THE RAJAH OF SATTARA.

HC Deb 05 July 1847 vol 93 cc1236-76

On the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee of Supply,

MR. HUME

said: Sir, I can assure the House that I feel great reluctance at the present time in having to bring forward this case; and no one is more anxious to expedite public business that should be gone through than myself; but, Sir, situated as I am, and looking back to the course that has been taken upon this case—having unfortunately laboured for a long time to obtain justice for an unfortunate individual—I cannot consider that I shall have done my duty unless I again place before the House that appeal, to which I think the British House of Commons ought to listen. Sir, I do so more particularly, because on a late occasion when I ventured to introduce the subject, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) took upon himself to declare that all my statements were fictions—that I had obtained information in a manner little creditable to any man in this or any other situation—that, in fact, I had placed myself a culprit at the bar, instead of venturing to address the House where I do. It is not for me to avail myself on this occasion, which I might do, of any single act of recrimination; it has not been my rule to take that course; I only lament that when the merits of a question are to be agitated, any individual, whatever his situation in this House, should resort to a personal attack, instead of meeting the merits of the question. I shall, therefore, pass over all that was said on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman, however personal may have been his attack, and however other Gentlemen may think I ought to resent it. I have been too long in this House to pay much attention to such language; and I am one who certainly has had great grounds on many occasions to take offence, if I had not been fully aware of the folly of such a course. A friend of mine only yesterday said to mo, "Consider yourself in the situation of appearing before a judge, and that your client is perfectly innocent, but that upon you the advocate—the party opposing—has heaped all his abuse, not having one word to say upon the case which is the subject of consideration." I trust I may consider that to be the case here; and I therefore think—passing over the whole of that which passed between the right hon. Gentleman and myself—I am now entitled to ask the House to allow me to state the case; and I shall do it as shortly as possible; but it is not possible to be very short, because I have to meet by facts and by public documents what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be a series of fictions, and which he says he will be prepared to prove at the proper time. I am sorry it is now so late; still, I hope there will be sufficient time to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make any observations he may have to make. Sir, in the first place, an appeal was made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, whether I ought to have acked the character of an individual as I did, by stating that his conduct was unworthy any English officer. But I must beg to appeal to him and to the House—he having thought it of importance that the character of a public officer should be defended in the manner in which he attempted to do so—whether I ought not to stand excused for attempting to defend an absent individual who has been degraded—a Prince in station, a Sovereign in his connexion with this country—and I hope I may be allowed to show, who is the person for whom I am about to ask the interference of the House; and I will do that by quoting the authorities, and not venturing to state one word from myself. Sir, on that ground I must say, that the object of my advocacy is an independent Sovereign, who in 1819 was placed upon the throne after the Mahratta war. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the Treaty of the 25th September, 1819 assured to him an independent sovereignty, and that he and his descendants should for ever enjoy a large revenue with that sovereignty. The treaty states— Whereas the British Government having determined, in consideration of the antiquity of the House of His Highness the Rajah of Sattara, to invest him with a sovereignty sufficient for the maintenance of his family in comfort and dignity; the following Articles have been agreed to between the said Government and His Highness. Then it proceeds to state that he shall enjoy the districts specified in the annexed schedule, subject undoubtedly to certain conditions, one of which has been much commented on:— The Rajah, for himself and for his heirs and successors, engages to forbear from all intercourse with foreign Powers, and with all Sidars, Jaghidars, Chiefs, and Ministers, and all persons of whatever description who are not by the above Articles rendered subject to His Highness's authority. Now, Sir, this individual—a lineal descendant from Sevagee, the first of the Mahrattas—was so stated to be entitled by the antiquity of his family to the attention and friendship of the British Government. The British Government by that treaty bound themselves to secure to him the throne, provided he did not violate the treaty. Now, my charge against the East India Company and against the Board of Control is, that they have removed him from his sovereignty, from his property, from his State, and made him an exile in a foreign country in Benares, without any ground whatever, and without any trial; they have alleged reasons, but without any just ground; and that he has never had what he has asked to have—a fair trial. He has never had the facts of his case brought before any tribunal whatever, but has been thus unjustly dethroned. Now, I wish to show that there are circumstances very much in his favour, with which this House ought to deal. If it had been an individual whose conduct had been open to censure from any portion of the Government, I should have said, there might have been some ground for treating with more severity than the light grounds of suspicion that are brought against him, warrant. But instead of this individual being liable to blame, he was for a period of twenty-one years treated as an independent Prince by the British Government. He is the only Indian Chief who has ever, during a period of twenty years, received the thanks and approbation of every Government up to the period almost of his dethronement. I therefore have to ask, that the House, in their indulgence, will allow me to state what was the character of this man who has been hurled from his throne, and turned almost a beggar into a foreign country; and I shall state this from the public documents which are contained in the blue book. I have first the testimony of four British officers resident at his court, of his having conducted himself in a manner highly honourable to himself, and creditable and useful to his people; and that against him no ground of complaint could possibly exist. I will not read the certificate of these officers in the year 1821; but I will state what the Court of Directors did. Mr. Elphinstone, on placing him on the throne, states with regard to his conduct, that from the period of his having been rescued from the authority of the Peishwa, "he had behaved himself extremely well;" and in 1829 we find the Court of Directors, in a letter to the Bombay Government, expressing themselves to this effect:— We are impressed with a highly favourable opinion of the administration of the Rajah of Sattara. He appears to, be remarkable among the Princes of India for his mildness, frugality, and attention to business; to be sensible of what he owes to the British Government; and of the necessity of maintaining a good understanding with it. Nor does he, in his intercourse with your officers, furnish any ground of complaint, except an occasional manifestation of that jealousy of our controlling powers, which it can hardly be expected that any native princes, however well disposed to us, should entirely suppress. Now, up to 1829, therefore, a period of ton years, here is a character extremely fa- vourable. In 1831, again, the Court of Directors say— The information which your records supply, as to the proceedings of the Rajah of Sattara continues to confirm the highly favourable opinion we had formed of his disposition, and of his capacity for government. Now, did anything happen to alter those opinions? I find the Court of Directors, in the year 1834, in answer to Colonel Robertson, then Resident at Sattara, who had written a despatch highly laudatory of the internal management of the country—and this Prince, I will say, is almost the only native Prince in India who has paid attention to the internal comfort of his people; I am anxious you should be satisfied of that not only from my statement, but from the documents I hold in my hand—in 1834, the Court of Directors, in speaking of the Rajah of Sattara, say— He appears to be most attentive to business, superintending every department of Ms Government without the aid of a Minister. He confines his expenses, and those of all under him, within fixed limits. He pays all his establishment with perfect regularity. I will venture to say, there is no other native Prince in India to whom the Court of Directors of the East India Company could give such a character:— He pays all his establishment with perfect regularity; but when in any year his resources are inadequate to his fixed expenses, a rateable reduction is made from all allowances not excepting his own. This is what is said by the Court of Directors. They go on to say— We should have regretted if a Prince, whose administration is a model to all native rulers, had been guilty of any infringement of the proprietary rights of a large class of his subjects. There were some disputes respecting land with the Government of Bombay, which, I ought to mention, was the ground of the first displeasure on the part of the Government against him; and I have a letter of the Court of Directors, after examining the whole of that question, placing the Rajah in the right, and the Government in the wrong. Now, the Court of Directors say— We should have regretted, if a Prince, whose administration is a model to all native rulers, had been guilty of any infringement of the proprietary rights of a large class of his subjects. By his frugal and careful management, the Rajah has kept free from debt; and as he does not accumulate, he is enabled to expend large sums in liberality, and in the improvement of his country. Now, let those who have joined in the degradation of this man, listen to what follows in the Court of Directors' letter:— He also maintains a well-regulated school at Sattara, in which he has teachers of great respectability, both as to character and attainments. This seminary was closely examined in all its details, last October, by a very competent judge, the Rev. Mr. Stevenson of the Scottish Mission, who, I am happy to say, expressed the highest satisfaction with it, and did not scruple to say, he considered it a far more useful establishment than the college at Poona. In this seminary his Highness teaches Mahratta, Sanscrit, and the sciences usually taught in that tongue; Persian and English, as well as arithmetic, surveying, and other kinds of knowledge useful in the transaction of public business. In this school his Highness has a number of youths of his own caste, and relations of his (whose forefathers despised all such tuition), training up for his public service; and this is one of the causes why the Brahmins are hostile to him. It appears to us," the Court continues, "just and right that you should from time to time signify to the Rajah, not only your own, but our high satisfaction at his public conduct, and the excellence of his administration. Now, I beg the attention of an hon. Director, the late Chairman of the East India Company who took, I must be allowed to say, a most ungenerous and unfair view on a former occasion. I hope his conscience will have upbraided him a little by this time, and that he may now listen to truth and reason, and not allow himself to be carried away as he was at that time. On the 22nd of July, 1835, the Court of Directors came to this resolution:— Resolved—That having bad reference to the letter from Bombay in the political department, dated 21st of January last, in respect to the description of a testimonial that would be most acceptable to the Rajah of Sattara, as a mark of the Court's sense of his conduct, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman be requested to purchase a sword suitable to the occasion, and that a communication be made to the Bombay Government on the subject, at the period of sending out the sword, accompanied by a letter from the Court to be presented to the Rajah. Now it must be borne in mind, that this resolution was come to in consequence of the Bombay Government writing home to the Court, and praising the conduct of the Rajah, suggesting that the Court ought to send him some substantial mark of their approbation— That, in framing such letter, it be declared, that this mark of distinction is founded, not solely on the public spirit evinced by the Rajah, in the construction of roads and the execution of other public works, as suggested by the Government of Bombay, but on the general and distinguished merits of his Highness's administration, which so justly entitle him to applause, as well as on the liberality which he has displayed in disbursing his private funds for public purposes. My advocacy, therefore, is for a man bearing this character, who has been hurled from his throne, as I shall show, without any just grounds. What was the result? The Court of Directors, unanimously sanctioned by the Board of Control of the day, on the 29th of December, 1835, addressed the following letter to the Rajah of Sattara, sending out the sword as an additional mark of their approbation:— Your Highness—We have been highly gratified by the information from time to time transmitted to us by our Government, on the subject of your Highness's exemplary fulfilment of the duties of that elevated situation in which it has pleased Providence to place you. A course of conduct so suitable to your Highness's exalted station, and so well calculated to promote the prosperity of your dominions and the happiness of your people, as that which you have wisely and uniformly pursued, while it reflects the highest honour on your own character, has imparted to our minds the feelings of unqualified satisfaction and pleasure. The liberality, also, which you have displayed in executing at your own cost various public works of great utility, and which has so greatly raised your reputation in the eyes of the princes and people of India, gives you an additional claim to our approbation, respect, and applause. Impressed with these sentiments, the Court of Directors have unanimously resolved to transmit to you a sword, which will be presented to you through the Government of Bombay, and which, we trust, you will receive with satisfaction, as a token of their high esteem and regard.