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

" the natives of India with evidence that the Ho-
tourable Member could succeed in what he undertook,
and he could have as many constituents as he pleased.
Re had remarked in the Honourable Member a dispo
laition 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 jagheers and of all lands held on Enam or
Shotrium tenure, which'
had been resumed by the British
uovernment in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies,
from the year 1820 to the year 1840 inclusive, showing
the annual 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 be 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
floral discontent as he had represented would lead to the
employment of European agents by the natives. He
(Mr. Hume) believed that accusations of injustice might
row and then occur, but, he would not calumniate the
Government of India by any such statement as that
which had been made by the Hun. Member who had
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,
and the Court of Directors of the East India Company,
in relation to certain charges preferred against that
officer. Now, the Hen. Gentleman had taken up an
(-Ad worn-out debate respecting the Raja of Sat•
tars. For a long time he 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 disposed 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 be 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 he 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 year& 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, and 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 Hon. 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 Ovans, 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. He hoped
the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire wts not leaving
the House ; .because he (Mr. Hume) was desirous of
showing, before that Hon. 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 Hon. Gentleman had read
from that thicument a variety of documents, all tending
to criminate. the Raja of Sattara. Now, let the House
_ look at the facts. Lieutenant-Colonel Ovens was for
eight years in charge of the Raja of Sattara. He (Mr.
secreted
Hume) would not say more uponthat document
a than
that it had been for three yearsfrom the knowledge of that House and the n(l concealed
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,waslsent out to India,
Major Carpenter sent back his answer to England. That
answer was received in 1847. Major Carpenter says
" When the Raja 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-
mate of the man with whom I bad 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 whole 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 plidging 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 plec(oe 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 Hon. Gentle-
men were incorrect, whereas the document turned out
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 wee 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. He (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 Hon. Member who introduced
the motion, he accused that Hon. Member with being a
I•Lhired 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
bare but has business to do, to be 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 lion. 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 be
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
him 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 Honciurable Member who had
just sat down had done the same thing ; for, during
a debate npon the income-tax question he had
also tried to blacken the character of the Honour-
able Member for Finsbury by pandering to revo-
lution and violence, instead of advancing sound argu-
ment. The Hon. Member for Roxburghshire then
stated, if be (Mr. Hume) recollected rightly, that the
Hon. Member for Finsbury was pandering to the vices
-of the lowest order of his constituents, and now be (Mr.
Hume) 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 ms
a antnenmuch
• respected, but since dead, undoubetedly 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
case, because he believed the matter was settled; he
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
subject of that kind, and he had a right to do so without
being subjected to accusation in respect to another subject.
—(Hear.) Now what was really the question before the
Rause? Colonel Ovans, being one of the residents at

l

. .
business
Sao era, had necessarily a large share of the
connected with the Raja pass through his hands. His
conduct in that office had been arraigned, and arraigned
too under his own band, end 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 Ovans? 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 was
all that was asked for by the motion. He did expect,
and still thought that ought to have been the course pur-
sued with reference 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 us 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.
The second charge against Colonel Ovens was—
that Colonel Ovens did, from the time of his asanming
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 Hoc. 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, fur 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 Ovens came into posses-
sion of evidence which would have been important to
the case of the Raja of Sattara, 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 Ovens, he said, "In
the foregoing paragraph I have to make a few observe.
tions. 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 ' Mandeo 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 qn 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 Hon. 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 suspicions 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 nut 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 entered into
heavy recognizanees, 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 bad
failed to have done successfully would have entailed
eu
apsoenehfi mt h
et the
Rajap u punishment hsme et nt
Sattara
ao f
had
beenimprisonment. r
e.. 0 p
eTh
ehde
bwy htohl
ee
Hon. Gentleman, but it was not the wish of himself (Mr.
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 he was incurring, that
he was charging Colonel Ovens, a man of high rank, with
foUl practices, and that he would be 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 Ovans
himself"—(Hear, hear.)—and Colonel Ovens of course
said that the charges were false; and though Kristnajee
stem::
omPl
nottraereder
had entered into all the recognizances, and had given
rna(i
atetlmrhnsvyooeer
ss.rttesoHoea
which
Hume)
the
ahhiawecaeneht)ddrwohewtocfeeuao
stillehfoGuhi svrra an r
hl
nnghi
essteer,:s
.wcotaohHfnanaadwetn
rvcCuern:
Robertl
goe ann vte sel
copies of the evidence taken against the Raja; although
the 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
niPnuAgdapoaruothdi
Auckland,
aniokstinlhonahioanasnfpy,
dr everysnd.proof
f respect,o
the
statement, embodying a full and clear detail of all the
facts connected with the several charges, and of
the names (with any reservations which may
be absolutely required for the safety of the party) 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 time 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 wliCtm 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
he 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, which they refused, he (Mr. Hume)
put it to the British Parliament whether
it was
prepared, after what had taken
place, to allow the Court of Directors longer to refuse
that explanation. They were particeps criminis. He
ties which or
actuated injure
any
individuals,
man.
I. (Mr. Hume) would not say, from his knowledge of them,
1
that any one of
those directors would willingly act im-
properly,Thearned
vwearrieouvearsiiotunastimonos
in which men -
vwere placed, officially and jechnically;

