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

)t)
)m
ho
en

)er
he
lat
❑ts

ear,
was

vritteo °

Dn3 tr
eO„che
abet' 'to
letter.
viblhe,
for -1

for-
Lap 9 ic
si~iee
b.
a in
to
[ado' rig
in
.bot
co—
s ,i 1
„is o uie
noun hub
Bose' diP
is
)01i

rash the-natives of India with evidence that the Ho-
nourable Member could succeed in what he undertook,
and he could have as many constituents as he pleased.
He had remarked in the Honourable Member a dispo.
sition to act in that way. Within a few days the Hon.
Member had put a notice on the book of a motion for a
return of all jsgheers, and of all lands held on Enam or
Bbotrium tenure, which had been resumed by the British
Government in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies,
from the year 1820 to the year 1840 inclusive, showing
the annual. revenue of the possessions so resumed, and
the causes of their resumption. That would open a fine
field for the Hon. Member and his friends, and if he suc-
ceeded in obtaining the Committee for which he now
moved five-hundred- similar cases would be brought
under the notice-of the House. He believed that jus-
tice was administered with as much purity in India as it
was in this country ; but dissatisfied persons would ap-
peal to the House of Commons, not because they had
injuries to be redressed, but because they wished to ob-
tain that which they were not entitled to.
Mr. HUME• then rose and said, that his acquaintance
with India did not warrant him in giving such a cha-
racter of the native power in India as that given by
the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire, or of such a ge-
neral discontent as he had represented would lead to theHe
employment of European agents by the natives.
(Mr. Hume) believed that accusations of injustice might
now and then-occur, but he would not calamniate the
Government of India by any such statement as that
had
last been made by the Hon. Member who
last addressed the House. -His (Mr. Hume's) desire
was to bring the House back to to the question from
which its attention had ' been removed by the Hon.
Member. The motion was to inquire into the conduct
of Lieutenant-COlonel Ovens (of the Bombay Army),
while British Political Resident at the Court of Sattara;
and into the proceedings of the Bombay Government,
sad the Court of Directors of the East India Company,
in relation to certain charges preferred against that
officer. Now, the Hon. Gentleman had taken up an
rld worn-out debate respecting the Raja of Set-
ters.-- For a long time ho had directed the
attention of the House in endeavouring to sa-
tisfy it that the Raja was guilty, and that the
documents on which that guilt was established were be-
yond suspicion accredited. Now he (Mr. Hume) consi-
dered that, to use a common phrase, a kind of drag,
which sportsmen sometimes use ; when they find the
scent is strong upon the fox, they get a red herring and
draw off the scent, and turn it to some other track. So
the Hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to draw off the
attention of the House from that old fox if he (Mr.
Hume) might be allowed so to call the officer named in
the motion, and had turned its attention to the Sattara
inquiry. In the first few sentences which fell from the
Hon.: Member for Roxburghshire, where he spoke of Col.
Ovens as a man of high character, he (Mr. Hume) was
not dispcsed to differ with him. He had heard the
same statements from persons well acquainted with that
officer. He (Mr. Hume) was bound to say that those
who knew Colonel Ovens in India spoke highly of his
character before he became connected with Sattara,
and so long as he remained merely a military officer,
there was no reason to believe that he was not
taken by the commanding officer as the best
man that could have been selected for Commis-
sioner at Sattara. The Hon. Member for Roxburgh-
shire had deprecated the charges made against that
officer, and stated the difficulty there would be in making
good the proof. Why the Hon. Member seemed to have
forgotten the first few sentences of the statement of the
Hon. Member who introduced the subject. Instead of
the inquiry asked for by the motion being, as the Hon.
Member whoihad last spoken, said interminable—instead
of five or six years being required for its prosecution—
the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had under-
taken to prove the whole of the charges from the papers
then upon the table of the House, an by the testimony
of parties living in England at the present moment, and
from the testimony of Colonel Ovens himself, from his
own statements as the principal means of proof. He
(Mr. Hume) could not, therefore, understand upon what
ground the lion. Member (Mr. Elliot) bad discarded
altogether the charges which had been brought forward
seriatim, forgetting, or at any rate not noticing, the
documents read in support of those charges, leaving all
at once Colonel Ovens, the object of the inquiry, and
proceeding to state a variety of circumstances con-
nected with the history of the Raja of Sattara.
The Hon. Member concluded his speech by an allusion
to Major. Carpenter, whose evidence was against the
Raja. Now he (Mr. Hume) hoped the House would not
be led away by the drag which had just been used, by
occupying the time of the House merely upon the ques-
tion of the guilt or innocence of the Raja. lie hoped
the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire was not leaving
the House ; because he (Mr. Hume) was desirous of
showing, before that lion. Member went, how it was
possible to read documents with a view of convincing
the House that Major Carpenter's letter was against the
Raja, by reading merely a part, and forgetting to read
the following sentence. The lion. Gentleman had read
from that document a variety of documents, all tending
to criminate the Raja of Sattara. Now, let
the House
look at the facts. Lieutenant-Colonel Ovens
eight years in charge of the Raja of Sattara. lwleas(Ncorr Hume) would not say more upon that document tban.