—With sincere wishes for your health and prosperity, we subscribe ourselves, in the name of the Court, your Highness's most faithful friends, W. S. CLARKE, Chairman. J. R. CORNAC, Deputy. This was on the 29th December, 1835; and such a testimony of high character docs not appear in the annals or records of the East India Company, in favour of any native or European. I must also notice a letter written by Captain Grant Duff, the Rajah's first adviser, dated 31st October 1842:— He (the Rajah) never could he guilty of what has been alleged against him. I believe he never for one moment entertained inimical intentions towards the British Government. The whole story of intriguing with Goa, and of corrupting the sepoys, I also believe the Rajah had nothing to do with; and I think his deposal was impolitic and unjust. I have always said, that judging from all I ever knew of the Rajah, I do not believe him guilty of the silly crimes with which he has been charged, and for which, he has in my humble judgment, been unjustly set aside. Now, to the extent we have arrived, I think I may say with confidence, that there is nothing to blame, but everything to praise. I observed that the right hon. Gentleman took a note upon my noticing the source of quarrel between the Bombay Government and the Rajah, which was respecting two jaghircs. Jaghircs are estates which belonged, it was supposed, to the Rajah, upon the understanding that when the parties died without heirs, they would return to the Rajah, and he again disposable, as is the custom of the country. The Bombay Government objected to that, and insisted that they should have the control, and then the unfortunate difference arose. After continuing a considerable time in dispute, the Court of Directors addressed this letter to the Bombay Government:— We are of opinion that great inconvenience would arise from our officially recognising references from native princes to a testimony or opinion in Europe on the subject of public transactions between those princes and our Government. We, therefore, transmit the letters to you for the purpose of being returned to his Highness, whom you will inform, in becoming terms, that he is under no restriction in respect to private correspondence with the gentlemen in question, although he may confidently rely on our always showing the utmost consideration for his rights and interests without its being at all necessary for him to solicit the intervention and good offices of others. There is also a, letter from Colonel Bagnold, to the same purport, with regard to the native chiefs; so that the trifling ground which the Government have assumed for interfering with him vanishes immediately. However, we shall see what are the grounds of interference with the Rajah. He sustained the character I have described for twenty-one years. First, I have read the character given by the Court for twenty years successively—-I have read the character given by Captain Grant Duff, the first President—I have by me the testimony of the Court of Directors to his conduct—I have the resolution which I have read; all approving entirely of the Rajah's conduct up to that unfortunate period which I now approach. Sir, it may be curious for the House to know what were the charges brought against the Rajah, as laid before the House:— That your Highness attempted to seduce certain native officers of the 23rd Regiment, and, through them, the sepoys, from their allegiance to the British Government, in which attempt your Minister, Govind Rao, was also engaged. The second charge, which I show to be utterly unfounded, is— That his Highness the Rajah of Sattara, in breach of the treaty, had entered into communication with the Viceroy of Goa, for purposes hostile to the British Government. That is the second. The third is— That his Highness the Rajah of Sattara, in breach of the treaty, had entered into communication with Moodhojee Bhonsla, otherwise called Appa Sahib, ex-Rajah of Nagpore, now resident at Jondpoor, for purposes hostile to the British Government. Now, if all this had been true, instead of being really more laughable than otherwise, still the claim that I make to the House ought not to have been denied. There ought to have been an inquiry; the Rajah ought to have been placed in that position which his petition to the House, as I shall presently show, requests; for he says, that if he had been the meanest individual in this country, he would have been entitled at any rate to be heard. This is the petition which was presented to the House in 1842, giving a complete answer to all the charges, and praying that he might be heard against each of them, and concluding in these words:— That your petit loner respectfully solicits from your honourable House a consideration of his case, and of the treatment he has received, as well as the high chareter he has invariably maintained amongst his people and the princes of India; while he implores from your honourable House that justice which, had his lot been that of a peasant, it would leave been his right to claim from the laws of the British realm. he cannot forget that it is as a dethroned and exiled Prince that he appeals to your honourable House. He trusts that the vast power which has been placed by Divine Providence in the hands of the Government of Great Britain will not be exercised to his continued wrong; and he hopes the injustice and degradation which he has suffered in innocence will not he permitted to appear on the page of history to tarnish the glory of the British name, and the conduct and character of that Government in India towards a Sovereign, once its honoured ally, now its helpless prisoner. These, Sir, are the concluding words of the petition. I attempted before, in vain, to get the House to entertain it. I believe they were mistaken entirely; they were not fully informed on the subject, otherwise, I am quite satisfied, they would have listened to it. However, the question which I am now anxious to put to the House is, whether, however late, justice is not to be done to the Rajah by giving him a trial? The right hon. Gentleman has stated—and stated very correctly, as has been stated elsewhere—that the question, as regards the Rajah, has been so often presented to the House, that they are unwilling to re-open the case. Now, the right hon. Gentleman will give mo leave to say, that that ought to be no bar to justice. He was the first President of the Board of Control who gave his authority to the dethronement of this individual. He gave that authority without any inquiry whatever—without the individual having been brought before his judges, but being subject to a secret inquiry. Now, Sir, in relation to one of the charges—the second—there is nothing like taking the right hon. Gentleman upon his own evidence. On a former occasion, on the 24th of June, when the question was before the House, when the hon. Member for Shrewsbury appealed to the right hon. Baronet, and said he was astonished that he could have given credence to any such ridiculous charge, as a combination or an attempt to join the Portuguese, who never had more than 1,500 or 2,000 men in India; that by joining with the Portuguese Governor he could by any means attempt even to turn the English out of India, the right hon. Baronet himself said, as reported, and, as I recollect, correctly— The hon. Member for Shrewsbury has accused me of dethroning the Rajah of Sattara. That is not the fact. The hon. Member has also accused me of believing that the Rajah of Sattara was about to bring 30,000 Portuguese from Goa to invade British India. Where the hon. Member learned that, I know not. I have seen some trumpery statement in a newspaper, that I have said something to that effect; but the truth is, there is not a word of truth in it. As President of the Board of Control, I knew that those charges were brought against the Rajah of Sattara; but to say that I believed them, was what the hon. Gentleman had not the slightest foundation for saying. The right hon. Gentleman said that; and yet the Goa conspiracy was one of the charges upon which the Rajah was dethroned. Well, thinking it very singular that no notice had been taken that that had been one ground taken by the East India Company and the British Government here—that intrigues had gone on with Goa—I ask, has the British Government ever applied to Goa, as they did to all the other stations in India, as I shall show? Did they ever apply to the Governor of Goa, to ascertain from him whether there was any such communication? I hold in my hand a letter in answer to an application made to that officer, who is now, I believe, in Portugal, in which he says— I consider it necessary, for the advancement of justice, and for my own honour, to declare, that during the whole time I governed the Portu-gueso possessions in India, I never had any correspondence on political subjects with the said Rajah of Sattara, and whatever documents have appeared on that subject are false. This is signed "Don Manoelde Portugal." I recollect, on a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said, "If he had not been guilty, would he have confessed?" But I think there is no necessity for that, after the manner in which it is stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be a trumpery case. Sir, I think it necessary to put the House in possession of what may be done in India, and how easy it is, when a Government determine, to ruin any native, for them to obtain evidence of any kind, trumped up to make a case. I will allow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh to be a witness. In writing an account of the life of Warren Hastings, he inserts this passage:— They (the natives) considered him a fallen man, and they acted after the kind some of our readers may have seen in India, a crowd of crows pecking a sick vulture to death. No bad type of what happens in that country, as often as fortune deserts one who had been great and dreaded," [This is alluding to an Englishman, Warren Hastings.] "In an instant all the sycophants who had lately been ready to lie for him, to forge for him, to pander for him, to poison for him, hasten to purchase the favour of his victorious enemies by accusing him to an Indian Government. I beg the attention of the House to this, because I accuse the individuals constituting the Bombay Government of influencing the whole case, and causing the whole of this injustice. Mr. Macaulay says— An Indian Government has only to lot it be understood that it wishes a particular man to be ruined, and in twenty-four hours it will be furnished with grave charges, supported by depositions so full and circumstantial, that any person unaccustomed to Asiatic mendacity, would regard them as decisive. It is well if the signature of the destined victim is not counterfeited at the foot of some illegal compact, and if some illegal paper is not slipped into a hiding-place in the house. Now, Sir, here the right hon. Gentleman, in writing of the conduct of Warren Hastings, points this out to you; and it ought to be a guard to those gentlemen who have to carry on or conduct business in India, how cautious they ought to be of receiving any kind of stories such as are trumped up against this unfortunate man. At any rate, I hope the House will let it remain in its recollection, that