THE RAJAH OF SATTARA—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 06 July 1847 vol 93 cc1310-76

On the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate having boon read,

MR. EWART

said: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman, which I apprehend I have a right to do. The case of the Rajah of Sattara is producing a deep effect on the public mind. I put it to the right hon. Baronet and to Her Majesty's Government, whether it would not be a wise and just course to institute an inquiry of some kind into this case? [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: What is your question?] The question is whether after all that has passed, it would not be just and politic to institute a fair inquiry into the case? [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: You said you were going to ask a question.] That is the question. I have a right to do this, and I will do it. I have a right upon the question of the Order of the Day, not only to put a question, but to make a speech. I therefore say, that it appears to me, from a simple desire to do justice to the Rajah of Sattara, that it would be proper and creditable in the Government to grant some sort of inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Baronet rose to address the House, and I called upon him to do so; therefore the right hon. Baronet is in possession of the House. The hon. Member for Dumfries can simply ask a question, but cannot go into the case of the Rajah of Sattara.

SIR JOHN HOBHOUSE

spoke as follows: Sir, I hope the House will afford me that indulgence which, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, I think I have a right to claim. For, in the first place, the subject before us has been so frequently debated, that I cannot hope to bring any novelty or any ingenuity to the discussion; and, secondly, the part which I am compelled, from a sense of duty, to take, is, I am aware, apparently ungracious, inasmuch as it seems, and has been represented to be, a denial of justice and of a fair trial to one who urges that he has been condemned unheard, and ignorant of the accusations brought against him. And here I will say, in the outset, that were I convinced that I had adopted an indefensible course, no false pride, no weak attachment to consistency, should induce me to persevere in error. No, I would at once retrace my steps—and would advise my friends in Leadenhall Street to do the same—in spite of the repeated decisions which they have for the last eight years deliberately pronounced on this much-agitated question. Seeing, however, no reason to change my opinion, and being conscientiously convinced that what has been done has been done justly and properly, I must meet this Motion with a direct negative, and I must now ask permission of the House to lay before them such evidence as I think will go far to rebut the statements made by the hon. Member for Montrose; and in order to do so, I must refer to those documents on which alone we can rely for forming a safe judgment on this subject. The hon. Member for Montrose has very properly read to us many papers containing the opinions of persons worthy of credit in regard to the ex-Rajah of Sattara; and he has gone somewhat at length into the history of this Prince and his principality. This must be my excuse for alluding to these circumstances, which, not longer ago than July, 1845, were detailed, with great accuracy, by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley, the late Chairman of the East India Company (Sir James Hogg), and which have not been correctly stated by the Member for Montrose. The hon. Member commenced his speech last night by saying—"Here you have an independent Prince, a friend and ally of Great Britain, hurled from his throne, and sent an exile from his home." Sir, the ex-Rajah of Sattara was no independent Prince at all. He was a Prince created by us upon certain conditions—conditions not the least vague—but contained in a specific treaty, which treaty was repeatedly recalled to the consideration of the Rajah, and about the meaning of which it was impossible there should be any doubt. He did not ascend the throne by any hereditary right. He was horn in a prison, and his forefathers for a hundred years, although the descendants of the adventurer who had usurped the chieftainship, and formed the Mahratta Confederacy, were, in fact, the powerless puppets of the real Sovereign of the country—the Peishwa. After the conquest of the Peishwa, it was thought expedient to create the small principality of Sattara, and to place at the head of it Purtaub Sing. He was accordingly released from prison by Mr. Elphinstone, and a treaty was made, being dated 25th of September, 1819, the principal articles of which were, "that the Rajah should hold his territory in subordinate co-operation with the British Government;" that he should be guided in all matters by the advice of the British Resident; and "that he was to forbear from all intercourse with Foreign Powers, and all persons whatsoever, not being his own subjects." This was declared a fundamental condition, and any departure from it was to subject him to the loss of his sovereignty. The hon. Member for Montrose has quoted the opinions of successive Residents at the Court of Sattara in evidence of the high character and amiable qualities of the Rajah. Sir, I will show from his own authorities, and take them one by one, that from the moment Purtaub Sing was placed by us upon the throne, he gave proof of that disposition which has been the cause of all his calamities. Immediately upon his accession, he was placed in charge of Captain Grant Duff, a gentleman still alive, whose opinion was referred to by the Member for Montrose. Now what does Captain Grant Duff say? After mentioning his good qualities, he goes on thus:— Opposed to the Rajah's good qualities, he is very sly, and this he mistakes for wisdom; some of the intrigues and tricks he mentions having practised during his confinement prove that he is an adept at dissimulation. He had certainly great excuse for this, but it has given him a taste for intrigue; and, unfortunately, this dangerous propensity is easily flattered; some of his dependants easily persuaded him that by His Highness's counsel and their exertions the present happy change has been wrought. In vain did I repeat what you had told him of the Governor General's orders; he was not at all convinced for a long time.^* The next authority quoted by the hon. Member for Montrose was General Briggs, also Resident at Sattara; and I do not know that there is on record any opinion more prophetic of the future fate of a Prince, the victim of his own misdeeds. General Briggs says, in a letter to the Bombay Government, dated January 1, 1827:— He is, however, tenacious of his prerogative, and will every day more and more resist our control. He has lately been nattered by those around him into an erroneous estimate of his own importance, and he has already evinced strong inclinations to extend his connexions beyond the limits prescribed by treaty. It will be fortunate, ^* Parliamentary Papers, p. 506. perhaps, for his Highness himself if events afford this Government an early opportunity to give him timely warning of the danger he is incurring, or I should be very apprehensive that he may succeed in involving himself in secret communications with those who may, at some future period, provoke the resentment of the Government, when it is likely that a development of a system of intrigue with his Highness may take place, which will altogether shake our confidence, and may lead to his ultimate ruin."^* Such is the recorded opinion of General Briggs; and although I admit to the hon. Member that General Briggs has changed his opinion, yet I contend that an opinion given, when the facts were pressing upon him upon the spot itself, with the Prince his daily associate, and when he was responsible to his Government for passing a right judgment, is ten times more valuable than a conclusion formed by the same person, many years after the events, and when he is not under the same obligation of weighing his opinions and measuring his words. The next Resident was General Robertson, also referred to by the Member for Montrose; and that gentleman, though latterly taking a favourable view of the Rajah's conduct, confessed that he was aware of his intrigue with Goa; for in a letter to Dr. Milne, on the 14th of March, 1839, he says— I have heard of the discovery of the Mission to Goa; this was in my time, and my proceedings on it are on record. I thought it a foolish thing of his Highness, but not of importance enough, as I did not see a likelihood of his repeating it, to say anything to him or to Government about it."† The hon. Member for Montrose relied much on the authority of the next Resident, General Lodwick, who is indeed a most important witness—but on which side? He was one of the Commission that investigated the case in 1836, and he was himself examined upon oath upon that occasion. He said— In the month of Tune, 183C, it came to my knowledge that his Highness had appointed an agent to proceed to England to represent his claims to the Home authorities: requesting an interview, I pointed out the impropriety of this, as he had not consulted me on the subject, as I conceive he was bound to do by treaty; and as the right hon. the Governor had at that period assured his Highness that his case was before him, and that no delay would take place in submitting his case to the Court of Directors; and that eventually every consideration would be paid to his case. From that period an almost hostile disposition has been evinced towards me by his Highness, and he now scarcely ever consults me on any subject, and acts as he pleases, as if he were independent of the treaty and of all control." ‡ ^* Parliamentary Papers, p. 425. † Ibid. p. 1107. ‡ Ibid. p. 345. I beg the House to attend to this last statement of General Lodwick, given at the time of the transactions in question. It is quite clear that by the conduct so described, the Rajah then had broken the treaty—for he was bound, as I have before shown, to follow in all things the advice and guidance of the British Resident: all this, according to General Lodwick, himself Resident, he had deliberately refused to do—I say he had thereby forfeited his throne. I admit to the Member for Montrose, that up to a late period, the Home authorities were well satisfied with the Rajah, and that in December, 1835, they signified their approbation to him in a despatch to the Bombay Government, and presented him with a sword. I countersigned that despatch, and concurred in it; but even in the next year, the same General Lodwick wrote from Sattara to the Bombay Government, that certain native officers of the 23rd Native Infantry, had informed him that the Rajah and his Dewan had endeavoured to corrupt their fidelity; also, on the 9th and 10th of September of the same year, 1836, General Lodwick reported to the Bombay Government, that "it was put beyond doubt that the Rajah had proved faithless to his engagements with the British Government;" and the General added, "deeply as he regretted the errors of his Highness, he could discover no extenuating circumstances." In consequence of these reports from the Resident at Sattara, a Commission was appointed to investigate the case; and I will say fearlessly, that men better qualified for a duty so delicate could not have been found. General Lodwick was one of that Commission—Mr. Willoughby, Secretary to the Bombay Government, was another—and the third was that honourable, but much-calumniated man, then Quartermaster General of the Bombay army, I mean, Colonel Ovans—then enjoying the highest reputation; a reputation which he has never tarnished, and which, I trust, he will enjoy undiminished to the end of his days. The Commission met on the 12th of October, and sat four-and-twenty days. They examined all the witnesses upon oath; and after the most patient investigation of the whole case, they came to the unanimous decision, that the charge of endeavouring to seduce the native officers of the 23rd Regiment, had been proved both against the Rajah himself, and the Dewan. I now come to the principal charge against the Commission, namely, that the Rajah had not been heard in his defence; and for a complete answer to this imputation, I will read from the proceedings of the Commission. 13th Day.—"His Highness the Rajah attends the Commission, according to this appointment, about three o'clock, accompanied by his brother, Appa Sahib, and Balla Sahib Senaputtee. These two persons were present during the whole interview. Mr. Willoughby then recapitulated at length the substance of the evidence of the two soobahdars, of the servant Cosheea, and of the Brahmin Untagee, relative to the two interviews at Gavind Rao Dewan's house, and afterwards stated with greater minuteness their account of the interview with his Highness himself at the palace, and of the language he had addressed to the soobahdars, particularly the four events, which, on occurring, would he a sign to them of his being engaged, namely, disturbances at Bellapoor, Bombay, Hyderabad, and on the Nesbudda. Mr. Willoughby concluded by observing to his Highness, that if he had been deluded into error, his best course was to acknowledge it, and throw himself on the clemency of the Government; but that the Commission was now ready to hear whatever his Highness had to say, and to examine any witnesses he might wish to produce. … His Highness heard all very quietly, and- then gave a denial to the whole story. ^{* * * *} After a long conversation of this kind on the part of the Rajah, his Highness was earnestly pressed by the Commission to allow the evidences who were in attendance to be introduced, that he might hear their history from their own lips, and was informed that his not doing so might be interpreted to his disadvantage; hut he declined, observing that he had perfect reliance on the Commission, and that hearing it from the Commission was the same as hearing it from the witnesses. His Highness evinced throughout the whole of this interview, which lasted about three hours, the utmost readiness and self-possession: he was first embarrassed; but it was only the embarrassment natural to a person in his situation. 15th Day (p. 349).—"Balla Sahib Senaputtee attends and informs the Commission that he has been sent by his Highness the Rajah to represent that he has nothing to state to the Commission beyond what he stated in person on the 26th instant, and to deliver six depositions in elucidation of the character of the Brahmin Amunt Bhutt. These depositions are read, and recorded as Appendix K, and Balla Sahib is requested to summon the deponents. In conclusion, he states that his Highness has other depositions to forward, and takes his leave. 16th Day.—"The following memorandum, received from his Highness the Rajah of Sattara, with the six depositions alluded to in yesterday's proceedings, is now recorded And the same day four of the deponents, witnesses for the Rajah, were actually examined (see p. 350). And the Rajah handed in two other memorandums, himself being present, to the Commission."^* After hearing these facts no one surely will say that the Rajah had not an oppor- ^* Parliamentary Papers, p. 347. tunity of defending himself—no one will say that he was not cognizant of the charges against him, or that the inquiry was so conducted as to give him no proper means of disproving his guilt. If he declined to enter into the detailed defence, which he was repeatedly invited to make, the blame and the consequences must rest with himself, and himself alone. The Commission reported their proceedings to the Bombay Government, who transmitted them to the Government of India, and to the Secret Committee. The Secret Committee avoided giving any opinion on the subject until they should be made acquainted with the judgment formed by the Government of Bombay. That Government was proceeding with their inquiries, when other discoveries were made, by which it appeared that the Rajah had entered into a correspondence with the Governor of Goa, and with the ex-Rajah of Nagpore; a correspondence, which, if proved against him, was a direct infraction of the treaty which placed him on the throne. All these matters, both respecting the original charge of corrupting the sepoys, and corresponding with persons not subjects of the Rajah, wore now most particularly examined by all the members of the then Government of Bombay. At the head of that Government was Sir Robert Grant. Now, if ever there was a strictly conscientious man—if ever there was a man who shrunk from the slightest act of injustice, or who was imbued with a deep sense of responsibility towards God and man in the conduct of his government and the exercise of his power, it was Sir Robert Grant. That excellent man has been talked of, not hero, but elsewhere, as if he had some interest in the deposal of the Rajah. Absurd imputation! What interest could Sir Robert Grant have—what interest could the Government of India have—what interest could the Home authorities have, in the dethroning of a petty prince, except that interest which they all feel in the security of the great empire committed to their charge? I now proceed to read the decisions of Sir Robert Grant and his Council. Sir Robert Grant said, in his Minute of 31st May, 1838:— Now that we are apprised of the extent and magnitude of the plots in which he has been engaged against his benefactors, I have no fear that the act of his deposal will be condemned, or that the public sympathies will rally in his favour. Long as his intrigues have remained undetected by the British Government, I am convinced, both from the evidence in this case and from other ac- counts, that the knowledge of them is very widely diffused; and by the sensible portion of the community he will be regarded as the victim, not of our power or tyranny, but of his own blind, inveterate, and ungrateful ambition."^* Would Sir Robert Grant have published an opinion so strong—so decisive—without the solemn conviction that, after the fullest investigation, he was justified in forming it? I must now quote the Minute recorded by Mr. Parish, one of Sir Robert Grant's Council, also a gentleman of that high sense of moral and religious obligation, of that exceeding scrupulosity, it may he said, that no act of heedless injustice could be feared from him. This is the language of Mr. Farish:— In regard to the Rajah himself, the fact of breach of treaty, and forfeiture of all that was secured to him by that treaty, is made out, so that any plausible defence appears scarcely possible. The very vindication set up by his advocate is an aggravation of the treacherous plots thus brought home to him, and avows sentiments of the basest ingratitude; while, till lately, his professions have been the most friendly. Nor has he been without warning; although, probably, aware that but little of his wild communications with the Goa authorities was known to Colonel Robertson, the warnings of that officer, spoken of in some of the proceedings under the term forgiveness, seems not in the least degree to have arrested or retarded the prosecution of those very designs."† The next authority, also a member of the Bombay Government, is Mr. Anderson. That gentleman, in his Minute of June 7, 1838, recorded this opinion on the whole proceedings:— It is apparent that the Rajah from the first entertained ideas different from those on which we placed him on the throne, and has thought he ought to be reinstated in all the powers and possessions of the house of Sevajee, or head of the Mahratta Confederacy. The idea to an ambitious mind is natural. It becomes alone criminal to us, when it takes shape, and actual designs arc formed, and plans put in practice to acquire those possessions at our cost and destruction. That such were the views of His Highness, there can be no question. It is true that the plans and designs of His Highness were mostly of a futile and impotent character; but to this there is one fatal exception—the endeavour to seduce the native officers from their allegiance, proved on the case itself, and proved in the facts and the character of the proceedings in the other plots in which the Rajah has been found to be engaged. In this there was no weakness. The end strikes at the very root of our power, and is so decidedly fatal, that when it occurs I cannot think there should be any compromise."‡ All these Minutes were laid before Lord Auckland and the Government of India. ^* Parliamentary Papers, p. 206. † Ibid. p. 207. ‡ Ibid. p. 208. Now, Sir, the hon. Member has read to the House two or three detached sentences from statements made by Lord Auckland which seem to be favourable to the Rajah; hut I will now read the real conclusive decision at which Lord Auckland arrived, and which he recorded at different stages of the proceeding. On the 27th April, 1837, his Lordship wrote a Minute, of which this is an extract:— The proceedings of the Commission have left no doubt in my mind of the guilt of the Rajah, to the extent, at least, of countenancing an attempt to seduce from their allegiance two native officers of the British Army. The evidence is clear, as well directly from the officers themselves, as by the confirmation of many collateral circumstances; and it is in no degree weakened by the defence which the Rajah has himself set up. At the same time, the evidence before the Commission would lead to the belief, that the plot (if matured and regularly concerted plot there wore) was confined to the narrowest limits, and that the Rajah, in weakness, or in folly (almost, as is insinuated in some of these papers, insanity), lent himself to visions, and to schemes of ambition and disturbance, with no clear or definite meaning and intention. But he is no less guilty; and hostility to the British power, to whom he is indebted for everything he has, is monstrous and unpardonable."^* Again, in a Minute, dated the 23rd September, 1838, Lord Auckland wrote thus— In my Minute of the 27th April, 1837, I observed, 'The proceedings of the Commission have left no doubt in my mind of the guilt of the Rajah, to the extent, at least, of countenancing an attempt to seduce from their allegiance two native officers of the British Army;' and it was added in another part of the same paper, 'I see no reason why such treason should not recoil upon those who contrived it, and he made, at the same time, a source of additional strength to ourselves!' It is now also my painful duty to state, that I am compelled to concur in the unanimous opinion of the Government of Bombay, that the two other principal charges preferred against the Rajah, and especially the first of them, appear, from the evidence obtained by the acting Resident at Sattara, to be fully established, namely— 1st. His treasonous intercourse with the authorities at Goa. 2nd. His treasonous intercourse with the ex-Rajah of Nagpore. However wild and nearly incredible the intrigues alleged in these two cases seem to be, the proof of their existence appears to be no less clear and irrefragable. That the Portuguese of Goa should wrest India from the British power—that Appa Sahib, living almost destitute and in restraint, should raise twenty lacs to enable the Portuguese to restore him to the throne of Nagpore; that Portugal, France, and Austria are to contribute their battalions to the support of Sattara—all these things may look rather like the dream of delirium than the overt machinations of treason. Yet, that the ignorant ambition and ^* Parliamentary Papers, p. 69, 70. malignity of the Rajah have been duped by insane speculations and deceitful promises of this character, there remains, I fear, little room to doubt."^* Such were the opinions formed by Lord Auckland previous to the deposition of the Rajah: and what were those of his Council? I see an hon. Friend behind me who was a Member of the Council of India at that time (General Morison), and who sifted the evidence on all the charges. General Morison, on the 25th April, 1839, recorded this Minute:— I am quite satisfied, as well as his Lordship, the Governor General, of the treachery and extravagant machinations of the Rajah of Sattara. Since his Lordship came to this conclusion, as to the Rajah's guilt, additional facts have come to light tending still farther to confirm it. The examination of the emissaries taken up at Nellore and at Madras, contains matter strongly corroborative of the Rajah's disaffection and hostility. But I doubt the expediency of putting him on his trial; he could not be tried by his Peers, and the native community, in a case like this, would probably consider a commission of British officers, however constituted, as having been assembled only to convict him. The simple suspension of the Rajah would not, in my mind, be an adequate punishment of himself, nor a sufficient example to others at a moment like the present; and his territory would be kept in a ferment highly injurious to good government, by continued rumours of his restoration, and probably intrigues to effect that object. I think, therefore, that he ought to be deposed for his treachery, and the grounds of that decisive, but just measure, declared publicly by Government, waiting only to fix a time most convenient for carrying it into effect."