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

WEDN ES DA It

it by means of a commission, and that commission was
appointed in the most impartial manner that it was
possible to imagine. The instructions they received
were, that they were to conduct the inquiry in the way
which they in their consciences thought best ; and
accordingly they found that the manner of doing
so was such as every unbiassed person must approve.
An exception had been taken to the decision by
which an English bat lister was not allowed to appear in
the Raja's favour; but that decision he thought wasa
right one. He had been a member of the bar himselfin
India; and he was of opinion from his experience there,
that no English barrister should be permitted to appear
in such a case. While the Raja was refused a barris-
ter, however, he was permitted to have the assistance
af an agent or friend. Complaints had been heard that
the Raja was not, from the first, called in, but the reason
was, that till a prire4 facie case was made out against him,
it was not thought proper to take any step by which he
tnight appear to be implicated. In every respect, how-
ever, he gas treated with the most impartial justice. The
evidence of the witnesses was read Over to him; and yet
it was attempted to be said that he did not know the
charges brought against him. Reference had been made
to the opinions of Sir R. Grant and Lord Auckland; but
the former considered the Raja guilty, though he recom-
mended what, under the circumstances, was a lenient
course, and the latter likewise, alter the conclusion of
the commission, deemed the Raja guilty to the extent at
least of countenancing the attempt to seduce two native
officers of the British army from their allegiance. Subse-
quently, when the whole matter was terminated and all
the papers were sent to Lord Auckland, that Noble Lord
felt it his duty to state that be was compelled to concur in
the opinion that the other two charges preferred against
tne Raja were established. Then came the question
when the proceedings were closed—what was to be done
with the Raja? Sir R. Grant suggested that he ought
co have a copy of the charges, While this matter was
under discussion Sir R. Grant unfortunately died; but
Lord Auckland recorded in a minute that for certain
given reasons he was satisfied it would not be right to
persevere in the course he had before recommended of
presenting the Raja with a written statement of the
charges and proofs against him, as such a course might
lead to embarrassment to the public interest, and expose
the witnesses to persecution; and therefore he referred
the whole matter to the Court of Directors. What was
done when the matter came before the Court of
Directors? Sir J. CarnaC, one of the Court, who
had all along taken a favourable view of the
Raja's case, went out, at his own request,
to Sattara, and used every endeavour to induce
the Baja to sign a declaration that he would ob-
serve the original treaty; but in vain. The consequence
was, that the Raja was deposed, and his brother reigned
in his stead. The Hon. Gentleman had charged Colonel
Ovens with subornation of perjury; but, it appeared
that a witness, who had heard of the proceedings insti-
tuted against the Raja, came forward and volunteered
to procure treasonable papers for Lieutenant Horne,
who was at that time in charge of the residency. At
the same time he went to the Raja, and told him that
the officers of the residency were getting up forged papers
against him, and that if the Raja would give him money,
he would find out the whole matter for him. When
Colonel Ovans discovered this double-dealing, he ceased
to place any reliance on the testimony of the wit-
ness, and this was the case which the Hon. Member cal-
led one of subornation of perjury. With respect to the
third charge, the facts had been suppressed. By the
treaty, the Raja had no right to receive a letter except
through the resident, and the Government were right in
taking any means in their power to prevent a correspon-
dence which had been intercepted and which, being
clandestine, must be traitorous. But, contrary to that
treaty, the Raja did carry on such a correspondence,
which had been intercepted, and which fully proved his
treason. It had been stated by the Honourable
Member, that the confession made to Mr. Ilutt by the
Raja, at Ahmednugger, was extorted from him, bat
Mr. Ltutt had declared that that statement was perfectly
voluntary. He denied that the Raja was confined in a
dungeon, or that any bribe was given • Another charge
made by the Hon. Member against Colonel Ovens was
that of suppressing the evidence of Kristnajee. Now,
the fact was that Kristnajee went to Colonel Ovens,
and stated that he had written the petition, and had
been promised 1,250 rupees by Girjabee for doing
as ; and to show the truth of his statement, he produced
a copy of the petition. Colonel Ovens instituted an
immediate inquiry into the matter ; and, to show
that no unnecessary delay had taken place, he (Sir J.
Hogg) might: state that the last deposition was
taken on the 10th of July, and that the whole of the
documents were handed by Colonel Ovans to the Go-
vernment on the 16th of July. This fact at once dis-
proved the charge that Colonel Ovens had suppressed
the evidence for thirteen months.—(Hear, hear.) And
yet the Honourable Member for the Tower Hamlets
stated in the Court of East India proprietors that Colonel
Ovens was the greatest unpunished criminal in the
world ; and the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr.
Hume) had said that the Gallant Officer had no regard
fur the honour of his cloth. Now, he (Sir J. Hogg)
begged to tell that Honourable Gentleman that there
was not in the service a man of higher honour and in-
tegrity then Colonel Ovans, and there were few who
had rendered greater services to their country both in
the field and in the closet.—(Hear, hear.) This was the
opinion of the whole Court of Directors.—(Hear.) The
Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had, two
years ago, accused Colonel Ovens, in that House, of
bribery and corruption in having obtained from the
Raja a pension of 1,5001. a year for his father•in•law,
and afterwards for his brother-in-law. Why was not
that charge repeated to-night ? Because it had been
repudiated by the House with disgust and indignation
when it was formerly made by the Hon. Gentleman.—
( Hear, hear.) It had also been asserted that when his
wife and family left India, Colonel Ovens obtained
50,000 rupees for them from the Baja. And on whose
authority was this charge made ? On that of Krist-
najee, who after stating that he had written the petition
at the request of Girjabee, declared that that asser-
tion was a lie, and that he had written the petition at
the desire of Colonel Ovens, who had paid him for
it. He (Sir J. Hogg) would ask the House whether
this was a man on whose evidence they would allow the
honour and integrity of Colonel Ovens to be impeached?
When Colonel Ovens heard of these charges be at once
expressed his desire, although he was suffering from ill-
health, to go out to India and prosecute his calumniator.
But the Court of Directors would have been unworthy
of their position if they had not refused to attach any
importance to these statements.—(Hear, hear.) It so
happened that a new resident was appointed to
Sattara, Mr. Frere, who, not knowing all that had come
out, wrote to say that he was afraid the Honourable
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) did not know the
character of this man, " who had taken to memorializing
Mr. Hume and the Queen in Council."—(A laugh.)
Mr. Frere thought it right to inquire into these charges;
the man named tour individuals to be sent for, and it
turned out that one had been dead fourteen years, and
the others knew nothing about the matter.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Frere was convinced that the whole petition was a
tissue of falsehood.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable
Member (Mr. G. Thompson) had been continually
complaining of the absence of an address which the Go-
vernment of India were said to be withholding, in order
that the people here might not know the truth of the
case. At every court the directors were " roasted"about
it. Now it had come home; and what was it ? An
English document, concocted in this country by the
Raja's agents, cut and dried, in the English lan-
guage; and Major Carpenter stated that the Raja
merely put his seal to it that it might be in form, and
sent it to the Government.—(Bear, hear.) And the
Government of India were charged with withholding
evidence essential to substantiate the Raja's case ! lie
(Sir J. W. Hogg) must use a homely word, and ask—
was there ever such preposterous humbug attempted to
be foisted upon the
public?—(hear, hear.) The dis-
cussion of that night
would, he trusted, have the effect
of disabusing the public mind with respect to this
question.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped it would expose
the preposterous humbug which bad been practised
with regard to the case of the Raja of Sattara,
and that the vote of the House would satisfy public
servants in India, civil and military, that as long as they
discharged their duties honourably and faithfully to their
Sovereign and their country, there existed that honour-
able and gentlemanly feeling in the House of Commons
which would make them repudiate and spurn charges
like those which had been preferred against the distin-
guished and honourable individuals whose characters had
been calumitiously assailed on the present occasion.
(Loud cheers.)

