The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-07 00:00:00

'nercy of the Crown in any case in which it might br
thought necessary, but this was not, he thought, the tine
co interfere to rescue a man from penalties, which 1),
was justly suffering, for a crime so great teat he ought to
be on his knees from morning to night, thanking Geri
that he had time to repent of it.—(llear.) Frost, it shoul.'
oe remembered, was a man of education, of station, anti
',f influence in his neighbourhood, the more necessary
was it, therefore, that he should have shown an example
to those over whom his influence extended of obedience
'o and respect for the law, instead of encouraging
them, and leading them on to acts of violence and treason,:
—(Hear, hear.) Then what was his defence at the
trial? He said, I belong to a body of chartists. I have
great influence with that body. There was at!other
to
chartist, a Mr. Vincent, in gaol. We did not wish
overturn the establishments of the realm, or to subvert
the Throne; but we desired to make a demonstration in
favour of the principles we held, and to show to the
magistrates
ho of
rtMonmouthists
in fav ntuhrahe
nt
thisf er i astrong
man
s Vincent,
an d
among the c
therefore
we did that which you tell us is treason. The
defence was, that the Act of which they had been guilty
was not treason, but a demonstration. But the law said,
by the statutes of' Edward and of George, that he who
levied war against the Queen was guilty of high
•reason, and this was what the jury, after a most
Full and patient investigation, the accused having
the aid of the most eminent counsel at the
bar, found that they had done. It was true
that the jury accompanied their verdict by a re-
commendation to mercy, on what grounds they did
not say ; but that recommendation was taken into con-
sideration afterwards, and acted upon, and the sen-
tence, which, let it be remembered, was death, was
commuted to transportation for life. There was no
difference amongst the judges as to the character of
the offence or the propriety of the verdict ; they said
they could discover no excuse for the offenders, and
when the Lord Chief Justice gave judgment, he told
the prisoners that crimes committed against life and
property for the most part ended in suffering to the
individual or his family, hut in the present case the
crime was against all society, and was one which went
ro break down every barrier which the Constitution
had erected for the safety of life, liberty, and property.
There was then no difference of' opinion as to the
eature of the crime. The trial was good—the verdict
was good and complete—and the judges approved of it.
Why, then, did the Hon . Member for Finsbury now come
'orward and tell that House in the name of the people
that they were dissatisfied? The Hon. Member must
surely have forgotten that on that mischievous night
then those treasonable acts, for which these men were
now justly undergoing the penalty of the law were per-
petrated, nine men were shot down and killed. These
lied in their guilt, and with the sin of their crimes upon
their heads. They were in all probability ignorant
people without friends, and had been induced by the
influence of Frost to join in the illegal act. But what
must be the guilt of that man who led them on to that
crime which resulted in death to them ? He had no
hesitation in saying that that leader had to answer for
those nine lives. —(Hear, hear.) He could not under-
stand what excuse could he made for that man, who,
leading others to criminal acts, in the prosecution of
some abstract cause which he advocated, occasioned
their deaths. In his view that man would be as guilty
of their deaths as though the parties fell by
his hand and the penalty should lie with
him. The effect of the example of Frost and his
co-partners in guilt on the !state of society had not been
what it might have been. Fortunately magistrates, the
inhabitants generally, and the soldiers, did their duty
and they had their reward. Then what ground was
there for dissatisfaction?—(Hear, hear.) Was it that
strict and impartial justice had not been done? This no
one would be bold enough to assert. Or was it that the
people were so enamoured of the forms and quirks of the
law that, because an objection in point of form had been
raised in this case and had failed, they were dissatisfied?
But with regard to that objection, a majority of the
judges, it was true, decided that it was good; but a ma-
jority also decided that it was not taken in good time—
and, not a majority, but all the judges, agreed that if it
had been taken in time the only effect would have been
to postpone the trial. Ile did not despise form in legal
proceedings. On the contrary, he believed that form
gave strength to the law, and was the means of pro-
tecting the innocent and keeping power in its proper
place, nor did he mean to say that there had not been
something wrong in point of forms in this case sufficient
to justify the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to the
extent to which it had been exercised. Of all species of
treason the worst was the levying war in the Queen's
dominions- This was the crime of which these parties
had been guilty, and with his reading of the laws, and
his understanding of the object and meaning of punish-
ment, he could not vote for the motion.—(Hear.)