† My gallant Friend spoke of facts then, as it were, before him. He is here to tell us whether he has changed his opinion since. He is a man who has been honoured by those whom he faithfully served, and by his Sovereign. He is not one who is likely to do an injustice, or countenance oppression. I will now come to the opinion of Mr. Wilberforce Bird. He was a Member of Council, and has since that time been Provisional Governor General of India. His Minute of the 11th April, 1839, is equally decisive as to the guilt of the Rajah:— The papers and proceedings submitted by the Government of Bombay in the case of the Rajah of Sattara contains, it appears to me, abundant proofs that the Rajah has for a series of years, and in different ways, been deeply implicated in treacherous designs against the British Government, in violation of the Treaty of the 20th September, 1819, and has subjected himself thereby to the forfeiture of his sovereignty, and the loss of all the advantages bestowed upon him by that agreement. ^* Parliamentary Papers, p. 228, 229. † Ibid. p. 258. Nor does it appear to me that the case requires to be treated judicially. It is one entirely of a political nature; and, as such, all that we have to do is to satisfy ourselves that the stipulations of the treaty have been treacherously violated. This has been done by an inquiry than which none was ever more patiently, laboriously, and dispassionately conducted, or more minutely or critically revised; and by all the authorities who have had successively to pass judgment in the case, the Rajah has been unanimously condemned. I think, therefore, that the Rajah may at once be set aside."^* Mr. Robertson, also a Member of Council, a gentleman universally respected, afterwards Governor of the North-western Provinces, came to a similar conclusion, and said— It is also worthy of remark, that all the witnesses examined by Mr. Spooner deposed to the existence of a wide-spread rumour of a combination against the British power being formed or contemplated by the native chiefs above the Ghauts. On the whole, I derive from the portion of the evidence from which I have extracted the observations above given, the strongest convictions of his Highness the Rajah of Sattara having incurred the penalty prescribed for a breach of the 5th Article of the Treaty of 20th September, 1819."† All these Minutes were of course transmitted to the Home authorities; and how, with such documents before us, could we come to any conclusion different from that of the Bombay Government and of the Government of India? But I can truly say that there was the greatest disinclination on the part of the Court of Directors and the Board of Control to come to extremities with this Prince. Sir James Carnac was appointed Governor of Bombay—he was a friend of the Rajah; he was a person of a disposition opposed to all harshness and severity, and no doubt was entertained that he would bring the affair to a happy conclusion. Well do I recollect that taking leave of him at the Board of Control, I impressed upon him our desire that he should deal leniently with the Rajah, and received from him an assurance that he would follow that advice. Sir James Carnac, on arriving at Bombay, found that the Government of India had authorized the deposition of the Rajah; but he resolved to proceed to Sattara in person, and offer the Prince a full amnesty on conditions the most lenient, and which no one could have anticipated would be refused. He went to Sattara, accompanied by Mr. Anderson, one of his Council. He ^* Parliamentary Papers, p. 263. † Ibid. p. 261. saw the Rajah. He showed him the conditions, which were, in fact, nothing but the articles of the Treaty of 1819, with a preamble stating the cause of the renewal of the treaty. Sir, it has been said that it was this preamble which caused the refusal of the Rajah, as being a confession of his guilt. That statement is not true. The Rajah did not object to the preamble. I have the authority of Mr. Anderson, who was present at the time, for saying this. What the Rajah did object to, was the second article of the amnesty, copied from the old treaty, and binding him to be guided in all matters by the British Resident. This, said the Rajah, "makes me a mamlutdar," or district officer; and he repeatedly declined to concede to that condition—which, be it remembered, was the condition by which he ascended the throne, and the rejection of which at this moment shows what were his previous dispositions in regard to the paramount State. Sir James Carnac, mortified at this blind refusal to save himself, still resolved to give him an opportunity to consider the proposed terms; and no less than four different times urged him to accept them. Unhappily the agents at Bombay still continued to advise him not to consent to any terms, as Sir James Carnac was his friend, and would not take any serious measures in regard to him. Sir James Carnac had no course to pursue, but to execute the orders of the Supreme Government. The Rajah was deposed, but not as the hon. Member for Montrose had said—he was not sent to wander through the world a beggar—unless it be beggary to have an income of 12,000l. a year. The whole income of the Sattara State is but about 130,000l. or 140,000l. a year; and with this sum the Prince had to support his civil and military establishment, so that I should say he is a richer man now with his 12,000l. a year than when upon the throne of his little principality; nor is he so forlorn or abandoned as represented, for I believe he has a suite consisting of some 700 followers, who, together with the agents paid to agitate this question, doubtless contribute to exhaust his means. I now proceed to notice another exaggeration by which an attempt has been made to give an interest to the misfortunes of the Rajah. A story has been told by the hon. Gentleman of the cruel treatment experienced by the Rajah, at the time of his departure, and while on the road from Sattara to Benares: this story is founded on a petition, signed "CharlesForbes, Chairman of the British India Society," dated 10th September, 1841, and presented to Parliament. I do not find that it was printed by order of the House; probably because it contained libellous matter. The petition states— That Colonel Ovans invaded the ex-Rajah's chamber at dead of night, dragged him from his bed, and thrust him almost naked into a palanquin, with his cousin, Balla Sahib Senaputtee. 2. That the present Rajah was without, assisting Colonel Ovans in these outrages. 3. That the ex-Rajah was hurried off to Benares under such circumstances of unnecessary cruelty, that Balla Sahib Senaputtee died on the road, and a halt was refused to his wife when confined. On these charges, Colonel Ovans, in his letter to the Bombay Government, of 25th November, 1841, says— Grave charges—and which, if true, no doubt deserve all the reprobation bestowed upon them in this petition. But I beg leave solemnly and unequivocally to declare, that they are all and every part of them, utterly false; and, moreover, I beg respectfully to add, that I am, if necessary, ready to make a deposition on oath to the following effect:— That it was broad daylight when I arrived at the ex-Rajah's palace. That I did not go into any chamber of the palace, but only into the open area in the centre of that building. That the ex-Rajah himself came down stairs to me, and joined me there. That the ex-Rajah and the Senaputtee were not put into the same palanquin. That the present Rajah did not accompany me into town. To these facts I am ready, as stated before, to make a deposition upon oath; and I also beg most earnestly that Government will be pleased to call upon Lieutenant Cristall of the 8th Regiment, Lieutenant Terry of the Artillery, and Lieutenant Follett of the 25th Regiment, the officers who were with or near me on this occasion, for their depositions upon oath as to what they knew of these transactions. As regards the ex-Rajah being hurried off to Benares, and the cruelties committed on the road, it will be sufficient to mention the following facts:—First, that the ex-Rajah's deposal took place on the 5th of September, 1830, and he did not leave Nimbgam till the 7th of December following; thus proving that he had three full months to prepare for his journey. Secondly, that the ex-Rajah did not arrive at Benares until the 25th of March; thus giving 107 days to perform a, journey of 927 miles, or about nine miles per diem. Thirdly, that every attention was paid to his comfort, inasmuch as the expenses of carriage alone for himself and his followers cost upwards of 80,000 rupees (8,000l.), the whole of which was defrayed by the Sattara Government. Fourthly, that this accusation regarding the Senaputtee and his wife is as false as the other charges above adverted to, inasmuch as a halt was made on the confinement of that lady; and that the Senaputtee himself died suddenly of apoplexy—not, certainly, of any hardship suffered on the road, having, up to the very day of his death, been in excellent health." ^{* *} Parliamentary Papers, p. 1290, 1291. This, to my mind, is a full and convincing contradiction of the charges contained in the petition, which, in fact, was the foundation of the first attack made on Colonel Ovans—an attack followed up most perseveringly by those who knew no hotter way to prove the innocence of the Rajah than to assume the guilt of many honourable persons, their own fellow-countrymen; and I am the more willing to attach implicit faith to this statement, inasmuch as Colonel Ovans appeals to officers, two of whom are still alive, and one in this country, ready to confirm all that is here alleged. And here I will take occasion to disprove another most serious accusation brought by the Member for Montrose, and still, I am sorry to say, persisted in, against Colonel Ovans. Referring to certain letters, purporting to have been sent by the Rajah's Agent to Goa, the hon. Member for Montrose, in his speech of July 18th, in the year 1845, did not scruple to use the words:— He had the copy of the forged seals of the Rajah, which were purchased by Colonel Ovans, and produced by him as evidence against the Rajah. He had copies of the real seals, which were produced by Rungo Bapogee, in proof of the forgery of those purchased by Colonel Ovans. All these, he contended, were clear and distinct proofs that Colonel Ovans was aware that evidence had been suborned against the Rajah, and that it was on this suborned evidence his proceedings were founded. Now, let the House consider these words. Here is a distinct charge against a British officer in high employment—a man to whose character the highest testimonials are found in these Parliamentary Papers—a charge, I say, of purloining seals which he knew to be forged—in order to frame evidence which he knew to be suborned—against a person whom he knew to be innocent, but resolved to ruin. Can any one be astonished that the late Chairman of the East India Company (Sir James Hogg), on hearing these charges, should call them "base and slanderous;" and yet, I much regret to say, that although the Member for Montrose has withdrawn a part of this monstrous accusation, he still blames Colonel Ovans for not being aware that these seals were forged. This blame, I will show, is equally unfounded with the other attack on the honour and character of Colonel Ovans; for it does so happen that Colonel Ovans himself pointed out to the Bombay Government, in his official reports, under date the 11th of November, 1837— That the seals are not those generally used by the Rajah; and there is no direct proof to show how they first came into Nagoo Deivrao's possession." ^* I am, indeed, astonished that, with these words staring him in the face, the Member for Montrose should have so far forgotten what is due to himself, as well as others, as to accuse Colonel Ovans of that very deception which the Colonel had himself detected and denounced. I trust that I have sufficiently exposed the mode in which the defence of the Rajah has been conducted, at the expense of the character of this excellent officer. If ever, indeed, there was a man basely run down, and calumniously assailed in the discharge of a great public duty, it is Colonel Ovans. Talk of conspiracy! Yes, here has been a conspiracy; but it has not been against this misguided Rajah: it has been against the honourable servant and soldier of his country, who was mainly instrumental in detecting the misdeeds of the really guilty party. Colonel Ovans was, as I said, Quartermaster General of the Bombay army, when Lord Keane, the Commander-in-Chief, reluctantly consented to detach him on the mission to Sattara—a mission which, in an evil hour, he accepted; for from that hour almost, he has been a mark for the poisoned arrows of malice and revenge. See what is said of that gentleman by Sir George Arthur, by Mr. Crawfurd, and by Mr. Reid,† and then judge of the decency of the attacks made on his character—assailed as he has been—but, happily for him, in association with some half-a-dozen of the best gentlemen in England. These personages all concurred in the decision of Colonel Ovans; and I must now proceed to state, that the Rajah having been deposed and removed from Sattara, all the proceedings were referred to the Governor General of India, who was thus, for the fourth time, called upon to give an opinion on the whole case. And what was that opinion? It is found in a letter dated from Simla on the 24th October, 1839, and is as follows:— I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 18th ult., transmitting a Minute of the Honourable the Governor of Bombay, and other documents relative to the deposal of the late Rajah of Sattara, and the proclaiming his brother as his successor. These papers have been perused by the Governor General with the utmost attention, and I am directed to express his Lordship's full conviction ^* Parliamentary Papers, part i., p. 405. † Ibid, printed 4th July, 1845, p. 36. that after the obstinate refusal by the Rajah of the very lenient terms which were offered to him by the Governor, as the conditions on which an amnesty was to be granted for his past conduct, aggravated as that refusal was by the clearest indications of the ungrateful and ambitious spirit by which he has been animated, there was no course left hut to depose him from power. That the Rajah had been guilty of gross infractions of his treaty with the British Government was already proved to the satisfaction of the highest authorities in this country, to which the evidence on the subject had been submitted; and his broach of faith as regards the most important charge—that of tampering with the sepoys, had been established after an inquiry in which the fullest opportunity of clearing himself had been afforded to him. The sentiments of the Governor General on the ease had been recorded, after mature deliberation, in his Minutes of the 23rd September and 29th December, 1838; and his Lordship can only now repeat his complete persuasion of the Rajah's inexcusable guilt. The Rajah, evidently, on his own admission, held the treaty to be hardly binding upon him, and objected, principally, to give the assurance required from him, because it was to be viewed as a second ratification and confirmation of the most important stipulations of that treaty. Under all the circumstances, therefore, his Lordship is prepared to give his full sanction and support to the measure of deposition to which his Honour the Governor was reluctantly compelled to resort."^* The deposition of the Rajah thus sanctioned by the Supreme Government of India, was, in due course, reported to the home authorities; and, I confess, I felt at the time most surprised and most disappointed to find that an affair which I had hoped would have terminated in the restoration of the Rajah to his lawful power, had, by his obstinancy and folly, ended in his disgrace. The Court of Directors, on the examination of all the documents, gave their full sanction to the deposition. In their letter of April 1st, 1840, to the Governor General in Council, they use these words:— It now only remains for us to communicate to you our opinion, which was unanimously adopted by all the authorities to whom the evidence had been submitted—That the late Rajah had incurred the penalty of deposition from the throne to which he had been raised by the British Government. This opinion we give, after the most anxious and deliberate consideration, by adding our sanction to the approval which your Lordship in Council has given to the proceedings of Sir James Carnac in deposing the late Rajah of Sattara."† I do not deny that the Court of Directors were not unanimous on this occasion. I admit that Mr. Tucker, the present Chairman, and three other directors, recorded their dissent from this despatch; hut there ^* Parliamentary Papers, p. 287, 288. † Ibid. p. 1253. was a gentleman amongst them—then living, but now no more—of the highest character both for judgment and every amiable quality, who recorded an opinion containing a review of the whole case, and coming to the decided conclusion that the Rajah was guilty, and had been justly deposed. Mr. Edmonstone, to whom I allude, in his Observations, printed by order of the Court of East India Proprietors in April, 1840 (page 377) says thus:— It is alleged, however, that the Rajah has been condemned on exparte evidence, and not even had an opportunity of defending himself against the specific charges brought against him. But I maintain that this is a political, not a judicial question. Differences between States, involving the issues of peace or war, or the forfeiture of the dominion of a dependent chief, cannot be placed on the footing of a criminal trial in a court of judicature. They are not in a position to become subject to the operation of laws established for the dispensation of justice between individuals. No tribunal exists, and none over can be formed, of a nature qualified to ascertain and appreciate the merits of a cause in which ruling powers are the parties, and into which political circumstances and considerations so largely enter as they do in the present case. It is inconsistent with all principle and all practice for a great and paramount State, such as that of the British Government in India, to submit the adjustment of its political rights to the judgment of a subordinate tribunal. The equity of declaring the Rajah's forfeiture of his dominion, turns not upon judicial, but upon political points, arising out of the provisions of a treaty. Although under the scrupulous requirements of a court of justice for the legal conviction of an accused party, the Rajah were acquitted of the specific charges brought against him before any tribunal constituted for the trial of the case, this would not affect the justness of his deposal. The firmest and best founded conviction of his having actually been a party to the alleged intrigues, and his infraction of the terms of the treaty, is consistent with such an acquittal, and on political grounds is amply sufficient to justify his deprivation of a dominion which he failed to exercise in conformity to its fundamental conditions."^* So convinced were the great body of the Directors of the justness of these views, that ten other Directors signed the Minute of Mr. Edmonstone; and from that day to this a large majority of the Court has adhered to the first decision. The House is, however, aware that repeated attempts have been made, both in the Court of Proprietors of East India Stock and in both Houses of Parliament to re-open the case, with what results will be best seen from the proceedings of the Court of Proprietors held on the 17th of December, 1845; and very curious proceedings they were, as I find them detailed in a paper printed by ^* Parliamentary Papers, page 1273. order of Parliament, which I hold in my hand. It appears that Mr. George Thompson, the gentleman so abundantly lauded by the Member for Montrose, and whom, I must be permitted to say, I never did (as the Member for Montrose said) disparage—Mr. George Thompson gave notice that he should bring certain charges against Colonel Ovans at a quarterly meeting of the Court; but Mr. Wigram, standing counsel to the East India Company, advised the Court not to advertise the notice, inasmuch as the said charges were libellous. Libellous or not, however, Mr. George Thompson did bring them before the Court of Proprietors; and very singular was the result, and very creditable, as I think, to the Proprietors; for I read in this paper, after a detail of Mr. George Thompson's charges against Colonel Ovans—" and the question thereon being put, it passed in the negative, nemine contradicente." So that it appears, in the popular—the constituent—not the governing-body of the East India Company—not a man could be found to countenance these monstrous charges, brought by Mr. George Thompson against Colonel Ovans, [Mr. HUME: There must have been one vote—Mr. George Thompson's.] No, not a man—not even Mr. George Thompson himself; for it happens that this gentleman, although possessing India stock enough to make a speech in the Court, has not enough to enable him to vote—a trifling circumstance with which I happen to be acquainted, although it appears that his friend, the Member for Montrose, was not. I have before said, that repeated attempts have been made to re-open this case, and have as repeatedly failed. Over and over again has the Court of Directors been moved for this purpose—over and over again have the Court of Proprietors been solicited to interfere. It is only the other day that the Proprietors, by a considerable majority, decided against any further investigation. And the excellent Chairman, Mr. Tucker, though originally in favour of the Rajah, declared that he considered the case closed. Indeed, what tribunal in this country, or in India, could try this case otherwise than it has been tried? Suppose a Committee of the House of Commons assembled to examine the question, what could they learn which is not found in their largo blue books? What witness could be called whoso evidence is not found in these papers? [Mr. HUME: Call Mr. Anderson; he is now in England.] Well, call Mr. Anderson; he could say no more than is to be found in his own evidence; and which, I have no doubt, he would repeat to-morrow. And here let me remark, that all such inquiries have always, in India, been conducted by commission. How was Umbat al Omrah, the Nabob of the Carnatic, deposed, in 1801? By a commission composed of Sir Barry Close and Mr. Webbe. How was the Nabob of Kurnod deposed? and this case was alluded to by the Member for Montrose, as an instance of fair and just dealing with a guilty native. Why, he was examined by a commission, who condemned, and dethroned him on grounds which certainly were not a bit more a proof of guilt than those proved against the ex-Rajah of Sattara. No papers were found—no correspondence detected; all that was proved was, that the Nabob had bricked up in the walls of his harem a vast quantity of arms of all descriptions, for which none but a mischievous purpose could be assigned. So he was deposed; and the Member for Montrose says, justly deposed. And no one has been found to agitate for him—no parish petitions—no vakeels—no Parliamentary patriots say a word for him—no one asks for a trial for an untried, unheard, and injured Prince, an exile from his home. In conclusion, I will only say that it appears to me it would be a fatal example, if you took from the authorities intrusted by Act of Parliament and the constitution of the country with the powers necessary for carrying out the laws, the power thus vested in them, except upon the most urgent necessity, and on unquestionable grounds. If you have reason to think that these authorities have misused their powers—if there were found many instances of such misconduct; and if you think on the whole that they had not governed the people of India well, then, in God's name, let Parliament reconsider the nature of that authority; let it, if such is thought proper, diminish the extent of that authority, and subject it to other regulations. Let the House of Commons call for and reverse every decision; but I warn those of my hon. Friends who are so inclined, that if they break through the general principle on which India is governed, except on the most urgent necessity, they will strike a blow at our great and wonderful dominion in the East from which it will not soon recover. I would warn them not to show distrust of the authorities they have sent to govern that great country, and who, I am not afraid to say, have not hitherto abused the trust reposed in them. In the present case they have the authority of three Governors of Bombay, of one Governor General, and two Councils in India, in favour of the decision now disputed; besides that of two subsequent Governors General, who have done nothing to alter the determination of their predecessors. They have also the conclusions come to by both Houses of Parliament; and I may hero observe, that the last time this question was before the House of Lords, it was remarked by Lord Brougham, that "if their Lordships wished to have all the case before them, it would be necessary for them, to come to a right decision, to read the able and elaborate report of Sir R. Grant, late Governor of Bombay: from the perusal of that document he had come to the conclusion that the decision was just." That was the last time this case was before the other House of Parliament; and it is not unimportant that I should quote it on the present occasion. I will conclude with my last recommendation to the House—"Do not abandon your public servants: stand by them, except, of course, where it is proved that they have betrayed their trust; and do not show a readiness on every idle accusation to cast them off, and abandon them to calumny and unjust reproach."