Mr. BROTHERTON observed that the House had
now been sitting tor 12i hours, but the Hon. Member
resumed his seat without making the motion which for-
merly was expected from him as a matter of course.
Mr. ANSTEY stated that having on a former occa-
sion taken hetr in the debate on the CRSO of the Raja
of Sattara, could not allow that opportunity to pass
without expressing his conviction, after mature ex-
amination of the papers laid before the House
"f 1 ,
that, although the case of the
Sattara
remained where it was against the Government,
the character of Colonel Ovens had been completely
vindicated. The former debate had been adjourned
instead of the old case being gone into, which it might
have been upon the merits of inquiry, had it been limited
to the conduct of Colonel Ovaus. Ro had some diffi-
culty in deciding upon which way he should vote upon
the present occasion, because if his vote was to be taken
in any way affecting the character of the Gallant Officer
named in the motion, be must say that it
appeared to him that that
officer had done
nu more than what strict duty demanded, but
if the object of the motion was, as contained in
the concluding words of the notice, to ask for a
Committee to be appointed, inconformity therewith, to
enter into the proceedings of the Government both in
Bombay and in this country, and the entire case with re-
gard to the Raja of Sattara, then he should certainly
vote for the motion. It mattered not whether the wrong
had been done by the Board of ().o ntrol,in Westminster, or
the Court of Directors, in Leadenhall-street, or the
Governcr-General in Calcutta,or the Governor, at the
Presidency. If justice had been done towards the late
Raja, those parties bad evidently given a greedy ear to
men whom they themselves were afterwards obliged to
discard. If Kristnajee deserved the censure which the
Hon. Member Member for Honiton had cast upon him on the
authority of the documents he had read, what then
came of the statement respecting Kristnajee's evidence,
made in the earlier part of the debate? Let it be re-
tnembered that the only evidence upon which the
judgment of Colonel Ovens and the Government was
founded to establish the authenticity of that document,
upon which the Raja was charged with treason and
thrown into prison, was upon the evidence of
the man characterised by his very employers as a disre-
putable informer, seeking by means of falsehood and ca-
lumny to establish himself in the profitable position of
running the risk of having his face whitened, and being
paraded on the back of a jackass, and expelled the
country, to the ordinary mode of dealing with such
vrimea in native states.—(Heart hear.) It was