tt ti tt 114,

but still he thought the case fully required that explana-
tion which his Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower
Hamlets asked for. Upon that ground he supported
the motion, and he did so in the hope that the Gallant
Olio( r who stood, as he (Mr. Hume) had before stated,
in the opinion of those who had known him for 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 bad 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 been brought before Parliament. In April
last, when the case of the Raja of Setters came on, the
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 did not
happen to accord with his own, The Honourable Mem-
ber also placed these twelve most 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 I
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 new ? 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 Ovaus. 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 bad proceeded to
Setters to determine the case of the Raja, and that he
had an intimation conveyed to him from the members of
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. Parish, 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 impute•
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;
lie objected to sign the treaty because it made him " a
mere headman without regal authority." What more
could the lion. 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-
nations with the ex-Raja. If his imputations were true,
what did they prove ? That at the time we had a
treaty subsisting with the Peshawur, 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
book of Mr. Prinseps to prove that the ex-Raja was in an
influential situation, that Mr. Elphinstone had 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 those 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.
M. ember, 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-
toil" thell
g bookto the r Houseom w b
itch"! sbimportant t
if
ba thatcgt,badhimself
the author
de-
nied the statements and repudiated the deductions of the
Honourable Member, he had read these extracts to the
House of Commons! Was there any doubt about that?
—(Mr. G. Thompson dissented.) Then he had a letter
from Mr Prinseps in his pocket, for it was neces-
sary to come down to the House prepared with docu-
ments when this subject was under discussion.— (Hear,
hear.) The Hon. 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,
for never had a treaty been so clogged with restricti\ e
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 for 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
of twenty-eight of the highest. authorities in India, who
ihottodl
oedxi
np
gr e s
Lord
d their con
Auckland,vi conviction
Lordof the
Io
oguiltb o roofo
gt
LBaja,ord
Hardinge, Sir J. Carnac, Sir Robert Grant, Sir Henry
Mr.
oneslby
aoknsp
owa
Fh
eo,
ahoadd
thatdis -
out. Had he seen the testimony he would have altered
gentlemansPeanytne defarnede
teohdradtb eeGfpooiretleigehtnh. ew aTcsohrMe r corroborative evidence came
forhis i n
opinion.tboy Aa r Committee it tot eien of
inquire
into wasquiry
proceeding now
Sattara which bad been already fully inquired into by a
wk
e assadt
commission sitting at Sattara. And what had been the
proceedings in the Court of Proprietors ? The Hon.
Member fer 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 question, and on the
Bth of February, 1843, he took a vote, when the
minority that supported him dwindled down to 15.
Probably it would be 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 lion. Member ceased to receive any support at an,
e
nchhivvi aoeeo
which
wsceenhhvei leftotsoeuuhwfr
l:haad
theissdisinsedec
thattollh unneoudoi
inserted
btdct ot
shouldchllhsimarnaatt
satisfy
gmtcs tohfehyb:aevrrhreog7hcut
for when he and Mr. Peter Gordon went out there was
fines,
veirbeenvsim ;ue:tarf
;aovvhunoonettuaere
orr
proprietor
fapi trnahrnseetdt propo-
sitionhoierat
og,s
aafhe
again
the Hon. Member was left alone in his gl'ory. This,
wrotewbiob
occupied
asesr;t huissu.
aleutyterisin;
his
se
letter, therefore,
tohfe
ref
ure
he
end oclueptiteedr
three columns. It fortunately happened for him that he
January,waswhinenserthteed,s full,
which his communication occupied was not so valuablep
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 be 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. Edmonton, 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 Parliament, but the Hon. Member
never ventured ou 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 Sattara, General Lodwick, reportad attempts made by
the Raja to corn )t the Sepoys.—(Hear, hear.) Then
the inquiry being resolved upon, it was agreed to nrlte