MR. EWART

Sir, I entirely coincide with the sentiment with which the right hon. Gentleman has concluded—that we should not from any trivial cause abandon our confidence in our public servants in India; but the question is, whether this is a case of that magnitude which justifies inquiry into the conduct of those servants. I do not think we are here so much called upon to try the acts of the Rajah of Sattara as to try the acts of those who have condemned the Rajah of Sattara. Sir, there is one remarkable point in this case. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that we ought not to revive discussion upon it, because it has been so repeatedly considered; but there is this remarkable aspect in the case—that the more it has come under public consideration, the more interest it has excited. This case, two or three years ago, would have been more easily disposed of; but now the public of this country have talked it over and over again: it gains strength from time, and adds conviction to the minds of those who prematurely con- sidered it. Sir, I confess that, listening most attentively, as I have done, to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not rise with a conviction that the arguments he has employed have destroyed the case of those who advocate the alleviation of the unfortunate condition of the Rajah of Sattara. It may be very true that Lord Auckland came to an adverse conclusion; it may be very true that Sir Robert Grant came to an adverse conclusion; those are great authorities; but the right hon. Gentleman did not state this additional circumstance, that Sir Robert Grant and Lord Auckland thought the case ought to be reconsidered. I will go, though not at length, but succinctly, carefully, sparing as much as I possibly can the time of the House, over the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman; and I confess I was astonished to hear it stated that this Prince was a created and not an independent prince. Whether he be a created or an independent prince, you are bound equally to do him justice; and therefore I maintain that to say this Prince was created by British authority is no argument against his receiving the just consideration of the British Government and the British nation. On the contrary, I think you are bound more carefully to look over those in whom you have yourselves placed such great power. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman began by quoting the opinion of several persons who have since given contrary opinions. He qusted the opinion of General Briggs; and he said that General Briggs, amongst other heavy charges that he brought against the Prince, said he was a sly prince. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: He does say so.] If slyness is to subject a man to punishment, I think a great many Members of this House would be subjected to similar treatment; and my right hon. Friend is quite as sly himself, in my opinion. The right hon. Gentleman says, that one of the grievances, or one of the crimes, of this unfortunate Prince, was his notion of his independence of British authority. It is therefore made as a charge against the Prince that he was too arrogant; that he thought too much of his position; that he thought himself independent in his position; but is that anything against a man when a charge is solemnly brought against him? I am astonished to think that the right hon. Gentleman should think it worth his while to bring this obitur dictum of General Briggs, or of any other gentleman, against the Rajah, as a serious charge. Now what did General Briggs think of the case which was brought against the Rajah? I will quote General Briggs' own words. General Briggs, upon the case brought against the Rajah, although he admitted he was a sly man, says in the year 1841— I have looked over the whole of the correspondence and the papers; I have heard all that has been said against the Rajah; and my firm conviction, as far as these papers go, is that the Rajah of Sattara is an innocent man. Now, against this charge of slyness so ingeniously adduced against the unfortunate Rajah, I bring the last decision of General Briggs in favour of his innocence; and I think the last opinion of General Briggs fully and amply destroys the first. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of General Lodwick. It seems that General Lodwick brought against the Rajah the grievous charge that he seldom consulted him. Is that a matter to he adduced as a serious charge against the Rajah? [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: It was a violation of the treaty.] Was the Rajah to go every day and consult the general? If that he the case, I must say, it appears to me, as a plain Englishman, that the right hon. Gentleman seems to view this case through a kind of Indian microscope, if I may use the phrase. I have a very different view of it. I think it an extraordinary thing, that because the Rajah did not happen to go every day to consult General Lodwick, therefore it should be said he has broken the treaty, and that therefore the Rajah was justly deposed. I say that, to consider the Rajah to have been placed in such a situation, would destroy all confidence between man and man. I apprehend that no tributary prince in India would be safe if treaties were so construed, or if the conduct of princes was so tested. But, Sir, what conclusion did General Lodwick, who makes this slight charge against the Prince, come to upon the criminality or innocence of the Rajah? He came to the same conclusion as General Briggs; and I shall quote his opinion. General Lodwick says— During the five years of my residency, rumours of plots were occasionally convoyed to my ears: they have always proved unfounded, and could be traced to that unworthy brother of the Rajah, whom I well know to be guilty of other crimes besides his ingratitude. Such is the statement of General Lodwick, who gave even a more strong opinion of the innocence of the Rajah; but I think that is a full equivalent to the slight cen- sure which was passed upon him in the opinion previously given. Then the right hon. Gentleman refers to the opinion of General Robertson. But General Robertson also gave an opinion in favour of the innocence of the Rajah. I will quote his opinion in his own words. He says— That upon such evidence as that which was brought against the Rajah he would not hang a dog. Against the previous opinion of General Robertson, I put that which I have now read. Then the right hon. Gentleman conies to the establishment of the Commission; and the right hon. Gentleman admits it to have been a Secret Commission. At this Commission the Rajah had no opportunity of subjecting the witnesses to cross-examination: he had no council. He applied for a copy of the depositions: a copy of the depositions was not given him. An hon. Member, who is a Director of the East India Company, is present; and if I say anything wrong, he can correct me; but so far as I have hoard the case, the Rajah had no copy of the depositions given him, although he asked for a copy. What does General Lodwick, one of the Commissioners, say? General Lodwick says— The native officers were ordered to attend the Commission for the express purpose of undergoing cross-examination. Upon the first question put to one of them by me, the witness became agitated and confused, and no cross-examination was permitted, Such is a part of the statement of General Lodwick upon the case. Then it is said by the right hon. Gentleman that Sir Robert Grant—a person for whom all who remember him in this House have the highest respect—thought him guilty. But the right hon. Gentleman suppressed this additional fact, that Sir Robert Grant expressly states, that he thought he should have another and a fair trial. I will quote the words of Sir Robert Grant upon this subject also. Sir Robert Grant, on the 15th August, 1837, says— I am 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 be allowed an opportunity of offering defence or explanation. Sir Robert Grant thought there ought to be another trial; therefore we have the opinion of Sir Robert Grant in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend. The same observation will apply to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman upon the opinions of Mr. Farish and Mr. Edmonstone. But the right hon. Gentleman goes so far as to rely on the case stated in a communication between the Rajah and Don Manoel de Portugal of Goa, of whom we have heard in the recent Portuguese papers. Now this has been treated by almost everybody as a case so absurd—it is even so treated by the Court of Directors—that it could scarcely be entertained. But Don Manoel, the Governor of Goa, has himself positively denied that he had any communication with the Rajah. I refer to his own letter—a letter which he addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, in which the Governor of Goa states, that it is entirely false that he ever had the slightest communication as to this awful plot which was to introduce 30,000 French and Portuguese troops into India; he denies that he ever had the slightest communication with, or heard of the name of, the Rajah of Sattara. These are the words he uses:—

"Lisbon, 25th April, 1841.

"I consider it necessary for the advancement of justice, and for my own honour, to declare, that, during the whole time I governed the possessions in India, I have never had any correspondence on political subjects with the said Rajah of Sattara; and whatever documents have appeared on that subject are false. (Signed)

" DON MANOEL DE PORTUGAL E. CASTRO."

Now, that the right hon. Gentleman should adduce this case as one worthy of consideration, when it is positively denied by such a man as Don Manoel do Portugal of Goa, seems to evince a weakness in the case which I never could have imagined he would have permitted to appear. Then the right hon. Gentleman alludes to the opinion of Lord Auckland. Lord Auckland, however, uses this phrase with regard to the general charges against the Rajah—"that he must confess he believed them to be incredible;" and, as I said before, Lord Auckland was in favour of another trial of the case. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the case of the two soobahdars (native officers), who were said to have been seduced from their allegiance by the Rajah. Now, with regard to this part of the case, I find that this very Commission, which had these officers before them, report—

"That the instigator of the plot (a Brahmin of the name of Untajee) was a man of the most worthless and unprincipled character, who was guilty of the grossest prevarication and deceit, on whom it was impossible to place any reliance. The native officers admitted that they had perjured themselves when they became the confede- rates of the Brahmin, by taking an oath of secrecy which they never intended to keep."