what could be done at that time upon the authority of Mr. Macaulay, may be done by any Indian Government. Let them bear in mind the power which every Government has under such circumstances, and then judge when they hear the trumpery charges brought against the Rajah. Sir, as regards the first charge, that of attempting to interfere with the natives of the 23rd Regiment, then stationed at Sattara, the evidence in the blue book is, in the first place, so contra- dictory, that it is impossible for any honest man to sit down and read and weigh the evidence, without arriving at a perfect conviction that the whole is false. An able and intelligent man, who was living in the Company's service (Mr. Sullivan) for thirty years, has, in one of the clearest and ablest speeches that I think ever was delivered in any place, proved to the satisfaction of every unbiassed man the utter falsity of all those charges. Sir, in addition to that proof—I do not pretend to enter into that proof, because, whether it is good or had, my claim is merely for a trial and inquiry—I have a letter in my hand from an officer who commanded that very regiment at the time in Sattara, and he states that the whole affair was a hit of dirty Mahratta intrigue, which would have been seen through at once. This is the testimony of General Bagnold, who commanded the 23rd Regiment, who at that time knew what was the prevalent opinion on the subject; and I have plenty of other corroborative evidence; but I consider him from his station to be the best, and therefore I shall not trouble the House with any other. General Bagnold says— The whole affair was a bit of dirty Mahratta intrigue, which would be seen through at once, had a man of common sense (as far as regards natives) been there as resident. Sending Colonel Ovans to Sattara as Resident after he had sat as judge upon, and condemned the Rajah's conduct, was as great an act of cruelty, as the whole was unjust. I shall not mention the name of Colonel Ovans, until I have finished my observations upon the Rajah. Sir, I wish the House to be put in possession of the course which the Government took for the purpose of obtaining information as regards alleged intrigues with other Courts, which is the cause of his removal. The 5th Article of the Treaty forbade that. He was accused of intriguing with the Rajah of Nagpore. On the 13th September, 1836, the Resident at Sattara—for the charge of conspiracy began on the very day the sword arrived from England; it was despatched in December, 1835, and I believe as early as May, 1836, this charge of conspiracy was made against the Rajah, and the Government directed the Resident at Sattara, to make strict inquiry as to how far it was true—on the 13th September Colonel Lodwick, then the Resident, writes to Sir Robert Grant, the Governor of Bombay, to this effect:— With respect to the alleged conspiracy of native States, I can discover no proof of it; and on full consideration I am disposed to think the Rajah has been imposed upon by artful impostors, and interested advisers. Now, here is the Resident, on the 13th September, stating this fact to the Government. The Bombay Government, on the 15th September, write to the Court of Directors to this effect:— We deeply regret to have to report to your honourable Committee, that we have received intelligence of a conspiracy existing at Sattara, and, as is alleged, at several other native Courts in India, to seduce our native troops from their allegiance, with the ultimate design, by a combined effort, to subvert the British Empire in India. This the Government of Bombay send home to England, two days after they had been informed by the Resident that no such proof could be obtained. [Sir J. C. HOB-HOUSE: That is a mistake.] It is not a mistake. It is like all other mistakes; for the right hon. Gentleman said he would show the whole to be a fiction; but I rest altogether on the blue books. Now, there is a short letter from the Government, dated the 7th December, 1839, from Fort St. George, to this effect:— In consequence of a communication from the Bombay Government, we requested to be informed by the Commissioners, whether the report of a confederacy against the British Government, of which the ex-Rajah of Sattara was a member, had been confirmed by their inquiries at Kurnool. This is dated December, 1839. Those who are acquainted with the history of India, will know that the Rajah of Kurnool, in the centre of the Peninsula, had collected together some hundred pieces of cannon and supplies of military stores, with some intention or other. It has never been known with what object, or how, they were collected; but the Commissioners who were sent there after the fort was taken, were directed to inquire into the matter, having the whole of the Rajah's papers in their possession, having every document belonging to the Rajah, and consequently being able to make themselves masters either by witnesses or documents of every thing that happened. Now, these Commissioners, in reply, state that they —"have not discovered any paper in which the ex-Rajah was in anyway mentioned; nor had anything transpired in the course of their inquiries which indicated that there had been any communication between the ex-Rajah and Goolam Rus-sool Khan, as parties to a confederacy against the British Government. Now, these Commissioners, who were in possession of the Rajah's books and correspondence, found neither among his papers, nor from any witnesses, any evidence whatever of the Rajah having any treasonable intercourse with this prince. Now, Mr. Clerk, the Secretary at Fort St. George, says— I am directed by the right hon. the Governor in Council to transmit to you the accompanying copy of a letter from the Secretary in attendance upon the hon. the Governor of Bombay, dated the 13th inst., and to request that you will submit the information therein required, as to whether the report of a confederacy against the British Government, of which the ex-Rajah of Sattara was a Member, has been confirmed by your inquiries at Kurnool. I have read the answer. After they had dethroned the man, they sent an order to obtain information in connexion with a man who had no doubt been in intrigue with somebody or other. Now, Sir, the following is from another of the Commissioners, dated 30th November, 1839:— Sir, we do ourselves the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a letter in the Secret Department (No. 503) under date the 25th inst.; and to state in reply, that no paper has been discovered here in which the ex-Rajah is in any way mentioned; nor has anything transpired during the course of our inquiries which can lead to a suspicion that there has been any communication between the ex-Rajah and the ex-Nawab as parties to a confederacy against the British Government. So much for that. Here is another—and it was expected, that if there was a conspiracy with any one, it must be with the Nizam of Hyderabad. Application is made to the same man; and Mr. Frazer, the Resident, in answer to a similar letter, replies— On the receipt of your despatch of the 13th ultimo, giving cover to the copy of a letter from the Resident at Sattara, with its several enclosures, I hastened to address a communication to His Highness the Nizam's Minister, pointing out to him the importance which Government attached to the discovery of the ex-Rajah of Sattara's correspondence with Hyderabad, and urging on him, with a view to assist Government in their researches, to adopt immediate measures for seizing Jazee Karamut Oollah's papers wherever they might be found Now this is after the man is dethroned! They are trying to fish and obtain evidence, and what is the answer?— On a careful examination of the contents of the bundle, in the presence of myself and three other individuals, nothing was discovered tending in any way to confirm the belief that Kuramu-tollah had been carrying oil any correspondence with the ex-Rajah of Sattara, or that he had been engaged in any way in treasonable designs against the British Government. Here, therefore, from another quarter, comes a complete denial of anything of the kind having taken place. In short, from every Court and every place in India where we have Residents, and where they expected to obtain evidence, they made application, and they obtained similar answers, denying that any such thing existed. Sir, the whole of this correspondence was forwarded to the Governor General of India, and the House shall hear what opinion was given by him upon this correspondence being forwarded to him. This is "Extract, Bengal Secret Consultation, 31st July, 1839;" and the letter which was forwarded to Bombay, is dated— Simla, 15th July, 1839. Sir—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 24th ultimo, with enclosures, and am desired to state that the Governor General has studied with much interest the Minutes received by the Honourable the Governor and by the Members of Council of Bombay, and that his Lordship assents to the general amnesty which it is proposed to be extended to the Rajah of Sattara, and to the conditions under which it is suggested that this amnesty should be granted; and that his Lordship also entirely approves of the intention of the Hon. Sir James R. Carnac's himself proceeding to Sattara, for the purpose of endeavouring to carry his views into effect, and again to place our relations with the Rajah on a friendly footing. When they found they had failed in everything, they proposed to grant him an amnesty; and the House shall hear what are the conditions and what are the instructions Lord Auckland sends:— His Lordship feels it unnecessary to enter into any review of this case; he has already avowed his opinion that, whether led by malignity or folly, or a weak subserviency to bad advisers, the Rajah has committed acts which might justly forfeit to him all the favour of the British Government, and justify a sentence of severe retribution; he sees all the embarrassment which might arise out of a formal trial; he feels the strong objections which would be urged in quarters of the highest authority against a summary act of extreme severity. He sees all the embarrassment which might arise out a formal trial; but he is aware of the strong objections that would be urged in quarters of the highest authority against a summary act of extreme severity. That is, deprivation without a trial; and— He is compelled to acknowledge the expediency of the milder course proposed, and would indulge the hope that the exercise of clemency may give rise, if not to better feelings, at least to more guarded conduct. Now, mark, this is after they have failed in producing any proof whatever of the Rajah's guilt. This is a mere excuse. With regard to the precise course of proceeding which is to be pursued,"— (I beg the attention of the House to this, because I believe that upon this rests a great deal of what his Lordship says) —"his Lordship concurs with the Honourable the Governor in Council of Bombay in opinion, that the measure of amnesty being agreed upon, it should not be accompanied with any demands which might justly be regarded as a punishment; but there may be, as suggested by Mr. Anderson, warning for the future. Principles may be laid down for the more strict observance of the treaty; and, above all things, effectual protection must be secured to those who in the course of the late inquiry may, by having afforded information, be assumed to have given offence to the Rajah. With this expression of his views, his Lordship cordially assents to the propositions lay down by the Honourable the Governor of Bombay, in his Minute of June 20th, and adopted by his Colleagues. He would only suggest that great care be taken in framing the letter to the Rajah, so gradually and yet decidedly to express the views held by Government on his case, as that, if possible, discussion shall not be provoked or admitted upon his own guilt or innocence; and it may be doubted whether it has not been proposed too distinctly to assert the proof of personal criminality, and whether this assertion may not appear in too great a degree to be inconsistent with the leniency which follows. He here, therefore, suggests, that in the offer of a complete amnesty, no question upon the guilt of the party should be made. Now, let me show the House how completely at variance with the fact that declaration of the Governor General is. I hold in my hand the amnesty; and if it is possible for any man to take up a written document, and say that upon the face of that document the innocence of the party assailed appears, I say the examination of the paper which I am about to read, proves beyond all doubt that the Rajah, upon having a paper submitted to him, in which he is called upon to acknowledge his guilt, spurns it; and he spurns it with indignation. The right hon. Gentleman shall hear the language. This is from Sir James Carnac himself:— On the same day his Highness came to the Residency; and a meeting took place between him and Sir James Carnac, in the presence of Mr. Anderson, Colonel Ovans, and Mr. Willough-by; at which, after stating his thorough convictions of his Highness's guilt, and reminding him of his dependent condition, Sir James Carnac informed him, that on certain conditions the British Government were willing to pardon what had occurred. During this address (as Sir James Carnac himself relates the particulars of this interview), the Rajah evinced a considerable degree of impatience, and frequently interrupted me by abrupt declarations that he had committed no breach of alliance. When I had concluded, he stated that he regarded me as his friend and well-wisher—asserted that the accusations against him originated in the intrigues of his enemies—that as long as the British Government entertained the idea that he had cherished hostile designs, he would agree to nothing, but this idea being removed, he would agree to anything I proposed—that he would consent to anything except to abandon his religion, or to acknowledge that be had been our enemy—that he would receive any conditions, reply to them, and vindicate his conduct generally. Finally, he observed, that if I had not leisure to attend to him personally, he could communicate what he had to say through the Resident. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the terms proposed to the Rajah were not disgraceful. I can only say that Mr. Tucker and several of the Directors who had the question before them, have so declared, as I will show in a very few words, their opinion. Sir James Carnac goes on to state— The ex-Rajah at once refused to sign the paper shown to him, and asked what violation of the treaty he had been guilty of. The three principal charges were then enumerated to him. Those are the three charges which I have read, paltry and trifling as they are. And on his being asked, with reference to the alleged communications with the ex-Rajah of Nag-pore, whether he could deny that he had received letters from him, he forcibly answered, that 'a letter from a person does not establish guilt against the party to whom it is addressed. Where are my answers? There is Mr. Anderson: he may receive a letter; but this would be no proof that he answered it, or that he committed any fault in receiving it.' Now just conceive a man so situated. They charged him with guilt, because it was alleged he had received certain letters from individuals; and he makes a challenge for the production of a single letter from him in answer to any letter from any person. The further statement is a detail of Colonel Ovans' attending with a paper of conditions. "In the afternoon of the same day"—(I am sorry to weary the House, but those are details so full of information that it is necessary they should be stated):— In the afternoon of the same day, his Highness again saw the Governor, and repeated his refusal to sign the paper. Two more interviews took place between the ex-Rajah and Colonel Ovans, and one between his Highness and Sir James Carnac. In the first meeting with Colonel Ovans, his Highness begged to be allowed to show to him, which he declared he could do if he were protected from native interference, that the witnesses against him were altogether unworthy of credit. He was, however, cut short by the Resident, who observed, that the main point which he had now to determine upon, was, whether he would accept the conditions of the amnesty offered by the Governor or not. At the meeting with Sir James Carnac, the ex-Rajah delivered to him certain papers, some of which have been already alluded to, and which showed that forgeries of his Highness's name and seal had been carried on for some time at the instigation of one of his chief accusers. Every effort to obtain justice was, however, in vain; he was told that the documents he had given to the Governor did not bear upon the question at issue, and that if he did not sign the conditions he would be sent to Benares, and his throne and kingdom given to his brother. True to himself, however, the ex-Rajah still refused to preserve his kingdom by a false acknowledgment of guilt, choosing rather to pass the remainder of his days in an honourable prison, than to accept a throne purchased by the loss of reputation. The Rajah, knowing the power of the Company to ruin him with a single breath—being told that if he did not sign a paper acknowledging his guilt, he would be removed to Benares, and removed from his throne—being conscious of his innocence, refused to sign the paper, and was removed in a manner which is disgraceful to a civilized country. But as the right hon. Gentleman doubts whether this is an improper proposition, let me read what Mr. Tucker, the precent Chairman of the East India Company, says in his dissent of the 1st April 1840, from the decision of his brother Directors, confirming the deposition of the ex-Rajah:— Guilt would hare found it easy to accept the conditions proposed, in order to escape from the threatened penalty. The consciousness of rectitude must be strong, when it impels a man to make a great sacrifice to a sense of honour, however mistaken; and I must own that I cannot regard otherwise than with feelings of deep commiseration that Hindoo, who would resolve to sacrifice a principality, to abandon his treasures, to relinquish his homo, and remove his family to a distant part of the country, rather than make a slight concession which he felt must compromise his character. Those are the words of Mr. Tucker, the present Chairman, who only two months ago stated that he had not altered his opinion, but that he could not vote against his colleagues, who were against re-opening the case. Now, Sir, let me open to the House a scene of fraud and treachery on the part of the Bombay Government. (I beg the hon. Gentleman to take a note of this.) I say fraud and treachery on the part of the Bombay Government, and I will prove it. General Lodwick being Resident there, a paper of hints was sent to him; and General Lodwick, expressing his dissent from the treatment of the Rajah reminds them— A paper of hints was sent to me," [this is his letter to the Court of Directors] "suggesting that the native officers should ask to see the Rajah, tell him they had hoard their part of the plot had been discovered, beg that he would protect them, either by advancing money to escape with, or a pass under his hand and seal to insure their service; and if he gave them money, the evidence would he strong. Trying to entrap the unfortunate man; wishing General Lodwick, the then Resident, to lend himself to this base proceeding. This letter is addressed to the Court of Directors on the 9th of October 1840, and is published in the Parliamentary papers. He states, in vindication of the opinion he formed, that at first he had been himself deceived while at Sattara, and had formed an unfavourable opinion; but on the strictest inquiry, and particularly when he got from Mr. Willoughby the paper of hints, he saw that he had been misled; and if the House will grant me a Committee, I will produce the very paper of hints, in order that there may be no doubt whatever upon the matter. I am authorized to say that. General Lodwick says— Many persons of weight went so far as to think the Rajah ought to he sent to Bombay to have his conduct investigated, and that possession should be taken of his country; but that, at all events, the affair could not be quashed; and the question was, how to make the inquiry most effective, though it was feared nothing more could be expected from the Rajah. This is a quotation from a letter. Then he proceeds— A paper of hints was sent to me," [being then Resident at Sattara] "suggesting that the native officers" [alluding to the 23rd Regiment] "should ask to see the Rajah, tell him they had heard their part of the plot had been discovered, beg that he would protect them, either by advancing money to escape with, or a pass under his hand and seal to insure them service; that if he gave them money, the evidence would be strong; if a paper, convincing. If, however, he should give them up to me, with loud complaints of calumny, in this case I was to pretend to secure them, and, suspicion being hushed, an opportunity would be afforded of securing the principal agents. Honour and honesty being my motto in public as in private life, I spurned such shifts as these, and left the plot to develop itself, without secretly tempting the Rajah to afford me proof of his having aided it; determining to demand the delivery to me of the persons accused whenever the matter should transpire, and to take no active part in the Rajah's ruin. When this letter came to the Bombay Government, they, seeing that General Lodwick would be no longer their tool, sent that General off; and then we hear of Colonel Ovans. I do, Sir, in the strongest manner regret that Englishmen placed in the highest and moist responsible situation in which the Government of India places them, should lend themselves to such proceedings. I am prepared to prove this fact from documents in the blue book. I want nothing but the blue-book evidence, and living witnesses upon the spot, to make out the case I am now stating in one week from the time the House will institute the inquiry. I have entreated the Government to appoint a commission at Bombay; to appoint any individuals, civil or military from Bombay to conduct this inquiry; and (as I shall show) all these propositions have been rejected, and there has not been the least yielding to the claim for justice. Now, Sir, I think I may also state with some advantage, the opinion of the Court of Directors in 1838, when all these proceedings were sent home to the Court. They seem to have been alive to what was going on; and on the 13th June, 1838, Mr. Lushington and Mr. Jenkins, being then Chairman and Deputy Chairman, addressed the Government of Bombay— We have perused with great attention the letters noticed in the margin, which relate to certain charges against the Rajah of Sattara. The Governor General has informed us, that he has required your proceedings on this subject to he transmitted and brought under the review of the Supreme Government at the earliest possible period. We hope and trust that these orders of the Governor General have been long before this fully complied with by you. In this belief we shall suspend our judgment on these proceedings till we are in possession of that of the Supreme Government; at the same time we have no hesitation in giving it as our decided opinion, that it would be not only a waste of time, but seriously detrimental to the character of our Government, to carry on any further inquiry in the matter. This is the opinion of the Court of Directors upon having these facts before them. Again they address the right hon. the Governor of India in a letter of the 22nd of January, 1839:— As Sir James Carnac, the Governor of Bombay, has been in communication with us on the subject of your proceedings regarding the Rajah of Sattara, we are particularly desirous that you should suspend any final decision on the case, until you have had an opportunity of taking into your consideration such observations and suggestions as may be made to you by Sir James Carnac on a review of those proceedings. In the meantime it may be as well for us to state to you, that we see no reason to dissent from the opinion expressed by the Court of Directors in the letter of the 13th of June. That is the letter I have just read, stating that the sooner an end is put to the proceedings the better, and that it would be "seriously detrimental to the character of our Government to carry on any further inquiry in the matter." Now, Sir, I have taken the trouble to read these documents, to show that not merely the Directors had a conviction of the innocence of the Rajah, but that this very man afterwards became the tool of some party or other, and was guilty of this act of injustice. I want to show what took place at this time, in order that we may ascertain whether anything new has come forward; because there has been no new charge since that time, and all these charges were made in 1836 or 1837. I now come to a most important point, upon which I appeal to the British public, and ground my claim to have a trial. I will show that Sir Robert Grant, who has been so often quoted, never could have concurred in this proceeding, had he lived, of dethroning the Rajah without a trial. Sir Robert Grant, in a Minute of the 15th of August, 1837, thus states his opinion on reviewing the evidence that had come from Sattara, which I shall allude to by and by:— I am further strongly of opinion, that before the case is conclusively disposed of, the Rajah should be made acquainted with the fresh evidence that has been elicited against him, and should he allowed the opportunity of offering defence or explanation. He never was allowed such an opportunity. I will show that Colonel Ovans, when present at the commission, had promised the Rajah a copy of the evidence; and afterwards in his own handwriting to the Court of Bombay, declared he could not give him the evidence, because it was a secret inquiry; that secret inquiry involving the whole question against this unfortunate man. Again, Sir Robert Grant says (and I bring forward this evidence because the right hon. Gentleman shall not say it is my fiction; if it is a fiction, it is a fiction of Sir Robert Grant's), on the 20th of September 