Mr. GARDNER supported the motion.
Mr. O'CONNOR, in reply, thanked the House for the
fair and patient hearing they had given to the subject.
As Hon. Members had objected to a general motion in
favour of all political offenders, he was willing to amend
this by excluding from it all such offenders, except
Frost, Jones, Williams, and Ellis (the man convicted at
Stafford) the only parties for whom he was interested,
Having so amended it, he would put it to the opinion of
the House. The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —6B
THE LATE RAJA OF SAT I'ARA.
Mr. G. THOMPSON rose to move for a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the conduct of the Court of Direc-
tors of the East India Company, and of the Government
of India, towards the late Raja of Sattara, and to report
thereupon to the House. He said that as the present
was a new case, no longer the petition of an individual,
but the memorial of 60,000 or 70,000 natives of India,
praying for justice to the bereaved relatives of the late
Raja of Sattara, he trusted it would receive the attention
of the House. It had been contended that the Indian
Government had acted with the strictest justice towards
the late Reja, but stern facts gave the strongest contra-
diction to that assertion. Who was the late Raja of
Sattara? He was the lineal descendant of the founder
of the Mahratta empire—an empire which once extended
from the banks of the Jumna down to Tanjore. The
late Raja had been solemnly recognised by the
Indian Government, and an alliance was entered
into with him avowedly to the advantage of
ebillioatteshtriend.g
thesin; contracting parties. Treaties had been
into
even
wi with him
by
Canning h
. Elpahd i n
thankeds ton e
General
and Lord
l
Smith for having, by his victories, placed the late Raja on
the throne of his ancestors. For 17 years, from 1818 to
1835, his Highness had remained our faithful ally, and
had highly distinguished himself by his enlightened and
just government of his own domains. Then the Indian
Government commenced violating those treaties which
confirmed the Raja's authority over the Jaghirs, and
plot upon plot followed, until at last he was dethroned
and expelled from his domains. The Hon. Member
entered into several details respecting these transactions,
all of which have been reported in former debates, and
said that if a Committee was granted he would under-
take to prove that the Raja had been the victim of the
grossest injustice and oppression. The deceased Raja
had never ceased struggling for his rights. In 1836 he
appointed an agent in England to appeal to the India
hoard and the company against the conduct of the local
authorities; that agent did appeal, and commu-
nications were sent out, but not one of those com-
munications was shown to the Raja. On two occa•
sions Sir R. Grant had promised the Raja to
lay his statement of his case before the India board,
but he had failed to do so. The charge against the
Rajah, that he was conspiring with the other native
princes to drive the British out of India, rested on the
evidence of two subadars, who had never been subject
to any cross-examination, and whose statements had
not been confirmed in any respect, and upon this evi-
dence, without explanation or inquiry, the Government
of Bombay had condemned the Raja, and in a secret
dispatch to the Court of Directors, had declared that he
had been faithless to his treaties, and had entered into a
league to put an end to British rule in India; and having
without sufficient grounds pronounced him guilty, they
felt bound to maintain that he was so, and to suppress
everything that went to prove his innocence. A Com-
mission was appointed, receiving its instructions from
Sir R. Grant; three men sat in the capital of a sove-
reign prince to try that sovereign, who was not even
allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, or have an
advocate present. The testimony given was most con-
tradictory, and yet the Raja was found guilty. This
Committee ought to be granted, were it only for the
sake of clearing the memory of Sir R. Grant from the
stain which must otherwise rest upon it. It was much
to Major• General Lod wick's credit that he had made an
open confession ; and if the Committee were granted,
he would give the fullest evidence on the subject. Not-
withstanding the Raja was found guilty by the commis-
sion, when the evidence was transmitted to Calcutta,
serious doubts were entertained about it, and means
were taken to procure a forged document which did not
find its way to Sir R. Grant until after considerable de-
t Htl ahwyeeo sa
arrived.