There were, therefore, three charges against the Rajah of Sattara. One was the charge with respect to Don Manoel, the Governor of Goa, which I have already disposed of upon the evidence of Don Manoel; the next was the two soobahdars who, it is acknowledged, perjured themselves; and the third was a case of a letter which was proved to have been written by another person. However, to proceed with the right hon. Gentleman's argument, we now come to his reference to Sir James Carnac; and here again the right hon. Gentleman lays down a doctrine which Sir James Carnac seems to have adopted, that the duty of the Rajah was most implicit obedience. It seems to mo that these Indian officers seem to consider they are like the emperors of the Roman empire, and that these princes arc mere tools or puppets in the hands of the officers appointed to be their controllers or guardians. But I must confess, that if we are to interpret the treaty in this way, there is no possible chance of free volition on the part of any of these tributary princes. The right hon. Gentleman seems to consider that it was a kind of treason on the Rajah to state that he objected to be treated like a common mahajan. I can easily conceive, that he might object to be treated in such a puerile manner, and not commit any very great crime. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that a throne in India is a mere bauble, and may be taken away from these unfortunate princes just as though they were children or infants; and the slightest act, not of disobedience, but the slightest act of petulance, in the notion of the right hon. Gentleman, forfeits a throne. For my own part, I do conceive that that is taking too strict a view of the letter of the law, and acting in contravention to its spirit. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he had gained a victory over my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, because he showed that the Rajah had not gone (as my hon. Friend stated) positively a beggar to Benares. The question is not whether the Rajah was a beggar or not; but the question is, whether the Rajah has had justice done him. It is not a question whether he was rich or poor, but whether the treatment of the Rajah was just or unjust. The right hon. Gentleman says, he was not hurried off in the manner that has been stated. He was not hurried at once to the place where he now is; and the right hon. Baronet thinks, that because he has shown that he was not hurried off, but sent a few miles from Sattara, therefore those who carried him off were justified in so doing. But how was the Rajah treated? True, he might not have been hurried off to a great distance; but he was conveyed to a miserable place in the neighbourhood of Sattara, and placed in a kind of cottage where he was kept confined; and the statement which I have in my hand, and which I have reason to believe to be true, says that the Rajah was taken not to a village at a distance, as was stated on one occasion, but —"to a mean-looking dwelling into which he 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 kept there, and it was overrun with rats and vermin. That is the statement which I hold in my hand, and which I believe to be true; and therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman may state correctly that he was not hurried off to a distance, it appears that he was quite as badly treated, or worse treated, nearer home; and therefore the right hon. Gentleman makes very little advance in his case, by showing that the statement that he was hurried off is not sustained by the truth. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman repeats that Lord Auckland was convinced of the guilt of the Rajah. In answer to that, again, I repeat that Lord Auckland was convinced that the Rajah ought to have another trial; and reference has been made to the opinion of Mr. Edmonstone. Mr. Edmonstone states that it is a political case. If we are to justify all these violations of justice towards Indian princes by calling them "political" cases, there is an end of all justice whatever; and then indeed policy will mingle itself with justice; and whatever might be the aspect before a judicial court of any case respecting these unfortunate princes, you have only to say the case is a political one, and you may withdraw it from the reach of justice, and consider it as a question of policy. If that is the way we are to get rid of appeals to the House of Commons such as the present, adieu to all justice—expediency must be considered in the place of justice, and policy assumes the place of right. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman justifies the fact of its having been a Secret Commission, by saying that com- missions in India have always been secret. If that is the case, he might justify the Inquisition in Spain, by showing there had always been inquisitions in Spain. Because there has always been an abuse, is that a reason that the abuse ought to continue? and are we not better satisfied in England if we find that a commission has been a public and fairly-conducted commission, than if it has been a secret one? I think the right hon. Gentleman has established nothing by saying that secret commissions are customary in India. Sir, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has at all established his case. I think the great argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose remains unshaken. My hon. Friend may have been convicted of error in some matters of detail; he may have made some misstatements; hut that signifies nothing. The great gravamina of the case remain unshaken; and my hon. Friend has established injustice towards the Rajah. he has shown, in my opinion, that the Commission was not conducted properly; he has shown that the Rajah was taken away from his palace in an improper manner. But there was one point to which he did not allude, and to which I think reference should be made before this case is concluded; and that is, the artful mode in which the agents of the Rajah, who brought this case forward in this country, were attempted to he prevented from leaving India. I believe I am justified in stating that eight of those agents of the Rajah, finding that justice could not be obtained in India, attempted to get away. At Bombay the hands of the Government were laid on those agents. First of all, the Advocate General attempted to stop them; then the chief officer of police attempted to stop them; and last of all the custom-house officers stopped them. The Advocate General was called upon to give his opinion as to the legality of preventing the departure of those agents; the Advocate General gave his opinion that preventing their departure was illegal. The Government agents went at last to the office of the customs, and told them that the Rajah's agents were going to sail in a French vessel; the officer of the customs would not allow the vessel a clearance with those eight agents; therefore the vessel sailed without them, and they remained until they found a British vessel bound for Liverpool, and not being able to prevent their going by a British vessel, these faithful servants of the Rajah found their way to this country. They remained here a considerable time in distress; and at last they all left except one gentleman, who now represents the Rajah in this country. Unless these agents had come over in the manner I have described, and unless they had been vigilant servants of their master, this case would not have been heard of. I think the Government of Bombay, acting in this manner, affords a strong presumption that they had some very powerful reason for wishing to exclude inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose did not allude to this part of the case; but I think it is one that merits consideration. Sir, I have attentively considered every portion of the question; and, judging as calmly as possible, as a man coming with an impartial desire to listen to both sides of the case, I must say that I think it is only by what I may call special pleading, that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control has actempted to justify the conduct of the Government of Bombay. I think the more substantial reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, justify the interposition of the House and the country. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have done well, if he had agreed to some species of inquiry. Would it not be wise and just that some kind of investigation at least should be established? Sir, I have the pleasure of reflecting that at all events if the Government of India, or if the Government of this country, attempt to shut out inquiry in a case like this, the constitution of this country has provided that this House shall be a tribunal by which justice shall be conceded. For many years the Agent of the Rajah has in vain endeavoured to obtain justice in this country. I doubt whether even the Court of Directors, at a meeting of proprietors, listen to a case of this kind as they ought. I doubt whether the great authority of the Directors does not sway the minds of the proprietors. But be that as it may, the constitution has happily provided this House as a last resort of those who appeal from injustice to justice; and in that capacity the Rajah now comes before the Parliament of this country. I believe the character of the Government of India, as well as the character of the Government of this country, is concerned in this matter; and I trust that an inquiry will not be refused upon such an occasion as the present by the British Parliament.

MR. BORTHWICK

Sir, I shall only say a very few words upon this matter. I have listened with very great attention to the case which was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose; and also to the able address which has been delivered by the President of the Board of Control; and I have listened attentively, because I was not acquainted beforehand with the details of the case. No one can have sat in this House so long as myself without having heard of the case generally, and without having heard it debated more or less in this House; but I was not possessed of any previous intimate knowledge of any of the facts upon one side or the other. Sir, the impression that was created in my mind by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control was, that he had completely established the case of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose; and I could not help feeling, as he proceeded step by step in his argument, that he had some sort of secret leaning towards the Motion of my hon. Friend, and that he was determined in some manner or other to grant the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman required. I do not know, indeed, why the right hon. Gentleman made a show of opposition to the Motion of my hon. Friend, unless it were that he partook in some little degree of the character which he has ascribed to the Rajah of Sattara of being sly and cunning. I am sure that no one who hears me will suppose that in this House, where the right hon. Gentleman is so well known, I could attribute these qualities to him in any invidious sense. But there is a description of siyness which becomes diplomacy when it amounts to a certain degree, and then it is considered honourable; but when it is used in the manner in which it is alleged to have been used by the Rajah of Sattara, it is only slyness, and then it is discreditable. The right hon. Gentleman opened his address by telling us that the Rajah of Sattara was born in a prison—that his father—and I suppose his mother—were prisoners—and that being born in a prison he acquired the character of slyness and cunning. He grew up and showed himself to be rather a sly boy. For which of his qualities was it that the Indian Government gave him a Throne? The right hon. Gentleman quoted from General Briggs or some other authority; and I understood him in his address to admit that that Gentleman spoke from the documentary evidence in his hand, and was not giving any opinion of his own. That was another reason why I thought the right hon. Baronet was secretly in favour of the Motion of ray hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. But I want to know for which of the qualities which the Indian authorities discovered the Rajah of Sattara possessed was it that they gave him a Throne? After twenty-one years, they found his conduct as a Prince—whether dependent or independent I will not dispute—they found his conduct as a Prince, in a dependent relation, if you like, with the Government of India, so excellent, and they were so pleased with his conduct, that they intended to give him a sword, and they had a sword actually made for the purpose of presenting to him. [Mr. HUME: They sent it, hut he did not get it.] I suppose the opinion expressed upon that occasion, on the part of the Indian Government, may very fairly be taken, that at that time, after twenty-one years' experience, they were satisfied that his conduct was considerably above the average of excellence attained by princes in India; for I do not remember in the slight acquaintance I possess with Indian affairs, to have observed any present given either of swords or anything else to princes in that country. In short, slyness and cunning do not appear to be peculiar only to this Prince, but to be possessed by many princes in India; and the right hon. Gentleman gave us a curious example in the case of the Nabob of Kurnaul, who had arms bricked up in the walls of his Zenana. After twenty-one years' experience, it is admitted on all hands that this Prince stood high in the estimation of the Indian Government; and now some suspicions were created in the minds of certain Indian authorities of an intention on the part of the Rajah of Sattara to unite himself with certain Powers against the Indian Government; and that he did this most ungratefully must be admitted, if he did it at all, because he did it against the Government who had found him in a prison, a cunning sly boy, raised from that unhappy position to the elevated dignity of an Indian Prince; and after a lapse of years he had gained so fully their good opinion that they agreed to present to him a sword to induce him to continue his good conduct. Well then, Sir, I pass over all the details and the opinions given by General Briggs and other authorities who have been quoted; and I come to this great and broad point, that a petition was presented to this House, signed by Sir Charles Forbes, containing (as the right hon. Gentleman has stated) matter that was absolutely libellous against Colonel Ovans. He has told us that that petition asserted that Colonel Ovans had entered the palace of the Rajah of Sattara at midnight; that he dragged him from his bed; and he mentioned other details of the outrage with which the removal of that Prince from his palace was accompanied; such, for example, as the death of Balla Sahib, and the refusal to halt when a lady was about to be confined. The hon. Gentleman read the opinion of Colonel Ovans himself; and Colonel Ovans declares that he is ready to depose upon oath that he never did perpetrate any of these atrocities. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: And he appeals to three officers.] And he appeals to three officers as witnesses of his conduct, who were present, and who saw all that passed. The woman, he says, had ample time to be confined—the husband died of apoplexy. Up to the moment of his death, the husband was perfectly well; and the Rajah, instead of being removed from his palace at midnight, came down stairs without assistance, and joined Colonel Ovans, and travelled with him at the rate of nine miles a day, and was quietly deposited in Benares, where he was offered and enjoys the abundant provision of 12,000l sterling a year. That is the account of Colonel Ovans; and he declares that he is ready to prove it by competent witnesses—gentlemen of high position, English officers, who were present, and who saw all that passed; and the right hon. Gentleman says, "I believe the Colonel: first, because his general character is such as to warrant me in accepting his declaration; and, secondly, because he demands an investigation into his case. Why, that is precisely the case of the hon. Member for Montrose. The hon. Member for Montrose says, "I want investigation into these charges, with a view to criminate Colonel Ovans" I, for one, would not consent to listen for a moment to the speech of my hon. Friend, if I supposed that he came here with the vile purpose of condemning an officer without inquiry. But it is said there are libellous and scandalous things said against Colonel Ovans. Arc there no very severe things said against the Rajah of Sattara? Has he not been called first of all "sly" and "cunning," and afterwards "ungrateful, ambitious, and treacherous?" I know the answer will be, that it has been proved before com- petent authorities in India, and that these competent authorities in India have declared their conviction that he is guilty; but a Member in the English House of Commons stands up in his place, and says, "Give me a Committee, and I will undertake to prove that offers were made to the Rajah of Sattara, promising him indemnity and certain rewards if he would only confess his guilt!" Now, I am sure that no one more readily than the right hon. Baronet himself would say, that, if such a proceeding ever did take place, it deserves not only inquiry, but condemnation. The right hon. Gentleman says, that such circumstances never did take place. If such a circumstance never did take place, what will be the result of the inquiry for which my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose asks? The result of the inquiry will be to establish beyond all doubt the innocence of those gentlemen for whom every Member of this House cannot but feel himself interested; because it is impossible to resist the appeal which the right hon. Baronet made in his eloquent peroration to this House, in which he told us, "If you are to continue in the possession of that wondrous empire that has arisen within the last century in India—if you are to sustain that mighty power upon which your Government depends—you must support the dignity of your servants, and defend their honour whenever it is attacked." How can you defend the honour of Colonel Ovans and the other officers who are concerned in this matter, by any means half so efficient as those proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose? The right hon. Gentleman assumes the innocence of Colonel Ovans, from his wish to proceed to an investigation. I admit the justice of such an argument; and it is right also, on the other side, to infer the innocence of the Rajah, from his anxious desire to have an inquiry. If he were a mere sly, cunning, and treacherous hypocrite, he would at once very willingly sit down with his 12,000l a year in Benares, and give himself up to the luxuries which 12,000l. a year in an eastern clime will procure. Is it true, or is it not true, that it has been offered that if he abandoned the further prosecution of this business, he would find his 12,000l. a year increased? Is it true, or is it not true, that larger advantages would be given him, in addition to those which he now enjoys, if he were to admit his guilt, and if he were to desist from the prosecution of his appeal? If that be so, am not I, sitting here as a judge in this case, bound to deal out even-handed justice to both parties, and to say that while I admit, on the one hand, the argument that Colonel Ovans must be innocent, otherwise he would not challenge inquiry, that the Rajah of Sattara also, on the other hand, must be innocent, otherwise he would not press for an investigation. I think that if the Rajah of Sattara be guilty of the deep damning treason with which he is charged, it is not fair that he should be enjoying 12,000l. a year in Benares. If the Rajah of Sattara has been guilty of such dark treachery and base ingratitude against the Power that made him all he was—that gave him possession of a throne—I say, if he be guilty, he deserves to die the death of a traitor; and you will much better vindicate your position in India by visiting him with the stern and just punishment he deserves, than by rewarding him with a pension of 12,000l a year, and a comfortable palace at Benares. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says, that a Committee of the House of Commons will not efficiently investigate this case, and that it could only look at the blue books; and that the House of Commons is so overwhelmed with evidence of that sort already, that the probability is, nothing would result from such an investigation. But before a Committee Colonel Ovans might appear, and the three officers to whom he alludes, might appear; and it does seem to me that you can establish your authority by no better means than by showing your subjects and the independent Princes of India that there is an appeal against abused authority; that that appeal lies before the High Court of Parliament; and that the great empire of India, sustained by the Crown of Great Britain, is not more extensive or more powerful than it is characterized by justice in all its proceedings; and that we are determined that our servants shall be maintained when they are right, but that they may be condemned where they are wrong. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that Mr. George Thompson found a secret paper on his breakfast table; and he abuses those persons, whoever they may be, who obtained possession of that paper. I would abuse them too. I do not know anything of Mr. G. Thompson, except that I remember him as a very eloquent and very powerful opponent, and as no friend of mine; therefore I should be the very last man in the world to sympathize with any case which, Mr. George Thompson brought forward, merely because it was brought forward by him. My prejudice and inclination would naturally lead me, if I were to be swayed by personal considerations, to throw my weight into the opposite scale. But sitting in this House, I am not to allow personal considerations to enter into such a matter; and as I have listened with patient attention to the gradual development of this case from the first sentence of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, to the conclusion of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, I cannot help giving it as my humble opinion—that it is due to the Rajah of Sattara—that it is due to Colonel Ovans and the other British officers implicated in this business—and that, above all, it is due to your power in India and the character of the British empire—that an investigation should at once be proceeded with under the authority of Parliament, and with its sanction. The result of such an investigation cannot be injustice to any one. If these officers should be proved to be guilty, it will establish your power by purifying your administration, should they fall below the stain that their conduct has brought upon them. If, on the other hand, they be found innocent, they will in future be respected throughout India and all over Europe. But if you leave the case as it now stands—a Member of the British House of Commons having upon evidence plausible and striking and coherent, made out a primâ facie case for inquiry, and inquiry be refused, no one who is not as well acquainted with all the details of the case as the right hon. Baronet himself, can possibly rest satisfied. Sir, I hope the time will never arrive, when the High Court of Parliament shall cease to be the ultimate court of appeal against all alleged injustice perpetrated in every part of the British possessions. It has been said, that such an authority ought not to be appealed to, except in cases of great urgency and of unquestionable character. Why, if a case was quite unquestionable, there would be no need of appeal at all. It is not because I am a partisan of the Rajah of Sattara; with the facts of the case I am not sufficiently acquainted, to be so: it is not because I am a partisan of the officers under the Indian authorities of Her Majesty's Government; I am not sufficiently acquainted with the case on their side, to be so; but it is because I stand up here for Her Majesty's Government—for justice to the right hon. Baronet and his Administration—that I declare my determination of voting with the hon. Member for Montrose, if he shall go to a division upon this question: and if he shall not go to a division, I trust he will obtain from the right hon. Baronet some sort of inquiry, by virtue of which we shall have placed upon the Table of the House the merits of this case; so that Parliament may give an unbiassed decision upon the whole of it, from beginning to end, and strengthen our Indian empire.

