The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-28 00:00:00

RaaAirS IN FACTORIES.

In reply to Mr. HINDLEY,
Sir G. GREY intimated that owing to the conflicting
opinions of magistrates, it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to introduce a Bill on this subject. The Go-
vernment had recently had interviews with several par-
ties interested in the matter, but the subject was one
which required much consideration. A Bill was in pre-
pAration on the subject; but he thought it unadvisable
to state the provisions of a measure until leave was asked
to introduce it.

CONVICTS IN IRELAND.

In reply to Mr. HERBERT,
Sir G. GREY admitted that the gaols in Ireland
were unnsually crowded by persons committed for va•
ous terms of imprisonment, whom the Government had
no power to remove; the magistrates, however, on the
recommendation of the grand juries, might provide
suitable accommodation. Many convicts had been re'
moved to the convict depot in Spike Island, preparatory
to their expatriation.

- JOINT-STOCK COMPANY.
Mr. LABOUCHERE stated, in reply to an MC.
Member, that he understood that the Joint-stock Conl;
panies' Winding-up Bill applied to filo winding-up ()-
future railway companies.
THE FAMILY OF THE LATE RAJA OF SAT-

TARA.
Mr. HUME rose and said—Sir, I rise to move for a re'
turn of the amount of money paid for the maintenance of
the family of the late Pertaub Singh, the late Raja el
Sattara, since his death, and the dates on which the
payments were made. I am anxious to state to the House
what appears to me to be a great infraction of public faith,
and which has inflicted many great hardships on the
family of the deceased Raja of Sattara. The House has
heard a great deal concerning the late Raja, but it has
not heard of acts committed in the name of the Govern'
ment, which I consider most unjust. They are shortly
these:—When the British Governmen determined to re-
move Pertaub Singh, an assurance was given—l hold the
document in my hand—by Sir James Carnac and Co-
lonel Ovens, that if he complied with the wishes of
the East India Company, all his private property
should be saved, and its produce handed over,
to him or to his heirs. That tie sty solemnly entered
into, was violated, as no portion of that private property
has been paid to his heirs since his death. Now, I con'
sider this proceeding a gross infraction of public faith. a
gross violation of a solemn compact.—(Hear, hear.) The
facts are on record. A letter is in existence from the
Court of Directors of the East India Company to the
Bombay Government, directing them to pay to the de"
scendants of Pertaub Singh a certain sum of money
during his resi leece in B, flares.. That portion of the
order was fulfilled; butesince his death it has not been
centieued to his descendants, as I contend and am pre'
park d to show in justice it should be. It will be
recollected that some months ago I asked the
Right Honourable Baronet why the money was
not paid to his family. On that occasion the Right
Hon. Baronet stated that the Government had offered a,
certain sum of money to the widow of the decease?
Raja, but that it had not been paid, as she had declined
to give the receipt that was required of her. Sir, Iron!
a letter, which I hold in my hand, addressed to Colonel
Meegrtgor, dated the 17th of March, 1849, it appear!
that the widow states, that as the Government will not
pay the money they had tendered except on a certain
receipt being given, that she is willing to accede to the
request ; yet no m, ney has been paid to her. Up t°
this hour, as lam informed, the money has not been
paid, though sixteen months have elapsed sicce the
death of the Raja ; no money has been paid to his widow
as promised, to enable her to pay the funeral charges
incidental to Vie burial of her late husband.—(Hear,
hear.) The House will, I hope, bear in mind that thi;
is not a case of asking for money out of the publt=
purse, but from the revenues of the Sattara estate, as
ordered by the Court of Directors. I, therefore, tiler
for the correspondence referred to in my motion, to;
order to put this matter on a proper basis, and to atter°
the Right Hon. Baronet an Opportunity of eeplaiuing,
why an infraction of a treaty so solemnly made had
taken place. Ido not wish to say anthing unpleasant
or to aggravate any bitterness of feeling that may exist
upon this matter. My object is to see that the fantilY‘),
Ike late Raja are not deprived of that protection to whie"
I believe them to be entitled, instead of being left, as
they are at present, in a state of abject povertee
Now, not one shilling had been paid as far as he (Al-tne'
Hume) understood, though three years arrears were non
due, and the family of the Reja had been deprived of all
those comforts which they had a right to enjoy, if Ps;
tice had been done them. lie wished to know why the
infraction of public faith had been permitted ? The
Hon. Gentleman concluded by repeating his motion,
which is given above.
Mr. G. THOMPSON seconded the motion.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE next addressed the House, but the