LI 14 v I. Nfill
it by I-nestle of a oonaraission, 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 barrister was not allowed to appear in
the Raja's favour; but that decision he thought was a
right one. He had been a member of the bar himself in
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
of 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 prirni fcroie case was made out against him,
it was net thought proper to take any step by which he
night appear to be implicated. Ist every respect, how-
ever, he was 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
he former considered the Raja guilty, though he recom-
mended what, under the circumstances, was a lenient
course, and the latter likewise, after 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 rustier was pcnninated and all
the papers were sent to Lord Auckland, that Noble Lord
felt it his duty to state that he 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
to 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 i❑ 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

itaja's case, went out, at his own request,
to Sattara, and used every endeavour to induce
the Raja 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 Ovens 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. Butt by the
Raja, at Ahmednugger, was extorted from him, but
Mr. Hutt 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 Ovans,
and stated that he had written the petition, and had
been promised 1,250 rupees by Girjabee for doing
so ; 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 Ovens to the Go-
vernment on the lath 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
for the honour of his cloth. Now, he (Sir J. tiogg)
begged to tell that Honourable Gentleman that there
was not in the service a man of higher honour and in-
tegrity then Colonel Ovens, and there were few who
had rendered greater services to their country both in
the field and iu 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 Ovans, in that House, of
bribery and corruption in having obtained from the
Raja a pension of 1,5001. a year fur 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 ()vans obtained
50,000 rupees fur them from the Raja. 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 he, and that he had written the petition at
the desire of Colonel ()vans, 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 he at once
expressed his desire, although ho 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. Huine and the Queen in Council."—(A laugh.)
Mr. Frere thought it right to inquire into these charges;
the man named four 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 bo 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.—(llear, hear.) And the
Government of India were charged with withholding
evidence essential to substantiate the Raja's case I He
(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.) lie hoped it would expose
the preposterous humbug which had 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 calumniously assailed on the present occasion.—
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. BROTIIERTON observed that the House bad
now been sitting for 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 ou a former occa-
sion taken part in the debate on the case of the Raja
of Sattara, he could not allow that opportunity to pass
without expressing his conviction, after mature ex-
amination of the papers laid before the House,
that, although the case of the Raja of Sattara
remained where it was against the Government,
the character of Colonel Ovens had been completely
vindicdatofed.the old cas The former debate had been adjourned
insteae being „e
have been upon the merits of ingqui into, which it might
ry, had it been limited
to the conduct of Colonel Ovens. He 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, he must say that it
appeared to him that that officer had done
no 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, in conformity 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 Control, in Westminster, or
the Court of Directors, in Leadenhall-street, or the
Governer-General in Calcutta, or the Governor, at the
Presidency. It justice had been done towards the late
Raja, those parties had evidently given a greedy ear to
wen whom they themselves were afterwards obliged to
discard. If Kristnajee deserved the censure which the
Hon. Member for Honiton had cast upon him on the
authority of the documents he had read, what then be-
came of the statement respecting Kristnajee's evidence,
made in the earlier part of the debate? Let it be re-
membered 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
,crimes in native states,—(Hear, hear.) It was