DR. BOWRING

said, there had been five successive Residents at the Court of the Rajah of Sattara, and that four of them bore earnest testimony in his favour. They had the best means of local information, and their opinion was entitled to the greatest weight. Even at home, where there was always a strong desire to justify and support the authority of the functionaries employed in India, of the Directors of the East India Company, eight might be considered in favour of the Rajah, eight unfavourable, and the rest neuter. With respect to the charge of suborning the naval officers, it was a mere invention, with no consistency, no congruity, and no similarity in the statements supporting it. Every one witness contradicted every other; and if the depositions of the two principal parties—the suboudars—were compared, they would be found at every step wholly irreconcilable with truth, or with one another. The other charges of intriguing with the Governor of Goa, and the like, were of a frivolous and unimportant character. The case had excited great interest out of doors. That interest was rapidly increasing. There was a feeling in the country that the Rajah had been greatly wronged, and that the appeal which had been made to the benevolence and the justice of this great country, though hitherto made in vain, would not be made in vain for ever. He (Dr. Bowring) would feel great gratification if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to an inquiry into the case, which alone would satisfy the demands of public opinion.

MR. BICKHAM ESCOTT

Sir, I should not have taken up the time of the House upon this occasion, but that it seems to me the case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose is to go to a decision of this House, without any answer on the part of those who support the sentence, and the deposition of the Rajah of Sattara. I say that advisedly, for up to the present moment no answer has been given to the statement of my hon. Friend. Sir, I know the reason of that. There sits a Gentleman opposite, the late Chairman of the Court of Directors; he knows this case perfectly well. He has not risen to give any answer whatever to the statement of facts which has been brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman; he sits mute; he knows, I suppose, that if we go to a division, the majority, following the course which has been pursued by a former majority of this House, will support the view which he entertains of the policy, not of the justice, of keeping the Rajah in his present state of exile and banishment from his throne, his home, and his dominions. The right hon. Gentleman expressly drew that distinction. He says, it is not an inquiry into which we should lightly enter; it is a question of policy; and, because in the opinion of some, who in my humble judgment are very superficial judges of the real state of our Indian empire, and of that by which that empire must in future years be supported—because in their judgment it is politic to support injustice; therefore the Rajah should be still kept an exile from his throne and his dominions. I listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; and he will forgive me when I say, that no answer has been given to the charge which was made. I say that advisedly. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by saying, that this was a case which for eight years had been debated in Parliament and in the India House; and because it has been debated for eight years, is the reason, or one of the reasons, why justice is not now to be done. But he went on to state, that the sentence passed upon the Rajah depended for its validity upon two considerations, He said, that it depended upon written documentary evidence, and that that written documentary evidence was to be considered in relation to the treaty which had placed the Rajah of Sattara upon his throne, and the infraction of that treaty by the Rajah. I thought it was a fair opening and a fair statement of the case, which I supposed the right hon. Gentleman, with his consummate ability, was about to lay before the House. I expected he was about to state to the House, the terms of the treaty upon which the Rajah was placed on his throne. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: I read them.] If the right hon. Gentleman says he read the treaty, then no doubt I am under a misunderstanding; my ears were closed, and I did not hear him. If he says he read the treaty, I have no doubt he did so. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: I alluded to it.] The right hon. Gentleman alluded to it; but I listened for those parts of the treaty and those parts of the written evidence which he meant to adduce as showing that the treaty had been infringed and violated by the Rajah of Sattara. That is what the right hon. Gentleman should have done; and when he had read those parts of the treaty, and alleged that the Rajah had violated it, he should have laid before the House the evidence upon which he depended for proof of the infraction of the terms of the treaty by the Rajah of Sattara. That would have been a clear and honest case. It would have been a, case, no doubt, into which political considerations might have entered, and ought to have entered; but upon which the House of Commons, sitting in judgment upon the political conduct of authorities in India, might have passed a clear and honest opinion, whether the accusations justified the deposition of the Rajah. I say again I listened to the right hon. Gentleman; I do not believe he ever stated the terms of the treaty which he said was specifically violated; and I am quite sure, he stated no one particle of documentary evidence to prove a violation of the treaty. Well, then, I assert the case has not been answered, because I am taking the right hon. Gentleman's own statement. He said it depended upon documentary evidence, and he said it depended upon the infraction and violation of the treaty. Unless he shows the treaty, and shows evidence to prove a violation of the treaty, he has not advanced a step in proving that the Rajah was fairly and justly deposed from the throne. When I say the case has not been met, of course I do not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman has not made for his own purpose—and when I say for his own purpose, I mean for the purpose which I believe would have actuated any President of the Board of Control whom I have seen sitting on the bench where the right hon. Baronet now sits—I do not say that he has not made a very clever defence for his own purpose, and that he has not made a speech which those who do not cautiously and scrutinizingly examine it, would think a very good defence of the proceedings of the Bombay Government; and, therefore, I now proceed, in a word, to examine what that defence is. He has not stated the treaty, he has not treated the evidence upon which the infraction of the treaty depends. But what has he done? He has read to the House a string of opinions of official Indian servants in defence of that very Government by which they are employed, and from whom they obtain their daily bread. And the opinion of those official servants in defence of the Government that employs them, is to be an answer to the House of Commons when it is called upon to judge whether the acts of that Government were just or unjust. Then, Sir, let us for a moment see what weight is due to these opinions which the right hon. Baronet has read. He dwelt with some stress upon the opinions of the Residents at Sattara. I should have thought it unlikely that those who were employed and in the pay of the Indian Government, and who derived their official dignity and their daily subsistence from that Government, deposing against it; and I should have doubted whether their authority, if it were given in favour of the Government, and against this deposed Prince, were worth very much. But if the opinion of those very individuals which have been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman are not against the Rajah, but in favour of the Rajah, what becomes of the case which the right hon. Gentleman has to make? If four out of five successive Residents, having formerly given opinions in favour of this trumped-up case against the Rajah, are now repentant, and, in the sackcloth and ashes of their heart, regret they ever said one word against the Rajah, whom they believe to be an innocent and an injured Prince—I say, if the opinions of these gentlemen are brought forward, it is about the strongest fact that could be adduced to prove that this was a trumped-up case, and that the opinions they formed in the first instance were formed under some influence, or upon some false evidence which was laid before them, and which the moment they came to sift and examine as honest and honourable men, detached from office, and free from the trammels of obligation, they felt they could do nothing else than alter, consistently with their own character, and as a debt of justice which they owed to this man. I say they were sorry for what they had done, and will lament it to the last hour of their existence. That is the course of four gentlemen out of five of those whose opinions were read by the right hon. Gentleman to prove the guilt of the Rajah of Sattara. I will not quote their language; but nothing can be stronger than the way in which General Lodwick, General Briggs, General Robertson, and Captain Grant Duff, expressed their regret that they should have been led unawares into any expression of opinion against the Rajah, whom they now believe to be innocent of all these charges. Why, really Sir, then, is not the time come when this question must be inquired into, in reference to a feeling which has been well alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman? I only lament, that in alluding to that feeling, he should have attributed it to a very different cause than that which has really existed. I do not believe that the feeling which exists among the great mass of the better-educated portion of society in this case—I do not believe that that feeling is due to a somewhat exaggerated statement about the mode in which the Prince was carried from the throne on which he had sat, to his place of exile. I do not believe that will weigh a feather in the balance of their judgment on this question; but what they think is this—that the man has been unjustly deposed. They think, that when that charge was made, those who were in authority both in India and here, refused to give him a hearing; they think your very reluctance to enter into an examination of these charges, proves that you yourselves imagine there is no real foundation for them. That feeling has been very much added to within the last few weeks. I told the hon. Gentleman on a former occasion what I thought of his mistaken conduct with reference to the production of certain papers. The holding back of any evidence in a case of this kind, excites the feelings of those who are indignant at that which they suppose to be a great wrong already committed. It was said, that certain papers were held back, because copies of them had been surreptitiously obtained. Why, the Rajah did not surreptitiously obtain those papers. Do not make the surreptitious conduct of some other nameless individual—I know not who he may be—do not make that the ground of withholding evidence which may tend to show the innocence of this man, who is not at all guilty of having purloined these papers, or done any dishonourable deed in relation to them. That is the circumstance which makes the people feel, as they do feel, anxious upon this question. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the civil servants in India must be upheld; but do not tell the people in India that the civil servants of the Government of Bombay or any other Government must be uphold by an act of injustice. Well, but then, Sir, it is a question of justice, and not of politics, after all. How are you to know whether they have behaved unjustly or not, unless you inquire into this case? The charge is, that he has been unjustly deposed. You bring no evidence to show that his deposition was just, but you state opinions. Do not believe this can rest here. It is said that this is the practice. I remember the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used—"This is no new case; other princes have been deposed." Is that a reason why this Rajah should be so deposed? When other princes were so deposed, you had no free press in India. Do you believe that the Government of India, any more than the Government of this country, could be long maintained, unless from a sense that by the educated, the powerful class of the people, and the great bulk of the people, somewhere or other, justice will be done, and that the law will be open to them for their legitimate complaints. Here is a case in which you produce no evidence—in which you lay no foundation whatever to support the statement of this man having been deposed justly. You refuse to inquire: you say that it was unsafe to do it; and you thus forward injustice in refusing inquiry; an injustice which I do not charge exclusively against the right hon. Gentleman, who has only followed the preceding Government as well as this; and I believe no doubt will be followed to-morrow by any Government we arc likely at the present moment to see in power; therefore it is no personal charge against him; but I say, it is a grievous thing, and a blot on the character of this country, and until this ease is cleared up, it will remain a blot on English justice to the end of time.

SIR T. E. COLEBROOKE

Sir, I cannot myself reconcile it with a sense of justice to give altogether a silent vote upon this question. I have upon a former occasion gone into the subject; and I cannot this evening pass it over altogether unnoticed. I will not travel out of the hon. of defence taken by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control. I think it was a fair line of defence; I think, if he could show satisfactorily to this House, that this question had been impartially considered by the Indian authorities, as being proved in a, court of law, that he would have made a primâ facie case to this House for resisting any further investiga- tion on the subject. I know the difficulty of this House entering upon any question involving a large mass of judicial evidence. They must, in dealing with this question, naturally ask, whether the principles of justice have been in general maintained in India in the course of the inquiry; whether it has been conducted in a manner likely to elicit the truth; and whether the plan pursued has been of that fair and impartial character which would naturally carry with it the sentiments and judgment of this House. It is because my investigation of the case has led me exactly to the opposite conclusion—it is because my inquiry into the opinions expressed by the Indian authorities, and the mode in which the inquiry had been conducted there, has led me to a strong conclusion that a great act of injustice had been perpetrated—that I now stand prepared to support the hon. Member for Montrose in saying that this question ought not to rest here; but that it is due to the character of this House and the country that some inquiry should be made. Sir, I am afraid the discussion, particularly in the beginning of it, took a turn, not of a personal character, but turned on the nature of the Indian authorities. I am happy to say, with regard to myself, that in the inquiries I have entered into on the subject, I have seen nothing in any way reflecting on the character of any of the individuals engaged in it. I think some parts of the mode in which the inquiry was conducted in Bombay, was repugnant to justice, and that it was of a discreditable nature; but I think the judgments pronounced were from the sincere and earnest conviction of those who gave them. But certainly the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control, has not entered, as I thought he naturally would, into the opinions expressed at home. Those opinions naturally rest on the inquiry carried on in India. They go thus far—and so far I give full weight to them—that the majority of the Court of Directors came to the conclusion, that the inquiry had been properly conducted in India. But he has given no reply to that quotation of his own opinion—an opinion expressed strongly on this case—which was quoted by the hon. Member for Montrose. On the occasion of the former debate he expressed his firm belief, in the most decided way as to the non-existence of the Goa conspiracy.

SIR J. C. HOBHOUSE

I quite forgot that part of the statement of the hon. Member for Montrose. The fact is, I never made use of that expression at all. I ought to mention that what I stated was this, that I thought the thing itself was utterly contemptible—the Goa business; yet I did not say that I considered the Rajah was not implicated in it, but that the thing itself was too ludicrous and contemptible to be entertained; that is, that there should really be an invasion of India by the Portuguese at all. That is all I stated; but I know that it was reported differently.