Right Hon. Baronet spoke in so low a tone of voice that 't
was wholly impossible to catch two consecutive sentene7
of what he said, the difficulty being increased by hi
speaking with his back to the gallery. The
Baronet was understood to say that on more than °lll
occasion his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose
stated that a stipulated sum had been agreed to be Pal
to Pertaub Singh on account of the Raja of Sattara
On the death of Pei teub Singh it was resolved that;
certain portion of that money should be given to h':
family; and to show his Hon. Friend (\lr. Hume) tlit/'
what he (Sir J. Hobhouse) stated to the House last yet;
on this subject was founded entirely on facts, be mug's
take the liberty of mentioning that, although be had Of,:
received any public dispatch relative to the claims of the
family of the Raja of Sattara, he had received from Chi
Governor-General not long ago, namely, in Septenstt
last, a letter of which this was an extract :—Lord
housie in his letter said,—" I fully concur with yell II
your opinion that the family sbould be treated Rut
ample liberality.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") We 110,
done so to the ex-R tja, and his people. 50,000 rupee;
were given for his funeral expenses, 2,500 rupees fe'
the monthly support of his family and retainers, till 3
final settlement was made. The Ranee refused to re;
ceive the 10,000 rupees unless we received a receiP"
signed by the boy, as representing the ex Raja, and all
would not receive any money unless the whole allows
to the ex Raja was confirmed to the boy," that wed
;
to say, unless the remuneration that had bees
allowed to the ex-Raja was continued to the son, she
would not receive any money at all. "Of course," con'
tinuea Lord Dalhousie, "we refused to pay the Al.,
rupees, and she would not have the other. Ultitnete,(l
the daughter has been allowed 1 750 rupees a month
from the date of the ex-Raja's death to the Ist of Ja,'
l 4
payine all the retainers ; on the Ist of July tout
allowance to cease, the retainers to look
for themselves, as it appeared that only a fro
of them carne from Sattara with the ex-Raja.
daughter will have her own allowance of 500 rupees en
month, and her travelling expenses to Sattara, whes
she goes. The old Ranee has her 800 ruPee;
which she would not receive. This is the course
that has been pursued with the ex-Raja's fansiff',
The date of that letter vacs the 7th of August, and it cod
received in September last. He (Sir J. Hobhouse) h„.„st
not had any dispatch since that time, except to the elrhe
that the Ranee had refused to receive the money. s'"
family of the deceased Raja had refused to receive tb4
money unless the whole allowed to the ex Raja Na
continued to the boy, and unless the Governor-General
would accept a receipt, signed by the boy, as represeflo
ing the ex-Raj t. Although they had refused to reeelp,
the money, it was perfectly true that there was ers cf
disposition, on the part of the Governor-General
India, to behave with generosity to the family of
Raja ; and he (Sir John Hobhouse) would not refused,
concur in any settlement that might be 03$
to put the family into comfortable circumstances. ea
Mr. G. THOMPSON said he felt exceedingly oblig
to the Right Hon. Gentleman'for the statement he Tie,
just made to the House. He (Mr. G. Thompson): a
tiered it was true, as the Right Hon. Baronet li3ey
stated, that the family had refused to receive the ca°ll„,.
unless the male portion of them were adopted and ree7,l
nised as the sons of the late Raja; but he understecc
that they did, so long ago as November last, intirathilet
their protest against receiving the money, and --ey
money had also been offered for the support of the fael-0,
pending the final decision with regard to the disposal et
that money. The Right lion. Baronet would perhaps °the
be disinclined to unswer the question whether, in „.t.
event of a manifestation of willingness on the 1)-ee
of the family of Pertaub Singh to receive
the
money, there would be any objection "tee
part of the Government to pay up the arrears, lerdeep
family had been obliged to involve themselves in,hey
embarrassment with a large number of retainers. 'lvo,
were wholly dependent on the Ranee and her resource
'Tlaey did not receive the money, simply because isew
were apprehensive that their so doing might compreoo)
the rights of the young Reja. He (Mr. G. ThosoP 5
die
gave them contrary counsel.—(Hear, hear.) Bess is
not think their receiving that allowance would off:wino,
the smallest degree the decision of her Majesty g uthe
vernment or the Court of Directors. He did loPfiort
Right Hon. Gentleman, in concert with the
of Directors, would fulfil the pledge he had giv
ot be
and that the descendants of the late Raja would
ng
left unprovided for. The Court of Directors, so
ago as the summer of 1846, had urged an impartial
quiry into the claims of the son, on his mine! were
Sattara, and on his way to Benares. Those claim! ,ad
still unsettled. The man was deprived of all that. he, ;id
left behind him, and 9f all that he carried with him'