that it had been for three years secreted and concealed
from the knowledge of that House and the Court of Di
rectors, and was ultimately brought forward in a very
extraordinary manner. When that document, purporting
to be a copy of one received here,wasisent out to India,
Major Carpenter sent back his answer to England. That
answer was received in 1847. Major Carpenter says,
" When the Jtaja was confided to my care early in 1840,'
I considered it necessary, for the efficient discharge of
my duties, to make myself fully acquainted with the
causes of his dethronement, his general reputation for
intrigue, and other circumstances connected with his
character and conduct, to enable me to form a just esti-
Matti of the man with whom I had to deal, and to guard
against the consequences which might arise from any
laxity of surveillance on my part. To this end I care-
fully studied the allele of the voluminous documents
connected with his case, and the result was a belief in
his innocence; and this belief has been confirmed
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 .Yardinge, of
the 12th _December, 1844, forwarded through me, and
which pledge I am fully persuaded he is able
to redeem." Now he (Mr. Hume) asked whe-
ther more could be said in answer to that
voluminous paper ? The Honourable Member read
everything that tended to discredit the statement, and
to show that the statements made by the lion. Gentle-
man were incorrect, whereas the document turned oat
to have been admitted by Major Carpenter to have been
substantially true and correct ; and that officer confirms
the statement with a strong expression, declaring that
after eight years knowledge of the Raja of Sattara, and
after having read ever paper produced before that House,
his deliberate opinion, as an officer and a man, was that
'the Raja was altogether guiltless of the charges alleged
against him.—(Cheers.) But what had the Hon. Member
for Roxburghshire brought before the House, in lieu of
that important statement of Major Carpenter's? Why, a
statement from a Major Angelo. lie (Mr. Hume) hoped
that statement would be produced and laid upon the
table of the House, because he would venture to
state that it was utterly false. Several statements made
in it he knew, from his own knowledge, to be utterly
groundless. It was only an attempt to take off the
House from facts upon which it had clear evidence
before it; and so to delude the House, and prevent the
truth being arrived at. There was another ground
upon which he had reason to complain of the Honourable
Member's statement. Instead of grappling with the
facts alleged, as charges against Colonel Ovens, and de-
fending him from the accusations which had been pre-
ferred against him by the HOD. Member who introduced
the motion, he accused that lion. Member with being a
hired agent. Why, what were the Hon. Gentlemen, who
took office and received their stipends for their duties,
but hired agents; as a servant of the public he was
paid. Is any man who has not been brought up to the
bar, but has business to do, to bo called a hired agent?
Are his exertions to be reckoned of no value, and an
attempt made to place his character and statements in
an unworthy position?—(Cheers.) If the Hon. Mem-
ber for Roxburghshire had attempted, as he ought to
have done, to grapple with the facts, and answer the
arguments and documents, he would have been entitled to
some credit. But it was always the case with those whO
had no facts to adduce and no arguments to bring forward,
that they attempted to blacken the character of the indi-
viduals opposed to them, and insinuate that they had
brought forward their statements merely because they
were paid for them. The Hon. Member read a long state-
ment purporting to be an account of Mr. G. Thompson's
proceedings at Delhi. Sir, that was false. I have my-
self seen the correspondence which passed between Sir
Thomas Metcalfe and the Honourable Member for the
'Tower Hamlets respecting his mission to Delhi, and he
'ventured to say that, from an examination of that cor-
:respondence, that Honourable Gentleman would come
'clear out of any such charge as that preferred against
bins that night, and with great honour to himself. No-
thing was done upon that occasion without the know-
ledge of Sir Thomas Metcalfe, who was then at Delhi,
and it was with his sanction that every step was taken
by the Honourable Member. Here, therefore, were in-
sinuations of Major Angelo brought forward, who seems
to have known nothing of the case, used by the Honour-
- able Member for Roxburghshire for the purpose of black-
ening the character, and destroying the weight of the
evidence brought forward by his Honourable Friend
the Member for the Tower Hamlets. That was not
the first time that the Honourable Member who had
just sat down had done the same thing ; for, during
a debate upon the income-tax question he had
also tried to blacken the character of the Honour-
able Member for Finsbury by pandering
to
g
revo-
lution and violence, instead of advancing sound argu-
ment. The Hon. Member for Roxburghshire
stated, if he (Mr. recollected rightly, that the
non. Member for Finsbury was pandering to the vices
of the lowest order of his constituents, and now he (Mr.
Mate) supposed that that Hon. Gentleman was again
insinuating that the Hon. Member for the Tower Ham-
lets was pandering to the vices of the native chiefs in
India. There were other transactions in which the
Hon. Member was, as far as he (Mr. Hume) knew, en-
gaged. He went out to India with a man then much
respected, but since dead, undoubetedly as a philanthro-
pist, with other objects in view than those in which he
was subsequently engaged. While there, he was re-
quested to go up to Delhi, in order to assist by his ad-
vice and services in obtaining justice for the King of
Delhi against the oppression to which he considered he
Was subjected by the East India Company. He (Mr.
Hume) would not enter into the circumstances of that