SIR T. E. COLEBROOKE

I hold in my hand a report of that debate, not merely reported by the Journals of this House, but as published by the right hon. Gentleman himself. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: That is not my publication.] Certainly it would have been better that the right hon. Baronet should have corrected it as it went to the world. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: I never published any pamphlet of the kind.] Here is a report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech made in this House. The right hon. Gentleman could have corrected it if he pleased:— The hon. Gentleman had accused him of believing"—[that is, referring to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury]—"that the Rajah of Sattara was about to bring 30,000 Portuguese from Goa to invade British India. Where the hon. Gentleman learned that, he (Sir J. Hobhouse) knew not. He had seen some trumpery statements in a newspaper that he had said something of that sort; but the truth was that he had never said so. As President of the Board of Control, he knew that those charges were brought against the Rajah of Sattara; but to say that he believed them was what the hon. Gentleman had not the slightest foundation for saying. Now, Sir, I certainly rest my defence of the vote I am about to give, on the opinion so strongly expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. With regard to the opinions in India, they rest, in the first place, upon the opinions given by the Government in Calcutta, and on those opinions given by the Government at Bombay. Now, with regard to the opinion of Lord Auckland, the difficulty I feel on the subject is from the variety of opinions that noble Lord has given. When the case was first investigated, as the right hon. Baronet has stated in the course of this evening, he gave a strong opinion of the Rajah's guilt, and further that he ought to be deposed. But when the rest of the fact came before him he gave a different opinion, and treated the whole question in a contrary manner, and ordered the Bombay authorities to dismiss the question. Then he was twitted and taunted by the Bombay Go- vernment with his change of opinion, and a number of long Minutes were sent up by Sir Robert Grant to him, upon which he changed his opinion again. He came back to his first opinion, and he said that he censured the whole proceeding—that he considered the Rajah was guilty—but at the same time he shrunk from that act which was eventually carried out of dethroning him without asking for a defence; and he instructed the Bombay Government to present him the mass of evidence, and hear the Rajah's defence. Well, the Bombay Government's answer was conclusive, that it was impossible to carry out any inquiry so long as the Rajah occupied the Throne; but that any inquiry that could be carried out, must be preceded by the deposal of the Rajah. Well, this came back to Lord Auckland; and Lord Auckland felt that he could not dethrone the Rajah without hearing his defence; and he could not put him on his defence; and the result he eventually came to was, "I am, it is true, of opinion that this man is guilty; but other persons may inquire into his innocence, and therefore I refer the matter home." Now, that I may not be accused of exaggerating the case, I will read that last and best opinion of Lord Auckland, which is expressed in two sentences. It is to my mind a perfect sample of the sort of perplexity in which the Indian Governments are involved when they get into proceedings of this kind:— The reasons urged by the Resident, and concurred in by the Government in Council, are sufficient to satisfy me that it would not be right to persevere in the course which I had previously recommended, and to present to the Rajah a written statement of the charges, and the proofs against him, calling upon him for an answer. It is anticipated by the Resident that this course would lay the Government open to such proceedings on the part of the Rajah and his advisers as could only lead to fresh embarrassments. Then he goes on to explain the difficulties on the one side and on the other, and recommends the postponement of the case:— I am the more impressed with this feeling, as, while I am myself satisfied of the treachery and extravagant machinations of the Rajah, I can conceive it possible that weakness may be discovered by others in so complicated a tissue of evidence, or that an excuse may be found for the acts of the Rajah in their folly and wildness, or that the scandal, excitement, and hazard of failure, with which the measure proposed would be attended, might lead to its rejection in favour of some mitigated proceeding of reproof and warning and security. Then he ends by referring the matter to the authorities at homo. In fact, any in- quiry which any hon. Member would take the trouble to make into this case, would satisfy him that the whole investigation resolves itself into that history of these intrigues that were carried on in Bombay. With regard to the opinion of Sir Robert Grant, I may say, that within the last three days I have taken the trouble to read those ponderous Minutes on the subject; and there is nothing more unsatisfactory to my mind than the conclusion at which he arrived. I find throughout, that he displayed an eagerness and an anxiety to make out his point, which savours much more of the advocate than the judge. If the House will bear with me, I will read the first paragraph of the Minute he made, and then leave the House to judge whether it is a Minute on which they can rely for the decision of such an important case. I cannot but express the strongest astonishment that the authorities at Calcutta, and the authorities at home, should have sanctioned such proceedings on a judgment so pronounced. This Minute was written after a censure of their proceedings by the Governor General, and after an order was given to withdraw from the investigation. I need not say" [says Sir Robert Grant], "that in the early stages of the present investigation, our proceedings had the good fortune to meet with the entire approval of the Government of India. All the information, however, which we could then collect, was derived from a few sources, and was comparatively scanty; and the Government of India expressed a wish for further information. We exerted ourselves to meet that wish; and, in entering a more extended field of inquiry, we were acting, as we conceived, immediately by the directions of that Government, and securely counted on their sanction and countenance. The various clues to discovery, therefore, which the first inquiry suggested, were followed out with diligence, and a mass of new evidence has been elicited; but no great progress had been made in this work when the Supreme Government was pleased to disapprove of the course we were pursuing, and to call on us to terminate it at the earliest possible moment. To close our proceedings abruptly would have been fatal to the reputation, not only of this Government, but, as I conscientiously believe, of the British power in general, for wisdom, firmness, and justice. The responsibility, however, of going forward, even to a limited extent, was heavy and painful. It is astonishing how quickly the opinion gained ground at Sattara, that the Bombay authorities, in the active measures in which they still persisted, were seriously compromising their credit with the higher authorities to whom they were accountable. Animated by this belief, the parties whose interests the inquiry threatened to affect adversely, made every attempt to thwart or elude it; and, rich and unscrupulous, they had in no small degree the means of accomplishing their object. The public press of Bombay, meanwhile, rung with necessarily uncontradicted declarations against our cruel, oppressive, and inquisitorial conduct. To attacks like these, no powers of language that I possess can adequately represent my profound indifference, so long as I both know them to be unjust, and feel myself sufficiently supported to be enabled to proceed with a firm step in that path which the public interests prescribe. But unhappily these invectives, which in fact emanated from well-known intrigues at Sattara, reacted on the impression at that place, and aggravated the difficulties of the inquiry in which we were engaged. Thus situated ourselves, we yet felt it our duty to give no cold or vacillating support to the able and zealous officer immediately charged with those inquiries. Through good and evil report we have persevered—have taken it on ourselves to protract to the latest moment that cessation of operations which had been enjoined, and, though even some lines of inquiry remain unpursued, have at length acquired a sufficient body of facts to settle, as I believe, the question at issue. Under these circumstances, however, it cannot be denied, that the character of the Bombay Government is almost as deeply committed on the event of the present discussions as that of the ruler of Sattara. We owe it to ourselves to show that we have not acted lightly, or harshly, or credulously; that, from first to last, we have had no object but the discovery of truth, and have taken no measures but such as that object justified; that there were good and rational grounds for the several inquiries instituted; and that those inquiries have been uniformly prosecuted with judgment, with prudence, with all practicable despatch, and with the utmost consideration of the feelings and interests of individuals, which could be made to consist with a supreme regard to the ends of justice. Now, Sir, I shall only add further, that I think the case of the hon. Member for Montrose mainly rests on the important fact which he alleged at the beginning of his speech, that this Prince has really never been put on his defence—that the evidence has never been subjected to a scrutiny such as would have been elicited if the parties had been allowed to scrutinize and cross-examine. The right hon. Gentleman has said there was one investigation. Certainly, there was one investigation with regard to the first matter of charge stated against the Rajah; but I will venture to say, and I defy contradiction on this point, that if this question had rested there—if the charges against the Rajah had been confined to that sort of accusation of an attempt to debauch some of our troops—all the investigations and all the evidence connected with it would have been consigned to the rest of the records of the East India Company at homo and abroad. But with regard to the other and the main charge brought against him, that of the alleged conspiracy with the Government of Goa, the Rajah of Sattara was never made acquainted with those charges until they were published in the blue book by this House, and sent out to that country. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this question was dealt with politically; and of course one would attach what weight the House would apply to an opinion so expressed; hut my impression is, that no inquiry conducted in that way can he satisfactory; and that no serious weight can be attached to an investigation conducted in such a manner. I am fortified in that opinion by the acts of the Indian Government, and by the hesitation and doubt which run through the whole of this case. The Bombay Government refers it to Calcutta; the Calcutta authorities refer it to the Home authorities; the Home authorities refer it back to Sir James Carnac; and Sir James Carnac refers it to the Rajah himself, and asks him to sign a treaty involving a confession of his guilt. The right hon. Gentleman has said that no such offer was made to him. Now, Sir, I think it will be seen from the treaty itself, from the preamble, as well as from the whole conversation that took place, that there can he no doubt that this was the subject of it. I will ask, what is the meaning of his signing this treaty over again, if it is not to imply that the man has been guilty of a breach of his duty? In the very first words of this treaty, not to mention those of the preamble, which are much more clear and distinct, we find the following statement:— That your Highness now binds yourself strictly, and in good faith, to act up literally to all the articles of the Treaty of the 25th of September. Sir, I do not know how others may interpret the language; but I must say that I could not suppose that any person would subscribe that document, without supposing that it implied a confession of guilt. Sir, I shall not dwell further on this matter. I think the hon. Member for Montrose has made out a strong case for inquiry—whether that inquiry shall take place in the form of a Committee or of a Commission. I shall therefore vote in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.