me Tne ethhtees
effected,
et
eas inhhgdean
daßt
sent
eoj nna
Colonelt,
snt irfueomsAi
vldhaaeenjrnoss:oaGifpnpe
Inn
jieunrt
netaeerl
tBnoo3d
Bombay;.
oiscrokpbl
withinawanya es;.
and then Govan Row was secured andet tamperedh widtihti and a confession extorted from him, which
not confirm the former evidence. Afterwardso a wevepetition
ra. was forged to prove conspiracy on the part of
theßa
750 rupees were promised the forger; but these not
be-
ing paid, he came to Colonel Ovens to expose the
whole affair. Major Oliphant, one of the directors of
the East India Company, protested against the Conduct
pnrsued towards the Raja. There were serious
charges against Colonel Ovans of a grave and dark
character, every one of which he would undertake to
prove before a Committee of that House. He would prove
that the correspondence between the Raja and the'
governor of Goa was forged. He would tell who the
parties were who forged it, arid the places where it was
forged. If the Raja was guilty, so was the Viceroy
of Goa ; and if the Government believed that he really
was so, would not they have made representations on the
subject to the Portuguese Government? It was said
that the Governor of Goa promised 30,000 troops, 15,000
of whom were to be French, and who must march
through Turkey, Persia, and Affghanistan.—(hear,
hear.) He knew the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
would refer to authority, and say that Lord Auckland
and Lord Brougham believed the Raja guilty. Bat
they pronounced their opinions before the,documents
on which he was believed to be guilty were proved to be
forged. It never entered into the heads of Lord Auck-
lha o
afrenttdro T
or
he Sir R. Grant to depose the Raja without
affording him a fair trial. And up to the present moment
he never had a copy of the evidence given him.—(Hear,
Court of Directors themselves had such
misgivings on the subject, that they wrote to Sir J. Car-
nac to arrange the matter with the Raja. But there
were parties in Bombay who were opposed to this, and
when Sir J. Carnac propOsed to draw up articles, Col.
Ovans threatened that he would make revelations which I
would compromise the character of Sir J. Carnac l
himself.

Sir J. C. HOBITOUSE—God bless my soul !
Mr. THOMPSON—The Right Hon. Gentleman se) s
-‘ God bless my soul !" He (Mr. Thompson) cried
Amen." He would produce an eye-witness of what
had recurred, if he was granted the Committee. Tile
Right Hon. Baronet seemed to think it incredible. The
greater then the necessity for inquiry. The Raja had
the alternative proposed to him of admitting his guilt,
or being deposed. He preferred hir deposition to the
ifishonour of admitting that he was guilty.—(Hear,
hear.) He said that lie would lay down his crown, but
rhat he would not stain his character. He was accord-
ingly deposed, and now it was said that it was because
he would not sign the treaty of 181 V. He was told that
his private property would be respected, but after peace-
ably submitting to his deposition, neither he nor his
representative had touched one farthing of the 300,0001.
bich he left behind him. The night after he was de-
posed he was placed in a cattle shed, and the officers who
accompanied him were heard to say this is a business
which will make a row in England. Colonel Ovens had
for three years intercepted all the Raja's correspondence,
and that of his friends in Europe and European friends
in India, and it was a remarkable fact that not a single
letter could be produced to bring ou him the slightest
suspicion of hostility. From 1839, when he was deposed,
to the present year, eight years had elapsed, and not
one single circumstance had taken place confirmatory or
corroborative of the charges brought against him.
Months and years bad passed along, and there had
been a steady accumulation of evidence in his favour.
Fake another fact. Who, connected with India, be•
lieved in the Raja's guilt ? Not the residents at the
Raja's court —not the directors of the India board—not
the present chairman of the directorate.—(Hear, hear.)
He would only further remind the House that there
were great issues at stake in their decision. It had
gone abroad throughout India that the Raja had been
unjustly deposed. The people of India were anxiously
watching that House, to see if there was any real appeal
to the Government at home.—(Loud cheers) They
asked for this Committee, moreover, in justice to the
Indian Government. The Government of that country
was a Government less of the sword than a Government
of opinion, and it was necessary to the maintenance of
that opinion that justice should be done. He asked
for the Committee, then, in the name of the people of
India—in the name of all those distinguished men whose
characters were implicated—and in the name of British
justice, to which no injured mau ever was known to ap-
peal in vain.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. J. WILLIAMS seconded the motion, observing
that very great dissatisfaction would be felt out of doors
if the Government refused their consent to this appeal.