1837— I think also that Colonel Ovans should he instructed to prepare a complete statement of the case which has been established against the Rajah, in order that when his inquiries are concluded, it may be furnished to his Highness, for any such explanation or answer as he may choose to offer. That is my complaint. It never was furnished. Again, on the 31st May, 1838, Sir Robert Grant, in his Minute, states— It will be asked, however, whether he is to be condemned without the opportunity of defending himself. The Rajah has not been told of the evidence taken by Lieutenant-Colonel Ovans, and, undoubtedly, has a right to he heard in his own vindication. I have never meant otherwise, al- though I do not think that he will vindicate himself succesfully. He then quotes the passage I have already read from the Minute of the 15th of August, 1837, and proceeds— I repeat that opinion; not meaning that there should be merely the form, or farce, of a trial, to be closed by a ready-made judgment. A pretty idea he had of what was going on! Now, mark:— I wish," says he, "not merely the form or farce of a trial, to be closed by a ready-made judgment" [which he knew they had for him]; "but that the defence should be fairly heard and impartially weighed. Sir, to this hour the Rajah has never had this statement, and he has never been allowed to be heard; and it is upon that ground we appeal to British justice for a trial. I said that Colonel Ovans should speak for himself. Here is the promise which he made, and which I will read. On a former occasion I stated the secret inquiry that took place at Sattara; and I will now only allude to it; I will allude to new matter entirely. Here is a statement recorded by Mr. Willoughby, one of the Commissioners, on the 13th of June, 1837. He says, that— His Highness evinced throughout the whole of this interview, which lasted about three hours, the utmost readiness and self-possession: he was at first embarrassed; but it was only the embarrassment natural to a person in his situation. Latterly he argued with clearness and acuteness, took notes and asked questions, and certainly did not evince the slightest appearance of aberration of mind. He requested a Mahratta copy of so much of the depositions of the Soobahdars and Brahmins as affected himself, which was not at the time objected to. Now, here the Rajah said, after a long intercourse, "Well, you have taken evidence." They took it first in English: they translated it into Hindostanee. He said, "I do not understood that language. Give me a Mahratta translation of all the charges, and I will answer them." He was promised it; and then what takes place? Colonel Ovans afterwards objected to that; because in an extract from a letter to the Bombay Government, 23rd of June, 1837, he says— The only observations I feel called upon to make are with reference to what is stated in the third paragraph of his Highness's yad, on the subject of copies of the evidence taken before the Commission not having been given to him, and two of the members not having waited upon him before their departure from Sattara. As regards this, I beg leave respectfully to state, that the proceedings of the Commissioners being strictly secret, it did not consider itself authorized to grant a copy of any part of those proceedings to any person whatsoever; and with respect to the two members not waiting upon his Highness, it was evidently expedient to avoid any ceremony of this kind, considering the circumstances under which the Rajah was then placed. The Rajah wrote to say— You, the Commissioners, are going away; you have not given me a copy of the charges brought against me; send it to me. Here, therefore, is first a promise that he should have the evidence taken in secret; and, afterwards, the same officer (Colonel Ovens) refuses to send it, because it was private. Now, Sir, if ever such a proceeding disgraced a tribunal where Englishmen presided, it has not come to my knowledge. Sir, I have stated these circumstances; and I think it necessary to give additional evidence, to show that the Court of Directors were not unanimous in their decision. I have alluded already to the dissent of Mr. Tucker, and I think it is of immense importance that I should read it:— Because after stating that our former communications to his Lordship in Council on the Sattara case will have showed that we were disinclined to attach serious importance to the allegations against the Rajah which had been transmitted to us by the Governor in Council of Bombay, and that we were desirous that the proceedings in respect to the Rajah should be brought to a speedy close; after this clear and explicit intimation of our views which, as we continue to observe, 'coincided with the sentiments which your Lordship in Council expressed to the Government of Sir Robert Grant,' it was manifestly incumbent upon the Court, with a view to its consistency, to show by a distinct reference to some new fact or disclosures upon what grounds they had changed their opinion, and arrived at so very different a conclusion. Because, on an examination of the case upon its merits, I must think that the dethronement of the Rajah of Sattara was premature, uncalled for, and impolitic; and that the Government abroad was not empowered to resort to this extreme measure without the express sanction of the homo authorities. That the elevation of Appa Sahib, the Rajah's brother to the guddee was most unreasonable, injudicious, and unwarrantable, inasmuch as it is calculated to produce great embarrassment to the home authorities in the exercise of their free judgment in the case. This is Mr. Tucker's dissent when he was a Director in 1840. Now Mr. John Cotton—for it is not one or two of the Directors only who have from time to time expressed these sentiments in the strongest manner—Mr. John Cotton, a Director, says— I deem it proper to place on record my reasons for giving such a vote. First, in respect to the deposition of the Rajah; because it appears by the Minute of the late Governor of Bombay, Sir Robert Grant, dated 31st May, 1838" [which I have read], "and by the Minutes of the Governor General, Lord Auckland, dated the 23rd Septem- her and 29th December, 1838" [which I have also read], that however strong and conclusive the exparte evidence obtained against the Rajah was considered to be, it was never contemplated by either of those authorities to depose the Rajah absolutely, without first giving him the opportunity of offering an explanation of the charges established by evidence against him, or of refuting them altogether in a formal trial. The Rajah has had no trial; and therefore Mr. Cotton refuses to give his assent to the measure. Now, Mr. Shepherd, the late Chairman, in the same manner says— I concur generally in the view taken of this important subject by my honourable colleague, Mr. Tucker, which he has so ably expounded in his dissent. The offer of an amnesty to the Rajah of Sattara having been finally decided upon, it was injudicious to clog it with stipulations calculated to defeat its object. The preamble of the conditions which his Highness was called upon to sign, entangled him into an admission of guilt. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that statement. He has said again and again, and I think also the right hon. Member opposite has stated, that the proposition by Sir James Carnac did not involve an admission of guilt. Mr. Shepherd, a shrewd and able man, a late Chairman, says— The preamble of the conditions which his Highness was called upon to sign, entangled him in an admission of guilt; it also involved the Government in the glaring inconsistency of propounding a principle which required the strongest proof of the Rajah's unworthiness to reign, as a necessary condition on which he was to be continued on the guddee. Who will deny that his rejection of the proposal furnishes presumptive evidence of his innocence, and raises him more in the estimation of the world, than if he had ignominiously complied, for the sake of retaining his sovereignty. The setting up of Appa Sahib, who had manifested hostile and most unnatural feelings towards his brother—who had been a long and anxious aspirant to the throne—and who was himself strongly suspected of being concerned in the Sattara intrigues—is, in my opinion, neither justified upon any view of policy or justice. Here, therefore, is the dissent of three of those gentlemen. I do not know that I need trouble the House with more; but I have other dissents which are as strong as possible. The dissent of Mr. John Forbes goes into the whole details, and he expresses himself very fully upon it. But I do not want to detain the House; therefore I will merely say that he concurs entirely, and gives his reasons at length why he concurs in that opinion. I therefore do contend that the dethronement took place without any ground, and that it was protested against at the time; and it is upon that ground that I say the House is bound to grant an inquiry. Now, Sir, to conclude. I have passed over the inquiry; I have shown that the witnesses were examined in secret; that they refused to give the Rajah a copy of the evidence; and that in fact until he received the blue books from this country, he was ignorant of the charges brought against him. I will read a letter from an eye-witness—a gentleman who is now in London, who was police magistrate at that time—and which gives a clear account of the treatment which this unfortunate Prince received. When he would not agree to acknowledge his own guilt, they immediately determined to surround his palace and take him away by force, which they did at night. He says— On the arrival of the troops at Sattara on the evening of the 4th of September, 1839, we received orders to be on parade at two o'clock in the morning. Evil deeds are done at night. These are the acts of the East India Company:— Daring the middle of the night we proceeded in front of the Resident's house, and as soon as the troops could be told off and formed, which is always a difficult matter during a dark night, we inarched into the town. Colonel Ovans and his staff officer were a little in roar of us. On arriving in front of the palace we halted. Colonel Ovans immediately entered the palace with one or two other officers. After a few minutes, the Rajah was brought out and placed in a palanquin; he was then in a state of nudity, with the exception of a pair of sleeping drawers. I subsequently saw a shawl thrown over him. It appeared that the Rajah was asleep at the time he was summoned by Colonel Ovans. It was stated by some, 'These are strange proceedings—depend upon it there is sure to be a serious row about this in England.' The Rajah was not taken to the village of Nimb, as is generally supposed, but some distance from it, to a mean-looking dwelling into which the Rajah was conveyed: it did not appear at all suitable for the reception of a fallen prince, who a few days before had expressed his anxiety to be relieved from the cares of government. It was quite evident cattle had been recently kept there, and it was overrun with rats and vermin. That was the place to which he was carried. [Sir J. W. HOGG: What are you reading from?] I am reading from a letter of an officer who was police magistrate at that time. [Sir J. W. HOGG: What is the name of the officer?] If you will give me a Committee, I will bring him before it:— Although Colonel Ovans three times solemnly assured the Rajah that the Rajah's private treasure and private property should be respected and delivered up, every shilling of the one, and every atom of the other, were, at his instigation, afterwards appropriated and confiscated. I will produce Colonel Ovans's own three letters before the Committee, in which he pledges the faith of the British Government to preserve and restore the whole of his private property; and I will prove the manner in which he falsified that promise. Now, Sir, the treatment of the Rajah and his followers on the road to Benares was really disgraceful:— At the Rajah's first place of confinement, whither his queen and family followed him, his daughter gave birth to a premature infant, which died on the spot, and with difficulty was the life of the mother, a prey to fear and anxiety, saved. Twelve hundred of the Rajah's subjects voluntarily followed him to his place of exile, nine hundred miles distant. With them he set out. The melancholy journey occupied five months. At one stage of it the wife of his intimate friend and cousin, the late commander of his troops, was seized with the pangs of childbirth. The Rajah implored a halt for this lady. His request was peremptorily refused; and the lady gave birth to an infant, without succour, by the road side. At another stage the exiles were overtaken by an armed body of men sent from Sattara, with the sanction of Colonel Ovans, and with orders to demand payment of a debt of many thousand pounds from the same person—the Rajah's cousin—or to take him back a prisoner to Sattara. He had left behind at Sattara property to three times the amount. To satisfy the demand, this gentleman and his family were stripped on the spot of everything they possessed, from the jewels of his