"se, because he believed the matter was settled; ho
Only referred to it to show the unjust aspersions to which
that Hon. Gentleman had been subjected. It was nothing
but reasonable for him to introduce to the House a
!abject of that kind, and he had a right to do so without
being subjected to accusation in respect to another subject.
z(Hear.) Now what was really the question before the
'2.°128e? Colonel Ovans, being one of the residents at

Sattara, had necessarily a large share of the business
connected with the Raja pass through his hands. His
conduct in that office had been arraigned, and arraigned
too under his own hand, 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 Ovens? 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 oas
all that was asked for by the motion. He did expect,
and still thought that ought to have been the course pur-
sued with refevence 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 the charges? for that was the main point. One
was his intercepting of letters. It might be that
a postmaster-general would think nothing of
regularly intercepting and perusing correspondence.
laesecond charge against Colonel Ovens 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 Raja 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, which, for himself, he must say was not satis-
factory, or had any bearing upon the subject at all.
The Hon. Member for Roxburghshire, 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 Ovans came into posses-
sion of evidence which would have been important to
the case of the Raja of Samara, and in his (Mr. Hume's)
opinion, and in the opinion of many others, 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 Ovans, he said, "In
the foregoing paragraph I have to make a few observe
dons. 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 Sattara 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 the 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 Ovens 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 Mabdeo 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 was a suppression of evidence for eleven months.
The lion. 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 suspiclons 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-
stantly ceased." That accounted for the high character
they gave to Colonel Ovens, 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
anywhere 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 catered into
heavy recognizances, 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
upon him the punishment of imprisonment. The whole
esellaon.oGf thee ntleimlujaan,ebfutSariatttwaas nhoatdthbeeen
wish
0. reopenednim himself
ibtyotihre.
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 Sirdars. Mr. Warden told the
individual of the responsibility ho was incurring, that
he was charging Colonel Ovens, a man of high rank, with
foul practices, and that he would bo 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 recognizance; and had given
his list of witnesses, and was prepard in every respect,
still he 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; althoughthe 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 ehargpeasr,tya)nodf
the
the names (with any reservations which may
be absolutely required for the safety 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 lime to be fixed, a similar written statement of
whatever he 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-
paring 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 an 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.
He (Mr. Hume) would not say that Colonel Ovens
might not have just ground for acting as he had done.
They might extend their inquiry to the persons under
whom Colonel Ovens acted. That Gallant Officer might
be innocent, but those who gave the orders must be
guilty. Upon those grounds, the case having been made
out, and a strong appeal having been made to the India
House,
it
to whichthteheyßrirteisfhused,rarteame(nMt r.
whether
put
itMr. wHaustnop:eopualdrendo,
not say,
after what had taken
Place, to allow
shut any one of those directors the Court of Directors longer to refuse
that explanation. They were particeps criminis. He
,eftroorms
would
im-
properly, properly, or injure anoisuklein
than. There were various mo-
tives which actuated individuals,Y and various situations
in which men were placed, officially and technically;