SIR J. W. HOGG

Sir, the hon. Member for Winchester has expressed his surprise at my silence; I can assign a reason which I think will be satisfactory to the House for that silence. The case, if case you can call it, made by the hon. Member for Montrose was so completely demolished by the speech of the right hon. Baronet, that I was content to remain silent; quite contented that the question should go to a division upon the speech of the hon. Member for Montrose, and the speech of the right hon. Baronet in reply. I might, perhaps, deprecate the renewal of this discussion for about the twentieth time; but I am happy the discussion has been renewed, because I am happy that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will go forth to the public, and will, I hope for ever, put an end to this discussion. The hon. Gentleman who has just taken his seat, says, that he founds his vote and his judgment very much on his opinion of the incapacity of Sir Robert Grant. Sir, if that is all the foundation he has for his vote, I tell him it rests on a very insufficient ground. That may be his opinion, and his estimate of the judgment and talent of Sir Robert Grant; but I beg leave to tell him that that was not the judgment or opinion of those who were his fellows in early life, or of those who knew him in his profession in this House, and in his Government, where he lived respected and died deplored. [Sir T. E. COLEBROOKE: I said, in his judgment, speaking judicially, pronounced on the case.] I rest my vote not exclusively on, but I beg to say I am very much influenced in my judgment by, the opinion of Sir Robert Grant; and I know no man whose judgment upon a judicial question would influence me more with reference to his power of forming a good judgment, and, above all, with reference to his mild and benevolent disposition. But the hon. Gentleman quotes different paragraphs from different Minutes recorded by Lord Auckland at different times; and he tells you they are contradictory; but he withhold from you the circumstances and the occasions upon which those Minutes were made. The hon. Gentleman confounds together the whole three charges; and he further confounds two very important objects which ought to be kept distinct; and it is by confounding these distinct objects, that he attempts to place upon Lord Auckland that confusion which he must forgive me for saying arises in his own mind, from his not having diligently read the papers. There are two distinct views of this question which I entreat the House to keep in view. One is the general policy of the investigation as regards the interests of India; and the other is, the question of the guilt of the Rajah of Sattara. Now, these questions are most distinct; and I beg the attention of the House to that distinction. The Court of Directors reprobated inquiry; and why? Because it would be better that a dozen petty princes, like the Rajah, no matter how guilty, should escape with impunity, than that a prolonged investigation, lasting three or four years, should create throughout India a vague and undefined opinion that the native Powers were coalescing against the British authority, and that attempts were made to corrupt our sepoys; and to continue an inquiry which might have a tendency to create any such impression would have been most injudicious. The Court of Directors pointed out that indiscretion; the Government of India pointed out that indiscretion; and the hon. Member for Montrose attempted to apply to the guilt of the individual, observations which were applicable to the general policy as regarded the country. That is the way in which he attempted to show that the Government of India and the Court of Directors disapproved of the policy of the local Government. But, says the hon. Baronet who last spoke, if it had not been for the charge of bribing the sepoys, we should have heard nothing about this: the other was the most important charge. I tell the hon. Gentleman the other two were trumpery charges; and the only important charge was the corrupting of the sepoys, the corrupting of the very lifeblood of our Indian empire. That is what the hon. Baronet calls a trifling charge—a Prince attempting to corrupt our sepoys! [Sir T. E. COLEBROOKE: I did not say so.] Did not the hon. Baronet say that that charge was comparatively trifling? [Sir T. E. COLEBROOKE: I said that Lord Auckland had treated it as trifling.] Sir, I beg to say that no part of the Minute of Lord Auckland treats it as trifling; no part of the Minute of Sir Robert Grant treats that charge or that crime as trifling. [Sir. T. E. COLEBROOKE: I am at issue with you there.] Now we come to the first charge. I could go into the case at length, but my desire is to abstain from everything that has been touched upon by my right hon. Friend opposite, because, by repeating, I should only weaken his arguments. I will endeavour, if I can, to answer any observations that have been made, and everything that occurs to me which he has omitted to supply; for, although as the hon. Member for Winchester got up and expressed his wonderful surprise that the right hon. Baronet had not stated the grounds of his judgment, and had not stated the treaty and proved its infraction, I thought he was going to give us the grounds of his opinion. But except his indulging, as those who preceded him had done, in that kind of vague declamation respecting the injustice and the absence of inquiry and trial, and those reports that have been put forth and so diligently circulated for the last six or seven years, and which I have seen in the hands of almost every Gentleman who has risen on this subject, putting forth a few prominent matters hero and there, and not conveying a full impression, because I say if those Gentlemen had taken the trouble not to read those, but bad gone to the blue books themselves, I cannot believe that any individual here would have entertained a doubt as to the guilt of the Rajah of Sattara. Now, how could the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Winchester, attempt to quote the opinions of the Residents? They advert to the opinions of the Residents, and it is said that four or five were against the right hon. Baronet. Is it any statement that he quotes? Why, General Robertson, one of the Residents, was about ten years before he was there. Yes; but what does General Robertson say? We are told that the Goa charge is a trumpery charge, got up to hunt down this wretched man, the Rajah of Sattara. Why, General Robertson, who supported the case of the Rajah, says, that ten years ago he knew that the Rajah had correspondence with Goa—he knew that ten years ago—and he told him that if he was not more cautious in his conduct, six years before the thing occurred, he would lose his Throne. So much for General Robertson. [Mr. EWART: That was your contemptible case.] Sir, I am now coming to what is called the evidence of character before the charge against the Rajah regarding the corrupting of the sepoys. The hon. Gentleman points to all the Residents as having been opposed in opinion to these proceedings before the Commissioners. General Robertson does not state that; General Briggs has nothing at all to say of that kind; but General Briggs was Resident at the Court of Sattara, and did give an opinion adverse to the character of the Rajah. That was the opinion read by my hon. Friend opposite. But now I come to an important person—and I must express my astonishment that his opinion is so much relied upon by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—and that is Colonel Lodwick. That hon. Gentleman says, that the charge of corrupting the sepoys, arose from an anonymous papers put into the post-office. But is that the fact? Now, I tell the hon. Member that the charge arose from General Lodwick himself; that gallant officer himself wrote a report to the Government; he gave the names of the sepoys; he gave the names of the native officers; he dwelt on their respectability; he said that he had examined them himself separately; that he could not be deceived; and he was compelled to tell the Government he believed it; and General Lodwick himself suggested to the Governor to send fresh troops to Sattara. Now, that is General Lodwick's statement, upon whom the hon. Gentleman opposite depends for the innocence of the Rajah! But, says the hon. Gentleman, he changed his opinion. I do not wish to impute to that gallant officer that he had not changed his opinion without sincere conviction; I do not attempt it; for I do not stand here—I should scorn to do so—to indulge in imputations on any gentleman. I believe that both opinions were sincere. But I ask the House to measure his testimony, as it would that of any other individual, by looking at the circumstances under which these two statements are given and formed, and then drawing its own conclusions. Now, the statement of General Lodwick preferring those charges against the Rajah is made—when? When he was Resident at the Rajah's Court; when the responsibility for the performance of the duties of that important office was thrown upon him. That is the time at which he makes the statement that he believes the Rajah is guilty. When docs he write the letter, and when does he make the statement, that he believes him to be innocent? In a popular assembly, when there is an excited if not an angry discussion; where a great deal of recrimination and angry observations are made; and when he is excited; then he makes the statement that he believes the Rajah to be innocent. Yes; but it is not matter of bare statement. When those charges were preferred by General Lodwick, what course did Sir Robert Grant pursue? Now, I ask the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the course which Sir Robert Grant took: those charges coming from a Resident possessing the confidence of the Government, with a statement that he not only believed them, but thought it impossible that any body should doubt them. Sir Robert Grant, and the Government of Bombay, ordered a Commission. Of whom was that Commission composed? Of General Lodwick, the Commissioner who gave the information; Mr. Willoughby the Chief Secretary of the Government, and one of the most important and trustworthy public functionaries. But he may be called a political person. Well, with a degree of caution which savours of that which sometimes was said—and it was the only thing I ever heard said—against Sir Robert Grant, that he was too cautious, he selects not a political man as the third member of the Commission, but he writes to the Commander-in-Chief, and says, "Give me a trustworthy military man, who knows the country and the natives also;" and Lord Keane gave him Colonel Ovans, the Quarter Master General, and an officer who stands as high in character, and is possessed of as unblameable a reputation, as any man in India, or in this House. That was the constitution of the Commission. Is there any one present who can object to that constitution? Was it not fit that the man who made the accusation, and was Resident at the Court, should belong to it? Was it not fit that Mr. Willoughby, the Chief Secretary of the Government, should belong to it? And was it not right that they should have an impartial man, like Colonel Ovans, to go and institute the inquiry? Well, next comes the question as to the secrecy of this Commission. The hon. Member for Winchester can think of nothing like a just trial that is not of Old Bailey practice; you must have a judge sitting; you must have a jury and two or three counsel on each side, or else you can have no investigation. Now I differ from him entirely. I say that is not the proper mode of inquiry politically. That is not the mode of proceeding of one who wishes to satisfy himself politically as to India. I think a Commission was a fit and proper tribunal to investigate the truth. It was a Secret Commission; and it was right and proper it should be secret, because if the accusation turned out to be untrue, it was proper that no stigma should rest upon the Rajah. The Commission assembled; they sat for twenty-five or twenty-six days; the Rajah appeared before them. [Mr. HUME: Where, and how often?] As often as he pleased. [Mr. HUME: Quite the contrary.] The hon. Gentleman contradicts me, and I am sorry for it. It is my impression—and not only my impression, but the impression of the right hon. Baronet who has to-night read the proceedings of that Commission, in the hearing of the hon. Gentleman himself. [Mr. HUME: That they "called in" the Rajah.] This is the statement, as far as my memory serves me. After a primâ facie case was made, he was called in, but not before; because if a primâ facie case were not made, they were desirous that the matter should end: but as soon as a fair case was made, the Rajah was called before them; and he was told that his witnesses would be heard—that his documents would be received—that the witnesses would be adduced and confronted with him. He appeared thrice; but he refused to allow the witnesses to be confronted with him, saying that it was inconsistent with his dignity: but he did get the names of the witnesses; he did give the written documents; and those written documents were recorded, and those witnesses were examined. I ask, what more the Commismissioners could have done? But still the Rajah hesitated; and they suggested to him, "Now you had much better bring forward your witnesses and documents; do not withhold any; because if you do withhold them, it will leave an impression unfavourable to your case." Could anything be stronger than that? Well, after twenty-four or twenty-five days' sitting, that Commission came to a conclusion; but what was the conclusion? Why, they found the Rajah guilty. Who signed that report? It was not a mere matter of opinion. My right hon. Friend read the opinion of General Lodwick upon his oath before the Commission. Why, the report of that Commission, declaring the guilt of the Rajah, bears the signature of General Lodwick. Is that an improvident act? Is that mere opinion given, which a man may form hastily and erroneously, and afterwards retract? No; he signs the verdict of guilty after sitting with the other Commissioners for twenty-four or twenty-five days. Now, if the hon. Gentleman had read all the papers, he would have found that General Lodwick was under the impression that he had made certain objections to the wording of the finding of the verdict. He was under that impression; but the other Commissioners state broadly, and I believe, as far as my memory serves, General Lodwick is now satisfied, that he was wrong. He was under the impression that a serious alteration had been made in the finding or wording of the report. Now, I believe I am right in saying that the original draft of the report has been found, and that original draft of the report and the report itself, as signed, scarcely differ from each other. So that, so far from General Lod- wick repelling the charges, he caused the investigation, he sat on the inquiry, and concurred in the verdict. He says now that he is sorry he joined in that verdict; and I give him credit for his sincerity; but I ask you this—does it not take away from the force and the weight of the opinion of a witness, when he has sat upon his oath for twenty days to conduct an inquiry, and has come to a conclusion with all the responsibility of office, and sitting as Commissioner—docs it not take away from the weight of his opinion, if, some years afterwards, he says he regrets his concurrence, and is very sorry that he did so? He thinks he was then wrong; and he is perfectly right in saying so. I am not imputing to him motives; I am only impeaching the judgment of the hon. Member for Winchester, who impeached the judgment of Sir Robert Grant. He tolls you, that it is not a judgment on which you can rely in support of the charges at all. Now, the House will see, so far as these things are concerned, there was a trial. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that there was a trial? [Mr. HUME: I do.] I confess that that does surprise me. The hon. Baronet was more candid; he said, "Why, as regards the first part of the charge, I admit there was inquiry. The hon. Gentleman did think, and he did say, that, with a Commission sitting—the party accused brought in—his witnesses heard—his documents to prove his case produced—that that was no inquiry. But it is said that there is no inquiry which can be satisfactory unless it is a public trial. Now, I wish the hon. Member for Montrose had in his speech told us what he meant by a trial. [Mr. HUME: I did tell you.] I wish he had told us what the tribunal was he wanted. [Mr. HUME: I did.] You did! I will tell the House what the hon. Gentleman said. You said (appealing to the right hon. Gentleman), "Why will you not give us a Commission at Bombay?" Why, Sir, I cannot but think that this was a most extraordinary interrogatory. In 1847, the hon. Member asks the right hon. Baronet for a Commission to Bombay, when at the time of the charges in 1837 there was a Commission to Bombay or Sattara, the very place in which the alleged misconduct took place! He asks for a Commission. Why, you had one; not sitting hero, which would have made it a mockery; not sitting in Bombay, where it would be comparatively useless: but you had a Commission sitting in the very spot where the alleged crime was supposed to have been committed, and at the very time that it occurred; and yet the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that, but he asks for a Committee ten years afterwards, sitting here, and says that would be better. Now, if the hon. Gentleman goes a little further, if he wants to establish this, there must be some kind of mock tribunal for the trial of every petty prince and sovereign in India. [Mr. HUME: A mock tribunal?] I say "a mock tribunal," and I call it so, recollecting what the hon. Member read from Mr. Macaulay. I should have liked to have heard the declamation of the hon. Gentleman opposite, if there had been some such trial. Supposing there had been some kind of tribunal constituted by the Company's servants; supposing there had been the mockery of a police court, judges sitting, witnesses examined, and formal verdict pronounced; what declamation we should have heard! "Why did you not satisfy your conscience with some proper inquiry? Why did you mock justice? You, the sovereign Power, the paramount Power in India, holding forth a mock trial, putting forth mock judges, knowing that the inevitable consequence must be, from the feeling of the natives, a consciousness that the paramount Power desired a conviction. Why, the consequence would be that they would invariably bring him in guilty." Sir, I am almost ashamed to have dwelt so long on the proceedings of the Commission; but I have abstained from going into the documents which were gone into by the right hon. Baronet. But, said the hon. Member for Winchester, "you only read his opinions." Now I do think that was the most extraordinary charge or observation that I have ever heard in my life. Only read opinions! Opinions, but what opinions? Why, the opinions of three Commissioners who were appointed to try the Rajah: the hon. Gentleman considers that where you have three Commissioners acting on their oath, that reading their conclusions is reading valueless opinions. Well, what else did the right hon. Baronet read? Why, the opinion of the Governor of Bombay, the opinions of the Members of the Council of Bombay, the opinions of the Governor General, and the Minister for India. These are all thrown aside, and thrown aside with contempt. To whom and to what then are we to look for the Government of India? But I go the whole length, that if any person has been tried by a competent tribunal—if there has been every reason to suppose that there has been a fair inquiry—and if you have no reason to impeach the character or the motives of those who make the inquiry—I say this House of Commons ought not to re-open the case. If you do it in one case you must in another, and the more criminal a man is the more he will persevere, if he has only money enough to send home to pay agents to agitate; and an inquiry of some kind or other must be gone into in the House of Commons, casting obloquy upon men honourably and conscientiously discharging their duty. But the hon. Gentleman says, why do you give a criminal 12,000l. a year? I ask you to tell me one single instance since the British first took possession of India, where a Sovereign was deposed without having had assigned to him an adequate income corresponding with his station. I tell the hon. Gentleman there is not one. Look at the head of the Mahratta Confederacy, Bajee Row. I ask the hon. Gentleman what was given to that head of the Mahratta Confederacy, who in 1819 raised all India, and contended against the British power; and where Lord Hastings had him in his power and had destroyed the Mahratta Confederacy: what was given to that Prince? 80,000l. a year. This was given by Sir John Malcolm. There never has been an instance where this has not been done. We know the temptations to which princes are exposed; we know the contrast between our power and theirs; we have ever pursued the course of providing for them liberally, and I hope we ever shall pursue it. And I believe, that by pursuing it, we adopt a proceeding which tends to conciliate and strengthen our power in that country. Then comes, Sir, the charge as to the communication with Goa—the charge as to the correspondence of the Governor of that settlement with the Rajah. [Laughter.] It is very easy to smile with derision at a communication with Goa; but the hon. Member who smiles must discredit my friend who is now no more—General Robertson, if he denies that communication. I am not going into the details of the evidence to show the extraordinary correspondence that arose; I am not going to mention that, because it would be going into details: but no person can read through that evidence—admitting as I do the absurdity of the scheme, broadly admitting it—without believing it. Why, the hon. Gentleman opposite says, "I wanted to find out the truth of the statement, and there- fore, he wrote to the Portuguese Governor. But what answer did he get? Did he get an answer that he had had no communication with the Rajah of Sattara? I beg to tell him that he got no such answer. He got an answer that he had had no communication with the Rajah of Sattara upon political subjects. Yes; hut I tell the hon. Gentleman, that by the treaty which placed the Rajah on his throne, he was specially precluded from corresponding with any such Power. Who framed that treaty? Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone. Did he know the natives of India? Did he know the Rajah of Sattara? Did he know the necessity of imposing restrictions? But Mountstuart Elphinstone it was who prompted the terms and conditions that the Rajah should not communicate with any native Power. And if the House wants to know how far this restriction was carried by Mountstuart Elphinstone, I tell them, that he said to the Rajah of Sattara, even on matters relating to the marriage of any of his family, you must communicate through the Resident. So that he shuts out every excuse. And the very fact of a communication, no matter what the communication was, with Goa, was a violation of the treaty; subjecting him, if we chose to enforce rigidly the penalty, to the loss of his rank. Well, is it so absurd that he should think that the Portuguese would send him a force, aided by the French and Austrians? I do not think it is, considering the character of the Prince; and I can give you proof of its not being so absurd. The hon. Member read the Minute of Sir James Carnac; and a very able and interesting one it is. Does he remember the Rajah telling that officer that he gave 80,000 rupees to the house of Milne and Company to build a ship? Does he remember that he told Sir J. Carnac the purpose for which this investment was made, and that he intended to give 80,000 rupees more? What do you think that purpose was? It was to keep up the communication with Europe. Then fancy the Rajah of Sattara building a ship in Bombay, seriously saying, that it was to keep up a communication with Europe. I will tell you what is still more absurd—that that ship happened to go to Europe during the time of the disturbance; and so inflated was this wretched man, so deceived was he by the sycophants and the agents around him, that he gave a crave assurance to Sir James Carnac, stating that he hoped the British Government would not think that he (the Rajah of Sattara) had any hostile intention against the British Government, because the ship had gone to Europe. Now, I say, that that is just as absurd as supposing that 30,000 men would come from Portugal to overthrow the British power in India. That shows the absurdity and the extravagance of the man, and makes you ready to believe anything you hear of him as regards absurdity. Then the next and last charge is, corresponding with the ex-Rajah. I will not go into any details; but what does he say to Sir James Carnac, when he produced him a letter from the ex-Rajah? What did he say? What would any honest man have said? Would he not express astonishment, and say that the letters had not reached him? Oh, no; he was wily enough, as an hon. Gentleman has dwelt so much on wiliness; he concealed the letter, and he said, "Why what is the use of that? Show me my answer." That is the only explanation that he would give Sir James Carnac when he produced this letter. I admit he was very wily, and he did not want any lawyer to assist him. Mentioning lawyers, I ought to have said he asked to be furnished I with a lawyer from Bombay; and very properly the Commissioners refused him, and said to him, "You will not be allowed a barrister, but any friend you may wish you may have;" and he took in his own brother before the Commission. Now, there are some few statements made, I think not very creditable to the hon. Member for Montrose, which were answered by my right hon. Friend, excepting one or two. He demolished pretty well the tale about the Rajah having been hurried away from Sattara, after he was deposed and taken to Benares. I do confess that after the statements which were made, signed, I believe, by my hon. Friend, Sir Charles Forbes, whom I recollect myself in this House several years ago giving an explicit denial to that statement, and subsequently to that statement in the blue book, there is the letter read by my right hon. Friend—notwithstanding that statement made in answer to the charge, I do confess my surprise when I heard that charge repeated, and when I asked the hon. Member whom the letter was from that he should have refused to give the name of the writer; but the hon. Gentleman, without giving the name, arraigned a gentleman before this House upon serious charges. Now we are told that the Rajah was taken to some horrid place. But where was he taken. Why to his own country-house, seven miles distant from his palace. He is taken to his own country garden. That is the place which is said to have been over-run with rats and mice. There he is kept for three months leisurely preparing for his journey; a journey performed at the rate of nine miles a day, at a cost of 80,000 rupees, all of which was paid by the Government. I cannot, and I can, but express my sorrow that this charge is again preferred against Colonel Ovans. My right hon. Friend has furnished one or two specimens of the hon. Member's charges; one or two occur to my mind, and I have them here. The hon. Gentleman says, that Colonel Ovans suborned evidence, that he suborned witnesses. [Mr. HUME: Yes, the blue book proves it.] Is that the case? Again, more particularly, there is the case of the forged seals, part of which the right hon. Baronet read, and I will supply the rest. Now, the hon. Member says that he read that charge from the blue book. The hon. Member must excuse me if I tell him what appears in the blue book. It appears in the blue book, that Colonel Ovans sent these papers to the Governor, distinctly stating, as my right hon. Friend has read, that the seals were not the seals of the Rajah; and further, that he had no evidence to show how he came in possession of them. But what about the payment of the 450 rupees? Certain treasonable papers were said to be in the possession of a particular individual: this was reported to Colonel Ovans. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is nothing in India that may not be pawned, and that there is nothing more readily pawned than title-deeds. It was said that these papers happened to be pawned, which was a very likely thing for them to say, in order to extort a little money. These papers are pledged, it was said, for 400 rupees, and I cannot get them out of pledge without paying 400 rupees. Colonel Ovans reported the matter to the Government, and with the sanction of the Government authorized the payment of the 400 rupees to the person, in order that these papers might be taken out of pledge and be produced. They were taken out of pledge and produced, and they were found to be important and material evidence. That is called purchasing documents. Then there was another case, that of Captain Durack, in which he applied to Colonel Ovans, and said, "This man is poor, and unless we pay the expenses we cannot proceed." He authorized him to pay 150 rupees for the expenses. Colonel Ovans was in India, and saw all these charges, and what did he do? He wrote to the Government—he went to an adjoining magistrate, declaring the falsity of every charge made against him. Now, Sir, there was another thing which the hon. Gentleman said. "Ah!" he said, "but Colonel Ovans intercepted this correspondence; and, notwithstanding all that intercepted correspondence, nothing of any importance was found." Why, Sir, the Rajah had no right to correspond with anybody except the people within his own dominions, without the matter being first brought before Colonel Ovans. That is one of the terms of the treaty. I do not know that the correspondence was intercepted; but I admit, with the hon. Gentleman, it appears in the blue book that Colonel Ovans did get, somehow or other, a copy of the correspondence that passed between this man and his agents. I will give you the opinions of the Bombay Government, and a few of the extracts from that correspondence:— In continuation of your letter, dated the 7th ultimo (No. 23 of 1838), relative to the Sattara affair, we have the honour to transmit to your honourable Committee copy of a further despatch from the acting Resident of Sattara, dated the 20th ultimo, on the subject. We have forwarded a copy of the above despatch to the right hon. the Governor General of India, and have solicited his Lordship's particular attention to the sixth paragraph of Lieutenant Colonel Ovans's letter above quoted, and to the documents therein alluded to, proving that the Rajah's agents at Bombay have not scrupled to communicate to the Rajah events of a political nature, which are, at present, a cause of much anxiety and embarrassment to the British Government. We cannot suppose that it will be tolerated, that persons, not only British subjects, but servants of the British Government, shall transmit information of a political and secret nature connected with military operations to a foreign State known to be ill-disposed towards us; and although this Government cannot apply a remedy, yet we deem it our bounden duty to represent in the strongest terms the gross indecency and impropriety of such communications. Your honourable Committee will observe from Rungoba's letter"— (I believe he is the Agent for the Rajah of Sattara, who is now in this country) —"your honourable Committee will observe from Rungoba's letter, dated the 7th of August (No. 9 of the enclosures of Lieutenant Colonel Ovans's despatch), that he communicates, in Dr. Milne's name, that disputes exist between the British Government and Persia, Arabia, and Russia; that we have concluded a treaty with Runjeet Singh; that we are threatened with hostilities by the Chief of Nepaul, who had collected an army of 20,000 or 25,000 men; and, lastly, that the Rajah of Burmah is preparing to war against us; and adds that he had visited Mr. Baber, who had confirmed the intelligence to the above effect received from Dr. Milne. In a postscript he (Rungoba) communicates information regarding the move- ment of troops and reinforcements expected from England; describes Shekarpore, and states, 'the Nepaul Wald has issued proclamations inviting all Hindoos, whoever they may he, to co-operate, and to enter his service. That is an extract from the intercepted correspondence. In Dr. Milne's name, Rungoba enjoins secrecy. This is the extract:— The Sahib said, these matters which I have directed you to write, and to report to the Maharaj Surkar, should not be publicly communicated to any one there. All that is extracted from the intercepted correspondence. In a letter of the 11th of September, the Agent reports that it had been discovered that the States of Rajpootana were in treasonable communication with Russia, and had written— We all are one; with your co-operation we will expel the English from this country. [Mr. HOME: What is the date of that?] I am now reading a letter from the Bombay Government to the Secret Committee, bearing date the 5th of October, 1838. In allusion to the Rajah of Sattara's own case, the Agent observes significantly, "but there is no documentary proof." [Mr. HUME: Hear!] I have read to you from this letter from the Bombay Government—giving extracts from it which seem to excite the merriment of the hon. Gentleman—giving a communication respecting a supposed combination of Native Powers against us; and this communicated to the Rajah by agents of his at Bombay. That correspondence was intercepted; and on that the hon. Member raises an argument for the Rajah's innocence, saying that nothing was found which in any way tended to inculpate him. I have read to the House an extract from the correspondence; it will be for them to judge whether or not there is anything there that criminates the Rajah. The hon. Doctor opposite (Dr. Bowring) said, to my astonishment, when he gave the House the opinion of the Court of Directors upon the Rajah's guilt, that there were eighteen favourable to the Rajah. Now, there are only twenty-four of us; and, therefore, according to his statement, there could be only six who agreed that he is guilty. I am utterly at a loss to understand this. [Dr. BOWRING: There are thirty-six.] I beg to enter into no speculations about numbers. Now, that decision took place respecting the guilt of the Rajah of Sattara. There were nineteen Directors present, who voted by ballot: fourteen voted that the Rajah was guilty, five voted in the opposite way, and four out of the five recorded dissents. Those who were not present were Mr. Loch, who was of opinion with the majority of the Court; Mr. Marjoribanks, who was then taken exceedingly ill, and never gave any opinion; Sir William Young, whose opinion went I am not sure which way; but, as I said before, of the Directors present, fourteen were of opinion that the Rajah was guilty, and supported the finding of the Bombay Government; and five only were against it. The hon. Member goes through the Court from that day to this. A great number of Directors have died; others have been elected in their places; and he puts together all the members in ten years who ever gave any vote in any way in favour of the Rajah. In that way he has come to his conclusion; but I beg the House to understand, that of the twenty-four directors at the time of the Rajah's deposition, nineteen out of the twenty-four were of opinion, reluctantly expressed, that the Rajah was guilty. [Dr. BOWRING: I stated, that eighteen voted against the Rajah.] I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has abstained upon this occasion from repeating the charges he made before against Colonel Ovans—charges of so grave a nature as those which the House has heard—charges that were made in the last debate against that gallant officer. The same source from which all those charges emanate about his being a suborner of witnesses, and a purchaser of evidence, the same individual charges his brother-in-law and his father-in-law with having 1,500l. a year allotted first to one and then the other; and that he gave him, in fact, a bribe of 5,000l. or 6,000l.. a year—all that was from the same source. I need hardly tell the House, that by the Bombay Government and the Court of Directors no inquiry ever was made, and I hope no inquiry ever will be made. I hope that the character of that gallant and distinguished officer stands too high to render inquiry necessary; and if even he was to ask for inquiry, and court inquiry, it would be the duty of the Court to tell him "no inquiry shall be instituted. You have been a public servant: your conduct throughout is known by the local Government whom you served, and by the Home authorities; and if public servants abroad are not supported by the local Government—if men performing arduous and painful duties are not supported by the authorities abroad and at home, it will be fatal to the government of our pos- sessions abroad, but more particularly to our possessions in Asia. We owe the preservation of that country, and the success which has attended that Government, to the honour and ability of our public servants. We have never failed to punish them when we have found them guilty; we have never rejected inquiry when we had reasonable ground for suspicion; and we do not shrink from maintaining and supporting them in a just decision."