wife and the ornaments of his children, down to the cooking pots carried by his servants. It has since been proved that no debt from him was due. A few days after this scene, this gentleman, a prey to shame, grief, and indignation, fell dangerously ill. A halt was again implored for him; it was again refused. On opening his litter at the end of the day's journey, this brave soldier, this 'noble fellow,' as General Lodwick called him, was found stretched in it, a lifeless corpse. What should we think of the Duke of Wellington being taken out of his bed, put into a carriage, carried away, and driven till he was found dead? That is a similar case to this; for this man was Commander-in-Chief of the Rajah's troops. This is not denied. I have not read a single document, except that one letter, which is not from the blue book. [Sir J. W. HOGG: The officer who commanded denies it.] There is nothing they would not deny. Why not give me a Committee? I will prove that that denial is a forgery, like all the rest. I will bring living witnesses—men who accompanied him—and all the facts shall be proved. Let them institute an inquiry at Benares, and the facts shall be proved. I do not want an inquiry here exclusively; I only want an inquiry of some kind or other by which justice shall be done. It is rather too much to be told this is all disproved by the blue book. Let us know what is the authority; let us have the witnesses confronted; lot us see on which side the balance will lie. Now, Sir, I have the Proclamation to depose the Rajah, and place his brother in the throne, with which I think it unnecessary to trouble the House. I now come to another matter. I have shown the deposition; I have shown the treatment; I have shown the way in which evidence was bribed, or at least I will show it; and I will now show how the evidence was obtained and got up; but I cannot do that without implicating Colonel Ovans. I was anxious to leave Colonel Ovans out of the question; but I have before mo the charges that were made against Colonel Ovans, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. They were laid upon the table of the Court of Proprietors; and it is very true that Mr. Wigram, one of the law officers of the Company, advised them, instead of advertising them, according to the rule of the House, not to publish them, because they wore libellous, as they had been laid upon the Table of the House by Mr. George Thompson. But in the name of Mr. George Thompson, for the first time, let me tell the right hon. Baronet that he has spoken several times in a disparaging manner of that gentleman; and if Mr. George Thompson shall get into the House of Commons in the next Parliament—which is very likely—the right hon. Gentleman will be no more than a pigmy in the hands of a giant, if Mr. George Thompson gets hold of him. [An Hon. MEMBER: He belongs to the Peace Society.] Now, Sir, what is the case? Colonel Ovans is accused by Mr. Thompson; and Mr. Thompson has made himself perfectly master of the case; and I venture to say that he is better acquainted with the blue book than any one of us; and he has also been in India. He accuses Colonel Ovans— That he did, from the time of his assuming office as Resident, down to the period of the Rajah's dethronement, in the month of September, 1839, systematically intercept, and cause to be intercepted, the whole of the correspondence of the Rajah, his servants, and his friends; and that Colonel Ovans did convert such systematic intercepting, opening, and perusing of the said correspondence into a means of counteracting and defeating every endeavour which the Rajah 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 Rajah to the British authorities. That Colonel Ovans did, in the month of July, 1837, obtain the removal of Govind Rao, a subject and friend of the Rajah of Sattara, then confined at Poonah, to strict confinement in the fortress of Ahmednugger, where, by means of a secret emissary sent from Sattara expressly for the purpose, Colonel Ovans obtained from Govind Rao a paper purporting to be a confession of the truth of a petition criminating the Rajah, which petition, as Colonel Ovans had previously reported to his Government, had been proved by him to be the petition of Girjabaee, the mother of Govind Rao. The House must understand what are these accusations. The first charge against the Rajah was an anonymous charge; it was put into one of the post-offices, and arrived at Bombay. The Bombay Government directed it to be sent to Sattara, and an inquiry to be made as to who the author of it was. It was supposed to be written by Girjabaee, the mother of the Minister, Govind Rao. It remained in mystery; the woman denied it, although Colonel Ovans declared he had seen her, and that she had signed that petition; and after a certain time, Krushnajee Sudasee Bhidey came forward, having been bribed to prepare this paper for 1,200 rupees. This is a fact stated in the blue book, that he had been bribed with a promise of 1,200 rupees to write the infamous charge against the Rajah. It remained an anonymous charge; and all these imputations of treachery and conspiracy were got up during this time; and afterwards, when this man came forward and tendered to Colonel Ovans evidence that he was the author of it, and that he was prepared to prove the whole, and did prove the whole, instead of Colonel Ovans sending that information to the Home Government immediately to let them know who was the author, he kept it secret for eleven months, and never let that fact be known, which was of the utmost importance to the Government. That is a charge, in my opinion, of a most serious nature. Mr. Thompson also states— That Colonel Ovans, in September, 1838, was offered by Ballajee Punt Nathoo, his chief adviser, and Ballajee Kasee Khibey, his native agent, a highly treasonable paper or proclamation, bearing the genuine seals of the Rajah of Sattara, and calling upon the native troops in the service of the British Government to rise and extirpate the English. That it was intimated at the time that this paper was probably obtained by foul means, and that if there produced as evidence against the Rajah, his Highness might establish such to be the case. The Rajah wished to show that somebody had got possession of his seals, and had written this violent proclamation in order to attempt to establish a charge against him that he was acting dishonourably; and Colonel Ovans suppressed it all. Mr. Thompson continues— That Colonel Ovans afterwards suffered this paper to remain in the possession of his native agent for four months, until the 25th January, 1839. That during those four months Colonel Ovans wholly abstained from making any inquiry into the genuineness of this paper, or the means by which it had been obtained, and that he apprised his Government of its existence, only when he learned from the interception of the Rajah's correspondence, and from the Rajah himself, that his Highness had detected the plot by which the impressions of his seals had been fraudulently obtained, and the treasonable purposes to which they had been applied. The charge goes on, that he purchased, bribed, and got up evidence. This is really a most disgraceful thing. Papers passing between the Rajah and his official agent—every letter from England from his agents, and from every other party—were opened and taken to Colonel Ovans, in order to try and make out a case. Notwithstanding all that, not one iota of actual guilt has been made out. Now, Sir, the accusation which has been made by Mr. George Thompson, and which, unfortunately, I am obliged to make against Colonel Ovans is, that he authorized the buying of evidence in order to support the accusations. Captain Durack, Line Adjutant to Lieutenant Colonel Ovans, in a letter dated 26th September, 1837, says— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, together with its accompaniment; and, in reply, to subjoin the following statement. Some days after my return to Sattara, from leave of absence on medical certificate, in the month of June last, Lieutenant Harne, who had been performing the duties of Line Adjutant in my absence, mentioned to me that a young lad of the name of Pundrung, and a person calling himself Hijront Row, had called upon him and said that they had been instructed by one Bhow Lely to say, that if he, Bhow Lely, were handsomely rewarded, he would procure certain treasonable papers connected with the conspiracy on which his Highness the Rajah of Sattara and his Minister, Govind Rao, were implicated. Having removed Govind Rao before, which they did, thinking they would find treason in him, and not finding any, every one was anxious to obtain evidence; and, as Mr. Macaulay, in his observations, very properly states— Any person who wants to got up evidence against a man who has incurred the displeasure of the Government, finds no difficulty about it. Captain Durack goes on to state— On the 16th, Bhow Lely called, and I told him he might have 150 rupees for his expenses. He accepted the sum, on the condition of being rewarded on his return with the seditious documents. The seditious documents did not come so readily; there was some hitch about paying; but Lieutenant Colonel Ovans, Acting Resident at Sattara, on the 27th of October, writes— With reference to the statement of the Brahmin, Bhow Lely, on which so much stress is laid, I beg to observe, that on my arrival here, Captain Durack reported to me that an offer had been made by this man to produce some treasonable paper on promise of a certain reward; and after ascertaining that he had been for some years in the employment of the Rajah, I authorized Captain Durack to pay him a certain sum for his expenses, and to give him a paper, and say that he would be rewarded according to the service he might perform. Do you not call this subornation—giving money in proportion to the amount of service performed; giving him immediately 150 rupees, and saying that he shall be rewarded in proportion to the value of the documents he shall get, impeaching the Rajah? I have a, copy of the receipt for the money so paid and received. I have also, Sir, authority to say, that there is a letter from Lieutenant Harne of the 8th Regiment, dated Sattara, 26th September, 1837, in which he says— On several occasions during the month of May last, overtures were made to me through the agency of a Brahmin lad, called Pundrung, by a Brahmin, named Bhow Lely, to the effect that he, Bhow Lely, would, if inducement, together with guarantee of personal safety, were offered, produce certain documents bearing the signature of the ex-Minister of the Sattara Rajah and others, of a seditious and libellous nature, as connected with the relationship hitherto existing between the British Government and that of his Highness the Sattara Rajah. Now we can multiply these proofs to show that Colonel Ovans and the party there were busy and anxious to obtain evidence and papers, and that in fact every device was resorted to to obtain them. That is one case; but here is another instance, where Colonel Ovans applies to have a gang robber pardoned; and this from the blue book. The following is an extract of a letter from the collector of Rutna Gherry, dated 23rd September, 1837:— I have the honour to report to the Governor in Council, that Ballarama Chuprassee, an agent sent by the Acting Resident, Colonel Ovans, at Sattara, to Warree, requested the chief of Sawunt Warree to grant a free pardon to Balkoba Kelkur, and permit him to proceed with the agent to Sattara. The agent added, that on these conditions Balkoba Kelkur was willing to surrender himself up, together with the papers and seals in his possession. This robber was pardoned. He was sent out, and he brings back a statement respecting the documents, which Colonel Ovans considers of the utmost importance. Colonel Ovans sends them to the Govern- ment as documents of great value; and hear what Sir Robert Grant says— I have perused with equal surprise and regret the letter from the Governor of India, dated the 2nd; for I conceive, that if the course suggested be pursued, the credit of the British Government will be seriously impaired. Then he says— Under these circumstances, however, it cannot be denied, that the character of the Bombay Governor is almost as deeply committed on the event of the present discussions, as that of the Ruler of Sattara. Then he says— That Colonel Ovans first learned of these papers from Dajeeba Waeed, who, with Ballaram, was sent to Warree, to discover Balkoba, to obtain the papers from that person. Some difficulty was at first experienced, but the attempt at length succeeded. Tha papers were obtained on the payment of 400 rupees. Now, these papers were sent with an English translation, purporting to be of the utmost importance; being papers to criminate the Rajah of Sattara, signed by Colonel Ovans. He forwarded papers for which he had paid 400 rupees, though attached to them were two seals, as seals belonging to the Rajah of Sattara; whereas Colonel Ovans had in his possession the Rajah of Sattara's real seals, which were of an oblong shape; and it was impossible for any man who was Resident there not to have known and immediately