LONDON,

but still he thought the ease fully required that explana- '
lio❑ which his Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower
Hamlets asked for. Upon that ground he supported
the motion, and ho did so in the hope that the Gallant
()Meer who stood, as he (Mr. Hume) had before stated,
in the opinion of those who had known him fur 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
trumpery 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 grant 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 brew brought before Parliament. In April
last, when the case of the Raja of Setters came on, thee
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 din not
happen to accord with his own, The Honourable Mem-
ber also placed these twelve mast 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 lion. Member
was replied to by the Right lion. 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-
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-
clude 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 o'
the Council to this effect—" You had better take care.
We 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 he recant or apologise for it ? He did not.
It was unnecessary to say that this statement respecting
Sir J. Carnac 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. Carnac, and also letters from Mr. Ander-
son and Mr. ?arish, 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 imputa-
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 had 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 Sattara. 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 nega-
tiatioes with the ex-Raja. It' his imputations were true,
what did they prove ? That at the time we had a
treaty subsisting with the Peshawar, the keeper of this
captive puppet, Mr. Elphinstone, had entered into clan-
destine communications with this puppet king, the
Raja! The Hon. Member had also cited extracts from a
boele of Mr Prinseps to prove that the ex-Raja was in an
influential situation, that Mr. Elphinstone bad 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 these 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-
nishment that he should have read extracts from his
book to prove such allegations; and yet, without 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
r
—(Mr
froma was.r(yMtro Mr Prinseps
m'prerhioncimsoep%
pvsnso nit
in
ithsisiiees n
itpelodocu.l)(seet
11,iuse of Commons! Was there any doubt about that?
withha d a
nl
eect
docu-
ments es
,plrlie'otp‘rilariehtde
when this subject was under discussion.— (Hear,
hear.) The lion. 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 bad 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
him, alleging that the Hon. Member fur the Tower Ham-
lets had only read such bits or extracts from the
papers as had suited his purpose ;.after which the
Honourable Baronet proceeded to recapitulate the names
ofthe highest authorities in India, who
of twenty-eight
the guilt
R
aja,
d their conviction o• o the
had expressed
including Lord Auckland, Lord Ellenborough, Lord
Hardinge, Sir J. Carnac, Henry
Robert Grant,
Sir bir
only one who had dis-
sented from that opinion was
Payne, and Lord Gough- The
Mr. bhakspeare, and that
gentleman died before the corroborative evidence came
out. altered
out. Had he seen the testimony he would
his opinion. A Committee of Inquiry was now asked
for in the year 1848 to inquire into proceedings at
Sattara which had been already fully intoinquired by_ a
commission sitting at Sattara. And what had been the
proceedings in the Court of Proprietors ? The Hon.
Member f,,r the Tower Hamlets had 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 qcestion, and on the
Bth of February, 1843, he took a vote, when the
minority that supported him dwindled down to 15.
Probably it, would bo 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 ,was
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 had happened that at length
the Hon. 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 lion. Member for Montrose. When he

came to his second charge, however,oneproprietor said
he should second that charge, but vote against it, for
he -wished that it should receive a hearing, and again
the lion. Member was left alone in his glory. This,
however, did not satisfy him ; he wrote a letter
tshenretehcisolluemttners.in Ittheformtuonnathtel,y)f 1
jiaapnpueanreyd,
whenwhich was inserted in the Times, and which occupied
space
for imthethsapt
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 "'ornament, but the Hon. Member
neve r ventured on a division except once. There was
one other point to which he wished to advert before he
proceeded further, it was this, that the British Resident
at St Atara, General Lodwick, reported attempts made by
the 1 taja to corrupt the Sepoys.—(Hear, hear.) Then
the it squiry being resolved upon, it was agreed to make