The question having been put,
Mr. BROTHERTON said it would be impossible to
proceed with the discussion at that late hour.—(Oh.)
He would move the adjournment of the House.
Mr. G. C. LEWIS, however, rose and proceeded to
speak. He said, the difficulty he might otherwise ex-
perience in treating this question was very much miti-
gated by the form of the motion placed before them.
When a similar motion had been submitted by the Hon.
Member for Montrose the Raja of Sattara was living,
and might have been restored to his rights. The Raja,
however, was now dead, and the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber became of comparatively little importance, and was
of a very shadowy and intangible nature. There was an-
other reason which diminished his difficulty in meeting
this question. If ever there was a case where previous
decisions ought to have weight, this was the very case.
Ever since 1839 this question had been mooted in a
great variety of ways. On every occasion, however, the
result had been the same. In India, in the Court of
Directors, and in Parliament the decision had uniformly
been against the Raja, and it was not to be expected
that at this period they should re-open questions so long
adjusted, and the decisions upon which had never yet
been successfully questioned. The Hon. Member, however,
had made-serious imputations on influential persons,
both living and dead, and it was necessary that he
(Mr. Lewis) should address himself to some of those
particulars. There were, the House would obierve,
three persons particularly interested, Sir Robert Grant,
Sir James Carnac, and the Raja of Sattara himself.
Now who was the Raja ? He was a mere dependent of
the British Government. He was a prince of our own
creation. He never at any time had any power indepen-
dent of our political agency. He coald make no treaty,
declare no war, except with British consent, and the de-
cree' which created him a sovereign concluded by declaring
that any infraction of the conditions should be sufficient
to deprive him of his power. He claimed a por-
tion of' the British territory, and that claim was
rejected by the Bombay Government. The question was
then referred to the Court of Directors, and they con-
firmed that decision. The Hon. Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to rebut the accusations which had been made
by the Hon. Mover against Sir R. Grant, which he said
he had heard with the deepest pain, which he declared
to be unfounded as they were undeserved, and the re-
sult altogether of mistake, surmise, or suspicion. He
resumed the direct question by pointing to the Special
Commission issued by the Bombay Government, who
had come to the unanimous conclusion that the Raja
had tampered with some of the British officers, and had
engaged in intrigues against the British Government,
which were calculated to become subversive of British
power, and were totally inconsistent with his situation
as a subordinate Prince holding his sovereignty by the
grant of that Government. Lord Auckland was dis-
posed to take a more severe view of the case than Sir
R. Grant had done. Colonel Ovens, who succeeded
Colonel Lodwick as resident at the Court of Setters, in
that capacity, investigated two charges, one of which
was of very slight gravity. It appeared, however,
from the result of the inquiries, that the Raja
was a weak and ignorant man, and was mis-
led into a belief that, by the aid of the Portu-
guese Government, he might be placed at the
head of the Mahratta Confederacy. Some ill-paid
functionaries at Goa did certainly succeed in extracting
large sums from the Raja on this score. The charges
made by the Hon. Member against Colonel Ovens had
been more than once brought forward, and without en-
tering into their details he would state that he held in
his hand complete answers to those charges, and he was
prepared to lay them on the table of the House, and to
move at some future day that they be printed for the
complete information of Hon. Members.—(Hear, hear.)