to have detected the fraud. Therefore the charge is, that he did first purchase these papers—that he did forward them, stating them to be papers implicating the Rajah of Sattara—and that he forwarded them with these seals, while the seals were acknowledged to be forged. Sir, I am quite satisfied that if the truth can possibly be elicited—if we can have an opportunity of inquiry, all these facts will be made as clear as the sun at noon day. No one was more hostile to the present Rajah than myself at first, when I heard of Sir James Carnac's removal of him, because I had the greatest possible confidence in that gentleman, and I believed he was not capable (as the right hon. Gentleman knows) before he went to India of any such act. But the evidence was such as to make upon me an impression so strong, that there is no case I have ever undertaken which appears to me more clear than that which I have now stated. Now, Sir, I will mention another argument. There were papers laid before the House on the 4th of July, 1845—I will not trouble the House by reading them, but I will state the facts. The Rajah of Sattara, at the time he sent a petition to the House of Commons, sent a petition to the President of the Board of Control also. I endeavoured, quietly and privately, to do all I could to obtain justice for him. At last, Lord Ripon being in office, in 1844, I went to Lord Ripon, and stated, "Here is new matter—here are forged seals—the individual who committed the first forgery has presented a petition to the House of Commons, and there it lies; I hope you will now open the question, as this is new matter. The whole conspiracy can he proved, and here is the statement in detail." Lord Ripon took the papers, and said he was very sorry, but there were difficulties in the way; and I left the papers. On the next day I received a letter from Mr. Baring, the Secretary to the Board of Control returning me the papers, and saying, "he was sorry he had been directed by his Lordship to send them hack; but the papers from the Rajah could not come otherwise than through the Governor General: they must keep up the rule, and therefore they refused to receive the papers." I wrote a letter immediately afterwards to the Rajah; and he sent a letter to me. I said, "I return to you these papers, because the rules of the Government here do not permit of their being received; I advise you, therefore, to send your statement to the Governor General." Sir Henry Hardinge was just then going out; I advised him to send the papers to him, and said that he would forward them no doubt. On the receipt of my letter, soon after Sir Henry Hardinge arrived, he laid the whole of his case before Sir Henry, and requested that it might be conveyed to the Court of Directors here. Will the House believe, that although I have moved three times for these papers—(I have got a copy of the letter which was sent to the Rajah)—that letter has never to this hour been produced? It has been kept back by the right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: What is the date of it?] The 12th of December, 1841. I have a copy of it. I have moved for that letter twice. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will recollect that he assured me that no such paper was in his possession. [Sir J. W. HOGG: What letter do you allude to?] A despatch respecting the letter addressed by the Rajah of Sattara to the Governor General, which has never yet been given. I have got the letter here, and it details the whole of the case. Thus, therefore, he is refused access to the Government here, and directed to send the papers home by the Governor General. The Governor General either does not send them, or they are intercepted. How can such a system be sustained as compatible with justice? Sir, I will mention another instance of the manner in which this matter has been conducted. When Krushnajee Sudasee Bhidey sent a petition to the House of Commons, stating that he was ready to prove the whole to be a forgery, referring to living witnesses in Bombay who could be called to prove the facts, I applied to the Chairman of the Court of Directors, Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Shepherd said, "It is very extraordinary. I have not heard of these letters; hut if you will send them to me, I will forward them to India." I wrote a letter, dated the 18th May, 1844, to Mr. Shepherd, containing eighteen enclosures, being all documents ready to be proved; for there were on the spot witnesses to ascertain whether they wore true or false; not the evidence of men who had been guilty of forgery, but other individuals who were cognizant of the matter, and could prove it. I charge Colonel Ovans in my letter with having suppressed documents—I charge him with having refused inquiry; and I desire that the witnesses named in the petition to the House of Commons shall be examined by some competent tribunal in Bombay, in order to ascertain the truth. I say that the innocence or guilt of the Rajah is not the question, hut I want an inquiry. On the arrival of these documents, what was the course which the Government took? They first placed the case in the hands of Mr. John Warden, who is called the agent for native Princes. Mr. Warden sent for Krishnajee Sudasee Bhidey, and said, "Have you sent this petition from India?" "Yes," said Krishnajee. "Do you know what you state; and are you prepared to prove those charges?" said Mr. Warden. "Yes," "Where are your witnesses?" "Oh, I have got all the witnesses." Mr. Warden directs him to attend the next day; and says, "Are you aware that if you fail to prove those charges, what the consequence will be?" "Yes; I am perfectly ready to undergo the penalty; I have given you, as you desired, in writing the names, and many of them are living—men of property—bankers, sheriffs, and men of considerable property." "Well," says Mr. Warden, "we must take security that you will proceed with your examination." "What security do you want?" "One thousand rupees yourself, and five thousand in other security." This is from a man earning a few rupees per month! A bond is signed, and security is entered into; and he attends on the next day and expects the inquiry to go on. But, no; he goes again and again; and the fact is, that to this hour no inquiry has been made. What did the Government do? The Goverment sent these charges to Colonel Ovans and the native Ballajee Punt Nathoo. They return them, and say, "These charges are all false; why do you entertain them?" That is the answer that comes home—the man who offers to prove the charges having given security for one thousand rupees himself, and five thousand re-pees as security from others! The charges remain to this hour uninquired into. Does that look like innocence on the part of the Bombay Government? No! I defy any Director, or the right hon. Gentleman, to explain that, otherwise than as a consciousness that if they permitted inquiry, the whole case would be proved against them. That is one case; and I say, in addition, that in every stage there is evidence of conspiracy. I wish I was at liberty to state the individuals who I think are implicated. Well might the Court say— The character of the British Government is at stake, if you proceed with such an investigation. Now, Sir, I come to one other point, and it is of extreme importance—the overtures made to the Rajah. After this letter to the Governor General, application was made in September, 1845, to the Rajah to this purport; and this is very curious. The Rajah is addressed by the Resident, Major Carpenter—a man of high character, an officer in the East India Company's service, against whom I never heard a charge breathed. He says— 'Your Highness is aware that in England there is a General Court of Proprietors of East India Stock held every three months for purposes of business, and that your case has been frequently discussed there. Now, I would beg to suggest to your Highness the expediency of having these reiterated discussions on your claims discontinued.' 'Why,' replied the Rajah, 'should they be discontinued, seeing that they form the only channel through which my wrongs can be brought forward to the notice of the British public? And if the publicity which they cause be suppressed, it would be tantamount to shutting the door of justice altogether to further inquiry into the facts of my case.' 'None of the authorities in England,' observed the Agent, 'have the power of causing the re-establishment of your Highness on the Throne of Sattara. With your Highness's permission, I should recommend that you should, in the first place, agree to one proposition I shall make, preparatory to those which I shall take the liberty of submitting for your Highness's consideration. First, you should acknowledge that, after having tried and exhausted every means in your power for a period of six years, in your efforts to obtain justice, you have at last retired, perfectly hopeless of receiving any acknowledgment of your rights; you have, therefore, relinquished all your claims to the Sattara throne and territories: secondly, that you will withdraw your agent in London, and discontinue the agitation of your case in England: thirdly, that you will solicit for some suitable place of retirement; for the restoration of your private property; for an increase of the monthly allowance made to you; and for Government to approve of the adoption you have made in favour of the little boy, Trimbukjee Rajay. You must empower me, under your hand and seal, to propose these terms for the consideration of the Governor General, who is soon expected in the Upper Provinces. Should the Governor General decline complying with these proposals, I will, as I am proceeding to England, undertake to submit them to the Court of Directors and the Board of Control.' Now, mark! In reply to this, his Highness observed— I am neither a mahajan (shopkeeper), nor a sowear (merchant), nor a baboo (Bengali gentleman), nor a temindar (landowner, or rather farmer), nor is it likely that I should forego my rights of sovereignty, for the conditions you have to offer for my acceptance. I shall act conformably to the manner in which my ancestors have acted; and I hope my successors will so act. This is only in accordance with what is enjoined in our religion. With reference to the proposal in which I am directed to solicit for a suitable place of retirement; for the restoration of my private property; and to ask for an increase of my monthly allowance: supposing these were offered me, can it be expected that I should receive them, and waive my sovereign claims? A friend and ally of the English, you have, without any cause whatever on my part, deprived mo of my throne and dominions, driven me from my country, and subjected me to every species of oppression and degradation; and is this the justice I am at last to receive at your hands? I would rather perish than subscribe to the terms you propose. Here is the proposal which was made. Mr. George Thompson mentioned this in the Court of Proprietors; and, to the astonishment of everybody, nobody knew anything of it. However, he pledged himself that he had a copy; and he was prepared to produce that copy. The hon. Gentleman knows what followed better than I do. After the Court was over, great consternation was expressed. At a meeting of the Court of Directors, the opinion strongly expressed was, that information must be obtained, whether that compromise was offered or not. Is it true or false? For that purpose a despatch from the Secret Committee was sent, which I will read. This is one of the secret papers. It appears that after that exposure in the Court of Proprietors—after a declaration that such an offer had taken place—after a denial on the part of the Chairman that he knew anything at all about it—the Directors, for the vindication of their own honour, and to obtain information, directed their Chairman to write for that purpose. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: It was the Secret Committee.] The Secret Committee! Well, so much the worse; because acts of this kind should he done publicly, and not by the Secret Committee. But this is a copy taken from the paper sent to India. Mr. G. Thompson, the person who has been alluded to, found this paper upon his table one morning. This is the document—this is the paper that I stole in Bengal; though I could not be there and here at the same time. The fact is, this letter was written, and signed "Henry Willock, James Weir Hogg;" and the right hon. Gentleman opposite must have been a party to it. It is headed— DESPACH FROM THE SECRET COMMITTEE OF THE COURT OF DIRECTORS TO THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN INDIA. (Secret.) No. 1175. We transmit to you a paper purporting to be the subject of a conversation between the Governor General's Agent at Benares and the ex-Rajah of Sattara, which was read by Mr. George Thompson at a General Court of Proprietors of the East India Company on the 18th instant. The Court of Directors have no information with respect to the propositions stated in this paper to have been made by Major Carpenter to the ex-Rajah; and we, therefore, desire that a copy of the statement be sent to that officer, and that he be called upon to transmit to you, without loss of time, whatever observations he may have to offer upon it. A copy of these observations you will forthwith forward to us, together with any explanatory remarks which the case may appear to you to require. Now, it is rather curious that a copy of that despatch should have led to all this dispute with the right hon. President of the Board of Control. