HC Deb 10 August 1832 vol 14 cc1322-5
Mr. Hume

, pursuant to notice, rose to present a Petition from the Agents of Narroba Govend Outia, a deceased native Prince of India under the British Sovereignty. He had already declared that in his opinion the honour of the country was concerned in this transaction. It was of great importance that there should be no ground of complaint on the part of any native of our Indian possessions; and, above all, that an impression should not be made in that country, that the interests of the natives were lightly and improperly dealt with. On this point he must censure very much the constitution of the Court of Privy Council, which was the Court of ultimate appeal in the affairs of India. Even the Court of Chancery itself was not more pregnant with delay and expense than the Court of Privy Council, and the latter stood in as much need of reform as the former. He must complain too, of the outrage and injustice done to Narroba, not only in his property, but in his person; and as the subject of the Deccan prize-money was again to be considered, he thought it would be but right to refer the claims of Narroba to the consideration of the Privy Council. Narroba was dragged from his house, and placed under a military escort. His property was forcibly taken away, and many indignities heaped upon him by Captain Robertson. This subject was brought before the legal tribunal at Bombay, and a restitution of the property was ordered to be made to his representatives. That decision was reversed by the Privy Council, and against that decision he now sought the interference of this House. He must assert, that the seventeen lacs of rupees in dispute, were clearly the private property of Narroba, and not of the Peishwah; and that, under the amnesty, he was entitled to have retained them. Technicalities should not be permitted to stand in the way of justice, in a case like this, and even now at the eleventh hour it was in the power of his Majesty to alter the distribution of the Deccan prize-money. This petition had, however, more immediately for its object to pray that the costs of the suit of Narroba should be paid out of the funds in dispute, which he most decidedly said belonged to Narroba, and that the family of the deceased might net be exposed to ruin by prosecuting their rights.

The Solicitor General

said, he had very lately stated his opinions at length upon this subject, and he would not again repeat them. He was ready to admit that the case of Narroba had not been over-stated, but his property was not seized because he was a banker to the fallen Peishwah, but because he had assumed a military command in the service of that prince. Looking at the whole of the case as the law now stood, and the affair having since been discussed before the Privy Council, he would neither venture to pronounce an individual opinion, nor attempt to lead the judgment of the House.

Sir Charles Forbes

But what about the costs?

The Solicitor

General said, that the costs would be regulated by the decision upon the original claim.

Sir John Malcolm

said, he was in India when these transactions occurred, and felt it necessary to vindicate the character of those dauntless officers who had fearlessly discharged their duty. Let it be recollected that the country was then in open war, and the conduct of Mr. Elphinstone was from beginning to end of the most honourable character. That war was put an end to; but an under-current war still was going on, and the British officers then engaged had most meritoriously discharged their duty. A capitulation followed; but Narroba broke it, and hence the seizure of his treasure. Captain Robertson was selected to perform the duty of collector because he was the best acquainted with the language. Evidence was given that Narroba had carried away treasure, and hence he was imprisoned and the property confiscated. The people at Poonah were quiet; but why? Merely because we had then 10,000 troops there. He was convinced that Narroba never possessed the fiftieth part of the treasure which was seized, and that it decidedly belonged to the Peishwah. If the treasure had not been seized it would have been used to promote discontent, which it was necessary of all things to put an end to. He thanked the House for their attention, and would now make no further observations on the subject, except this, that he believed Narroba to be a delinquent.

Sir Charles Forbes

supported the petition. He considered the case of the native Narroba one of great hardship, and entitled to the favourable consideration of this House: at least they ought to award costs to the agent for promoting the claim on which this man's family were now solely dependent, being reduced by the seizure of his property from affluence to actual want.

Mr. Charles Grant

observed, that, although the circumstances in question had occurred long before be had the honour to hold his present office, it was impossible but that he must feel an interest in them. He would not, however, enter into the merits of the case, agreeing perfectly with his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General, that the proceedings must be considered as having been closed by the decision given by the Privy Council so minutely on this claim. He would not allow the subject to drop, however, without saying that he thought it impossible that any thing said in this or former discussions on this subject could possibly reflect on the high moral and professional characters of Mr. Elphinstone and Sir Lionel Smith, whose conduct towards natives of India in particular was remarkable for kindness and forbearance. The character of Captain Robertson, too, stood high in all the transactions with which he had been connected in India previously and subsequently to this transaction.

Petition to be printed.