He, therefore, requested the House to regard those
charges altogether without prejudice until they had an
opportunity of' examining into the facts. It had been
asserted that the East India Company had expressed no
opinion on the subject of Colonel Ovens' conduct, but he
would ret'er to a letter addressed, by order of the direc-
tors, to that officer, wherein they state that the charges
made by the Hon. Member left no stain upon his public
or private character; at the same time they stated that
they would not be parties to any prosecution instituted
against the Honourable Member for having uttered the
language he had done against Colonel Ovens. It
theA
u withe
kConductinconveniencethoughtir
,beaayr,an nade
and a
arrtsee freiera dd,
as s
at the
awarem emdo ar tttthhe
the
Gh oomv eer. n rsShip
disposition of the Court of Directors relative to the
Raja, a proposal was made by him to overlook the con-
duct of the Prince, on condition that he promised not
again to enter into fresh intrigues. A treaty, embody-
ing the conditions which the home Government thought
it advisable to insist on, was proposed, by which the
Raja engaged not again to enter into any secret arrange-
ments or intrigues with other Indian states; and this
treaty was laid before him for his signature. But he
positively refused to do so. The Raja alleged, as his
reason, that the preamble contained an admission of his
guilt, which he never would make. But he must meet
that objection by stating that the preamble did not
contain any such admission, but merely stated the belief
of the English Government that such intrigues had
existed as had been alleged. But even had this objec-
tion been made—which it never was—Sir James Carnac
was ready to cancel the preamble, as, according to the
statement of the Honourable Member for Thetford, it
was not necessary for the purposes of the treaty. The
arrangement which the British Government made
on the deposition of the Raja brought no ad-
vantage to them. They required nothing of him
except that he should enter into a treaty con-
firming a former treaty, and settling the dis-
puted question of the Jaghirs. The Government
would have been justified in annexing the whole of his
dominions to the British territory, but they wished their
conduct to be above all suspicion, and, therefore, they
contented themselves with transferring the government
from one brother to another. There could be no doubt
but that reasonable ground existed for suspecting trea-
sonable conduct on the part of the Raja; 'on that ground
Sir James Carnac had acted, and hence the Raja's depo-
sition. This was the view which he (Mr. Lewis) took
of the case, and if the House concurred with him, they
would consider that granting a Committee of Inquiry
would be a measure of no possible utility. Such a Com-
mittee could lead to no result; for even it they made a
report unfavourable to the Indian Government, Members
of that House would rely more on the opinions of men
acquainted with India than-on the report of a Committee
unacquainted with the Indian character, Indian language,
or Indian documents. He denied that the Raja's family
had been left in a state of destitution. They had an al-
lowance which, although not sufficient to maintain the
regal state which the late Raja had affected at Benares,
was what might be considered a full competence in India.
For these reasons he must oppose the motion of the Hon.
Member for the Tower Hamlets.
Mr. HUME moved the adjournment of the debate.
Sir J. HOGG speaking to the question of adjourn-
ment, vindicated the character of Colonel Ovens from
the charges which had been brought forward that even-
.tbhioneagedvnobtaeeAde
for
ro
put
teghdef ci
rncawt
otaahmlroedr
ngi r
btes
tuue
ptoe
pfnwootrthetreoen miel oteisnttost
hl ate
ot rtouohlf cdaei
tovbgui
desr
ea
hadincnnchteeialnirgng
eedas
t
Committee was generally considered to intimate* that a
facier ctoasewlhiaodsebeteenc;,tumieinsatodinoe3no..utth.ff Mr. ANsTEY said that the Honourable Baronet was
Haouse should pay
;ranted,s tri cot fatt theetni
eitol
denhi
aaorcnaoctmthe
Pt
hr person
this
asa
nnyo,t
would only of b
eI
subjectsnd i a tCommittee
f isubordinates,guwieryre
and of that Company the Honourable Baronet was an
influential member.—(Hear.)
Mr. G. THOMPSON pledged himself to establish all
his charges before the Committee by official documents.
The debate was then adjourned to Thursday next.
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. STAFFORD moved to nominate the Kitchen
Accommodation and Eating-rooms Committee:—Mr.
Stafford, Sir G. Clerk, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey,
Mr. Hume, Lord Marcus Hill, Mr. H. J. Baillie, Sir R.
H. Inglis, the Earl of Mulgrave, the Earl of March, Mr.
Alderman Humphery, Lord C. Wellesley, Lord Ernest
Bruce, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Dawson, and the Earl of
Shelburne.—Agreed to.
THE OFFICE OF SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
Mr. HUME, in reference to his motion for a Select
Committee to inquire into the duties of the Sergeant-at-
Arms attending on this House, and the salary, emolu-