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had it put into his hand—for I was out of town when the paper was moved for—and an application was made to the hon. Member, who proceeded to the right hon. Gentleman, and asked him whether he had any objection to produce the papers. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that they should be produced; but afterwards he altered the terms of the Motion. Now, here is a letter from the Governor General, dated the 15th May, 1846, to Major Carpenter:— I am directed by the Right Honourable the Governor General to transmit for your informa- tion the accompanying copy of a letter, dated the 24th March last, with its inclosures from the Honourable the Secret Committee," [which is what I read] "and to request that you will submit any explanation or observation you have to offer relative to the propositions you are alleged to have made to the ex-Rajah of Sattara. Now those are two of the secret papers. The third is not the paper at length, which I am sorry for, but it is the substance of a despatch consisting of seven paragraphs addressed by Major Carpenter, the Governor General's agent at Benares, dated May 26th, 1846. Now I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to say whether this was correct or not. It is as follows:— Paragraphs one and two, refer to the conversations held at various times with his Highness the Rajah relative to his circumstances at Benares, and his wishes respecting the progress of his cause; also to the paper read by Mr. George Thompson at the India House, which is described by Major Carpenter as substantially correct, though in some particulars inaccurately translated. Paragraphs three and four state, that the representations from time to time made at the India House respecting the case of the Rajah, by the friends of that Prince, are true; and that the Rajah has been proved to be innocent altogether of the charges brought against him by the Bombay Government. Paragraphs five and six, contain proof, furnished by Major Carpenter himself, of the entire innocence of the Rajah of all the accusations brought against him. Paragraph seven refers to a conversation between Major Carpenter and the Governor General, while his Lordship was at Benares, respecting the circumstances of the Rajah; and the assurance of the Governor General that he would explain everything to the Court of Directors. These are the papers which the right hon. Gentleman accused me of having stolen. These are the purloined papers that Mr. George Thompson produced, which I have asked two or three times to have produced, in order to see what they really are. I do not allege that these are true; we want to know that; and when I asked the first time, the right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh! you have taken these papers; we have a rule—we will not let you have them, because somebody has stolen them." The hon. Gentleman said I had stolen them, or that I was the receiver of stolen goods. I have since been told, that if any one person would be at the expense, and disregard the impropriety, any paper may be obtained. It was remarked to me by a gentleman from India, "What a fuss you are making about this! There is not a document belonging to the Bengal Government which I could not buy." But, Sir, here is the point. This letter purports to be the substance of a secret letter from Major Carpenter; and it is a paper which the right hon. Baronet kept seven months before it was known to be in England; therefore he had made up his mind to keep it. An hon. Gentleman, I believe also in the Court of Proprietors, alleged, if I recollect right, that the Directors did not know of it; but after it had been discovered to be a stolen paper, he said he could not give it up. It was seven months in the right hon. Baronet's possession before he knew there was a copy here. We have eight folio volumes, consisting of 1,680 pages from the Secret Department, in the case of the Rajah of Sattara. Everything that could criminate the poor unfortunate man has been laid upon the Table of the House; but the moment anything that looks like exculpation appears, it is locked up. Is that English justice? You refuse him a trial; you keep the papers. But the right hon. Gentleman says it is not so. Has he not admitted that he has the paper, and will not produce it? Why was it not produced months ago? We know that a despatch was sent out to obtain information. The Court of Directors, up to this moment, have refused that information. What have they done? I am sorry to say the Court of Proprietors have been treated with very little ceremony. When they asked for the information, the majority at first certainly voted against it. Afterwards a Motion was made by Mr. Lewis, in the Court of Proprietors, and against the Court of Directors: that Motion was carried, that these papers should be asked for; that the Court of Directors should apply to the Board of Control for the papers. The right hon. Gentleman answered, "I have received your letter;" but he did not condescend to say he would not give them, or that he would take time to consider, but simply acknowledged the receipt of the letter. Another letter was written, which received the same answer; and yet the right hon. Gentleman pretends to say we are dealing with fictions, when almost every allegation, except the two letters I have last read, is taken from the blue books! Now, Sir, let me ask you, why should the right hon. Gentleman, when this unfortunate Prince is suffering in exile, blame me for asking him to produce papers which I am informed contain statements which will prove his innocence? As I have said before, would it be tolerated in an English court, or in an English House of Commons, if any Poor of this realm had been tried for treason and degraded, his property confiscated, sent into exile, and it should after- wards turn out to be the result of a conspiracy—when that proof became as clear as the sun at noon day—could it be said, "Oh! these papers have been stolen; you shall not have them?" What has the mode of getting them to do with the question as to whether they contain any facts of importance or not? What have I to do with the manner in which they have been obtained, or what has the right hon. Gentleman to do with it? The right hon. Gentleman ought at once to have said, "These do not contain anything connected with the Rajah that can be of importance;" or, "My producing them will be injurious to the public service." But he has not ventured to say that. Why does an English Gentleman—an administrator of justice, maintaining the opinion that every man ought to have a fair trial upon the charges brought against him—I say, why does the right hon. Gentleman detain in secrecy documents of this kind; documents asked for by the Court of Proprietors, and refused to the House of Commons—and refused to the Court of Directors? I say, the right hon. Gentleman is culpable in the highest degree. It is a denial of justice. I have shown the House the doubtful manner in which the evidence bears on the charges; I have shown the House the mode adopted to obtain evidence. Is it not too hard that at this day we should have such proceedings going on? Whether the Rajah be guilty or not, I say he ought to be tried; I say he ought to be heard; I say that the prayer of his petition ought to be awarded to him. His petition to this House is, "Give me but the fate of a peasant in England; let me have a trial. Were I a peasant in England, I should obtain a trial; I should have justice done me; I am an exiled Prince, having been deprived of my sovereignty under these pretences; and yet I cannot get justice; no person will listen to me." I can only say that the character of the East India Company in India stands on very fragile grounds, if such a course of proceeding is to be maintained. No case has occupied so much of the attention of the natives of India as this case; and I should not wonder, to tell the truth, that some of those thousands who sympathize with that unfortunate man, hearing what the despatch alluded to contains—I should not wonder if some of them, unknown to any person, had obtained these papers, or even paid for them, in case they could not obtain them in any other way, in order to send them over here to give the Rajah a chance of the matter being inquired into. It appears to me to be a question which appeals to the justice of the British House of Commons. It is a case which appeals to English gentlemen. We do not ask you to say that the Rajah is innocent; we ask you to do common justice. What is the opposition? It is an opposition from the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control. Now, Mr. Tucker says "I have not altered my opinion"—I have read you his able dissent— I have not altered my opinion; but the question cannot be opened in the Court of Directors. It rests with Her Majesty's Government, and it rests with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control. He is the organ of Government upon Indian matters. What can the right hon. Gentleman expect himself, if he should be placed in a situation in which he should be compelled to appeal to this House? If he should be treated as he has treated others, I think he would be very unfortunately situated. But, Sir, the time that has elapsed has been raised as an objection to inquiry. Now I hold in my hand a case exactly similar to the present; it is that of the Rajah of Tanjore. The Rajah of Tanjore in 1827 died, leaving a child. His uncle and relations combined by subornation of witnesses to prove to the Government that he was not the proper heir; and he was accordingly set aside, and his uncle succeeded to the throne. The same course of proceeding has been adopted against the Rajah of Sattara. The party who plotted is now on the throne; the Brahmin who was the first prime mover has got an estate of 20,000 or 30,000 rupees; every one who assisted in this conspiracy is now rolling in wealth. This individual, the Rajah of Tanjore, who ousted his nephew, sat for ten years on the guddee, and at last some of the party impeached him; an inquiry took place, and the conspiracy which had been entered into was discovered. When the Government of India determined to re-inquire into the Tanjore case, they recorded their reasons in the following words. Lord Wellesley, in his despatch, says— Adverting to the right of the Company to interfere originally with respect to the succession of Tanjore, it is observed, that the same right called upon them under existing circumstances to review the whole subject, and that if it should appear that the decision of the Government had been procured by imposition and intrigue, by which the legal heir had been deprived of his rights, a declaration to that effect, followed by his restitu- tion, would be more honourable to British justice, and more calculated to promote our political character and interests, than to suffer the continuance of an imposition obtained at our hands by sinister and undue means. It would manifest to the world that the principle of British justice is ever true to itself, and that if those entrusted with its administration should be betrayed into error (an event not impossible even from the integrity of their own minds), when truth shall have made its way, the hour of retribution must come, and the honour of the British name be completely vindicated. That is the Minute of Lord Wellesley, which does him honour in my opinion. Do not, therefore, entertain any fear of retracing your steps, and replacing this individual, if it should turn out on inquiry that he is innocent of these charges that are brought against him. I therefore say, that time cannot be set up as a bar against justice being done; and it is only by inquiry you can solve the mystery whether he is innocent or guilty. My own opinion is, that he is perfectly innocent. I therefore intreat the House to agree to the proposition which I submit. I have put on the Paper a notice for a Committee of Inquiry; and the right hon. Gentleman complained, on a former occasion, that I had changed my notice half a dozen times. Why, Sir, if I had changed it a dozen times I had a right to do so; circumstances may change, and I must frame my notice to suit the times. The principle of the Motion is the same; and inquiry is all I want. I want the House to grant an inquiry—I ask no more—and I trust it will give me no less. I therefore move— That it is the duty of this House, to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the East India Company towards Purtuab Sing, the Rajah of Sattara, in depriving him of his Sovereignty, and sending him to Benares, where he is in exile, deprived of his liberty and property.

MR. EWART

seconded the Motion.

On the Motion of Mr. HENLEY, the debate was adjourned.