by as foul a conspiracy
as ever disgraced the annals of this empire.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet
had spoken of persons advocating the cause of the
Raja for hire; but he and others who had taken up
that question could never be accused of any such
motive ; they had only taken up the cause from a
conviction that the Raja had been so ruined by con-
spiracy. With regard to the question of the Raja's
private property, the Right Hon. Baronet was
altogether under a mistake. Ile (Mr. Hume) had
lately seen copies of a letter containing a list of the
private property delivered to Colonel Ovans, to which
private property the Raja's heir was actually en-
titled. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that it
was not determined a hick was or was not the private
property of the late Raja ; but he had forgotten that
Captain Grant Duff, the first Resident, decided the
question, and set aside what alight be called " the
civil list" of the Raja, which was for his own private
use, and had been sanctioned by Government,
and it was out of that very civil list that
he had saved the lacs of rupees which had been
referred to. If any prince ever deserved the thanks
of the British Government it was the Raja of Sattara,
and it was unjust that his savings during his reign
should be withheld from him while living, and from
his family when dead. It had been said that if the
Raja was guilty, he had no right to adopt a successor
to the throne. That word "if ' involved the whole
q • ues • for he contended the eja had never been
question; R
proved guilty, since he Lad not been permitted to be
heard in his own defence—he had never had a hear-
ing. It had been said that this subject had been
frequently before the directors, but that body had
always been judges in their own cause, and he could
not forget that the truth once leaked out in a dispatch
sent home to Sir James Carnac, who said that should
the Raja Appa Sahib die without issue the territory
would revert to the company, and they would thus
gain a revenue of 180,0001. or 200,000/. a year. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had said he would, vt ithout
hetitation, see justice done. He (Mr. Hume) would
take him at his word, and wait to see him fulfil his
pledge. After repeating his anxiety to see the ques-
tion fairly and equitably decided, the Hon. Gentle-
man resumed his seat.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY vindicated the character
and motives of Sir James Carnac, who on his return
to England had explained and justified his conduct.
He contended that the Raja had broken the second
and fifth articles of the treaty, which, whether right
or wrong, he was bound to observe. The Raja as a
sovereign prince could not have a formal judicial
trial. The question was one of treaty, and a viola-
tion of the treaty carried with it a forfeiture of the
sovereignty. With respect to the private property he
trusted the Government would treat it in the most
handsome and liberal manner. The Raja, according
to the statements of the Honourable Member
for the Tower Hamlets, had received during
his exile 100,000 pounds, which was one-third of
the private propel ty. He (Sir ii. Willoughby) agreed
that it was inexpedient that Vakeels should come to
this country, aril he thought the gentleman who sat
under the gallery (llunjoo 13.ipogee) had broken a
pledge to return to India, when money was advanced
for the purpose. He concluded by repeating. the ex-
pression of his hope that the East India Company
and the local government would take care that there
should be a just settlement of the question of private
property, and would see that those whom the Raja
had left behind Lim were treated in a liberal and
generous manner. He would not discuss the ques-
tion of the succession, but leave it to be considered
hereafter if it was considered worth while to raise it.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON—I have but little
to say in reply to the Right Hen. Baronet, who, I
must say, has not grappled with the two main
branches of the question before the House, namely,
the confiscation of the private property, and the ille-
gality of the dethronement. Ile has said nothing of
the violation of the solemn pledge of the British
Governor, nor even condescended to notice the official
documents which. I placed before the House to prove
the engagement which was entered into, and the ac-
tual existence of the property of which the Raja was
deprived. I have now a letter before me, written by
Colonel Ovens, describing his property, and the man-
ner in which it had been accumulated, and stating
that there would be no difficulty in discriminating
between what was public and state property, and
what was private and personal. All this property
was acquired by thrifty management of that part of
his revenue which the Raja had, from the commence-
ment of his reign, set aside for his personal expenses.
If I wanted further proof, I would quote the
admission of the Right Honourable Baronet,
that a large amount of treasure was left by
the Raja, which was applied by his brother
to certain purposes which he has described. In fact,
there had been no defence of this act of spoliation. The
existence of the property was proved by the Go-
vernor's letter and pledge, by his dispatch to the su-
preme authorities, by the letters of Colonel Ovans, by
tke detailed inventory of the property which had been
made out, and by the admissions of the Right Hon.
Baronet himself. All that had been advanced went
to prove the violation of as distinct a pledge as had
ever been given by any British Governor in any part
of the world; and unless justice was at
length done, the transaction would bring inde-
lible disgrace upon all parties concerned in it.
I will put this case to the President of the India
Board. Suppose the Raja had taken advantage of
the five days which intervened between the receipts
of the written pledge of the Governor, and the hour
of his deposal, and had employed them in bringing
together all his moveable property in treasure, jewels,
and other things, and had made them ready to ac-
company him on his departure from the capital,
would not the letter of the Governor have fully
authorised the Resident to consent to their
removal, and would not the Raj.), thus have
had the benefit of the engagement which had
been voluntarily given ?—(Hear.) The Raja, however,
had unlimited confidence in the word of the Governor
and the honour and good faith of the British Govern-
ment, and his reward was to be deprived of every-
thing which he had intrusted to the care of the Bom-
bay Government. I was curious to know the views
of the Right Hon. Baronet in reference to the opinion
I ventured to express of the legal character of the
act of deposal. Conversant, as he must he, with the
statutes framed to regulate the affairs of India, he
cannot have overlooked the Act of 1793, to which I
so particularly referred, and which, according to my
view, rendered it incompetent to the Indian authori-
ties to depose the Raja, or enter. into any
treaty with his brother. On this subject the Minister
of the Crown has been profoundly silent, although
it is one of vital importance, and has nothing to do
with the guilt or innocence of the Raja. I commend
the matter to his serious consideration, both as re-
lating
that
hat futures
oat
emot
sapnnayfs t
tibrprereoGl ce env eavdne irtnntgn
nos
pe
ianc nst dnfa
havesl nb de
been
ner
.ei nn g upon the
a m sr
r introducedy
sibnae
itedon
deemed
thisrespeedebate,trespecting
necessarysai nr ea especially eecsi
revertael ya r thatnt
zoc w. hi it
as should
rnudhleedaar
lvd3le,,
discover that I have been led to make any
statement detrimental to the character of any living
person, and above all to the memory of any one
upon false information, I can assure the House, there
is not a person living who would be more ready than
myself to offer the most ample reparation.—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman will
allow me to refer to the condition on which
I undertook to make good my charges against
certain persons, namely, that there should he
a Committee before whom I might produce the wit-
nesses required to substantiate my allegations.
I have never been able to obtain such an
inquiry either here or at
rtefgorardt
negcmouynfsueltuhhe India Housere
e.
hlatshastodcthe
kindly
course in this House. I receive his advice in the
Rightgive n II
mone. to-night Baronet
spirit in which it was conveyed, and shall follow it '