LORD J. MANNERS

Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury has drawn a very curious and admirable distinction. I have a very strong impression that those who are in favour of liberal opinions will be found on one side of the House; and those who are in favour of popular principles on the other. This is not the first time I have observed that those Gentlemen who belong to the present Government, and the Gentlemen who belonged to the last, when a question comes before the House for inquiry into the conduct and the proceedings in any department of the preceding Government, unite to defeat that inquiry, although the rest of the House imagine that the ends of justice require it. Sir, I believe that will be the case in the present instance; but that conviction will not deter me from giving my vote in favour of the inquiry for which the hon. Member for Montrose asks. I should have given that vote without saying a single word on the subject, if it had not been for some remarks of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down. I could not help noting some of the points made by the hon. Baronet; and I trust he will allow me to express my opinion on the subject which is now before the House. The hon. Gentleman, Sir, commenced his speech by saying, that it was better that twelve native princes should escape, than that one guilty should be condemned, if his condemnation necessitated a lengthened inquiry. I confess, Sir, that I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should carry that principle as he has to the present instance. But I wish he would permit an inquiry to take place, to see whether the Indian Government has not condemned one native prince who is innocent, in order to prevent a necessary inquiry taking place. That, Sir, is the conviction of myself; and that is the conviction of a great number of Gentlemen in this House—that an inquiry is about to be stifled to prevent the reconsideration of an unjust sentence against one native prince, the Rajah of Sattara. Then the hon. Ba- ronet says, that no Gentleman who has read the blue book can doubt the guilt of the Rajah as far as the charge of corrupting the sepoys is concerned. But the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman who has spoken in its favour, has, I think, satisfactorily shown to the House that the opinion of four out of five of the Residents who decided on this subject, has since been, that the decision should have been given in favour of the Rajah. I would now ask the hon. Gentleman, what grounds he has made for supposing that the recent opinion expressed by those Residents is less worthy of belief than the first opinion that they expressed. I will take the case of General Lodwick. I listened to that argument with great attention; and I must say, that a more unsatisfactory and unconvincing argument I never heard. What does the hon. Gentleman say? He says, that General Lodwick, when he first gave an opinion, agreed with the other Commissioners upon the guilt of the Rajah; and gave that opinion with all the authority of official investigation, and the distinguished position that he occupied—that he acted as a judge, and, acting as a judge, clothed with all that official authority, he gave his verdict against the Rajah of Sattara. But he says, he gave his second opinion, reversing the first under very different circumstances, namely, that the second opinion was given in a popular assembly, during the heat of debate. Now, Sir, I must say, that sitting here in a popular assembly I have certainly never heard an official Gentleman so anxious to reverse an opinion which he formerly expressed. On the contrary, I have always found that opinion, however unfounded and inexplicable, has been asserted and maintained in this House, with just as much vehemence as if there had been no doubt whatever upon the subject. I do not think that General Lodwick's opinion having been given in a popular assembly in the slightest degree makes against its being a decision given upon the most mature conviction, and from a sincere regret by the hon. Gentleman, that his first decision should have been what it was. I say that this is perfectly in accordance with a proper, fair, and wise decision. Then, the hon. Gentleman says these two contradictory opinions have satisfactorily disposed of General Lodwick's authority. The conclusion, Sir, which I came to on hearing the antagonism expressed by the hon. Gentleman between General Lod- wick's two opinions, was, that he himself had made a very satisfactory case for inquiry; but no case for refusing it. If General Lodwick, in the first instance, stated that the Rajah was guilty, and in the second, that he was innocent, I think that circumstance makes it a very proper case for inquiry, and not for refusing the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. Then, Sir, the hon. Baronet stated that it was notorious to every one connected with India, that every criminal, however guilty he might be, if he could find funds, might get up a case in England, and procure an inquiry. Sir, I grant the hon. Gentleman his supposition; hut I think there is a very great difference between a criminal, however guilty, procuring an inquiry, and a criminal, however guilty, being refused an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman asks, not that this House shall pronounce an opinion, but that there shall be an effectual, searching, real inquiry into the case; and I do not believe that the 12,000l.. a year, which the Rajah of Sattara is said to possess, would in any way influence the decision of a Commission or a Committee. Then, Sir, it was said by the hon. Gentleman that the Rajah had most clearly violated the treaty and engagement which he had entered into when he ascended the Throne. The hon. Gentleman states that by the treaty with the Rajah, he was debarred from entering into any communication whatever with any native princes. Then he states that if he had regarded this treaty, he could not have had the slightest communication with the Portuguese authorities at Goa. Sir, I do not know that the Portuguese authorities at Goa could be regarded in the light of native princes. [Sir J. W. HOGG: I said communication with any person out of his dominions, except through the medium of these official persons.] The hon. Gentleman has explained that he means by "any native princes," anybody out of his own dominions. The hon. Gentleman went on urge, that when the Rajah explained to the Government of India, that he had purchased or built a ship with which he proposed to trade to Europe, that showed how extravagant a man he was, and how absurd in his notions. Well, Sir, that may be very true; but I do not think that the charge of absurdity, as brought against the Rajah of Sattara, is proved by it in any way. I think the openness of the man is apparent. He goes and tells them, "Sir, I have got a ship, and am going to trade with Europe." The hon. Gentleman says, "See what sort of a man this Rajah must be; see what an extravagant man he must be." Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman ended his appeal by saying, that although Colonel Ovans had demanded an inquiry, it would have been the duty of the Indian Government, and it was the duty of this House, to refuse that inquiry to Colonel Ovans. Sir, the hon. Gentleman has defended Colonel Ovans; and I am not disposed to doubt that he has given a right decision on this question. I know nothing of Colonel Ovans, or any of the gentlemen on cither side in this case; but I must say this, that however the hon. Gentleman may defend the case of Colonel Ovans, and the whole course of conduct of the Indian and the English Government, and however he may say it is unjust to Colonel Ovans to open this question, I say it is harsh and cruel to this Prince not to grant the inquiry he asks. I say that when the hon. Gentleman applies the same argument to the case of the Rajah of Sattara, I think the House will be very wrong indeed if it accedes to any such proposition. It may be well that Colonel Ovans should not have his case investigated—it may be well that his inquiry should not be granted; but the case for inquiry the hon. Member for Montrose has submitted to the House, has not been affected by any argument which we have heard from the hon. Baronet. I shall give me vote this evening with a most clear and decided conviction, that the ends of justice will not be attained, and that the integrity and honour of our Indian Empire will not be secured, unless we grant this deposed Prince the opportunity he asks of inquiry before a Commission or a Committee.

MR. HUME

I must say one word in explanation, because this is a very serious matter. The hon. Baronet says, I have charged unjustly Colonel Ovans with purchasing evidence. Sir, I read a letter from Colonel Ovans, dated the 27th of September, 1837, addressed to Lieutenant Durack; and Captain Durack states to him that he had obtained information of the existence of certain papers, but that the person in whose possession they were refused to communicate them to Colonel Ovans—that he waited his reply—that Colonel Ovans, on his return home, directed him to pay any sum of money to get that information which was wanted. Captain Durack reports that he paid 150 rupees to Bhow Lely, and here is Bhow Lely's re- ply, in which he acknowledges that he received that money, and that he is to he further rewarded if the treasonable papers connected with the Rajah's case are found—that Colonel Ovans acknowledges this. [Sir J. W. HOGG: If the hon. Member will read the blue hook, he will find that he is not correct.] I beg your pardon. In the Parliamentary Papers, page 392, paragraph 4, with reference to the statement of Brahmin Bhow Lely, upon which so much stress is laid, it is said— 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 papers, 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, saying he would be rewarded according to the service he might perform. That is the case. Now, there was another observation made, in which the hon. Gentleman accused me of not having pointed out what the inquiry was I wished to have. I did state that; I held in my hand this paper; and I am quite surprised, for the hon. Gentleman knows that this was addressed to Mr. John Shepherd, the Chairman of the Court of Directors, on the 18th of May, 1844, forwarding eighteen papers, offering to prove the whole conspiracy against the Rajah, by living witnesses and individuals, having sent a petition to me, which I presented to the House; and another petition was presented to the Court of Directors, with all the documents. I have the words. I say—"The House of Commons has printed the Sattara evidence, and made it readable by and accessible to all. Let the evidence in this shape be put into the hands of two competent, judicious persons, civil or military, taken from Benares, where the ex-Rajah now is, or its neighbourhood; Jet them be instructed to ascertain the truth of the new and most important facts submitted to your consideration now, and let them report to the proper authorities thereon. If it shall he satisfactorily proved, and the living witnesses can be referred to, and submitted to such examination as shall remove all doubts of the truth of their testimony, I hope, in the cause of justice, I shall not appeal in vain. If, then, documents, and other facts brought to support them, shall establish a system of sub- ornation and perjury, by which the late Rajah of Sattara has been removed from his station, I hope the Court of Directors will be disposed to do justice to the deposed Rajah, and to all parties who have been injured by falsehood and perjury." Then the hon. Gentleman will see to what I alluded in Colonel Ovans's letter; and this is very important, because it is the very point of the charge against Colonel Ovans. The police officer there took security from this individual for 1,000 rupees—a man who was only receiving five rupees per month.

On the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question, the House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 23: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.
	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B.	Masterman, J.
Barnard, E. G.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Bellow, R. M.	Monahan, J. H.
Blackburne, J. I.	Morpeth, Visct.
Buller, C.	Morris, D
Clive, Visct.	Morison, Gen.
Craig, W. G.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Dundas, Adm.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Palmerston, Visct.
Gardner, J. D.	Parker, J.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Polhill, F.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Price, Sir R.
Greene, T.	Rich, H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Rutherfurd, A.
Hamilton, W. J.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Hawes, B.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.	Spooner, R.
Hogg, Sir J. W.	Ward, H. G.
Hutt, W.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Jervis, Sir J.	TELLERS.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Tufnell, H.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Cowper, hon. W. F.

List of the NOES.
Baine, W.	Henley, J. W.
Beresford, Maj.	Hervey, Lord A.
Blake, M. J.	Lawless, hon. C.
Borthwick, P.	M'Carthy, A.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Manners, Lord J.
Bowring, Dr.	Perfect, R.
Brotherton, J.	Rashleigh, W.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Thompson, Ald.
Colville, C, R.	Thornely, T.
Duke, Sir J.	Williams, W.
Escott, B.	TELLERS.
Evans, Sir D. L.	Hume, J.
Hall, Sir B.	Ewart, W.

Order read. Committee of Supply deferred.

House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock.