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

lery: but era; /27-1,3r1":50'!'! to tat it was his intention
the (14,2 v, on no T;lurs,iay; huh ns that was an
owm (lay fur A.E?Mbers, he could not undertake to state
it than would then be orocoeded with.
RI VER PL ATE.
In reply to quipi,tion from Mr. EWART,
Lord PAL'AIhRSTON said that a proposition had
been made by tho English and French Governments
with respect to the existing disputes, but it had not been
accepted. It was not advisable for a Minister to state
his hopes and anticipations with respect to pending ne-
gotiations, but he might say that he certainly saw no
reason why a settlement should not be made.
LEGAL EDUCATION.

In reply to a question from the same LIoN. MEMBER,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the re-
commendations of the Committee on legal education had
partly been attended to, but they had not proved en-
tirely successful.
Mr. Fagan and Mr. F. O'Connor withdrew their
motions in order to afford the Hon. Gentleman (IVIr.
J. O'Connell) an opportunity of bringing on his motion
on Thursday.
Mr. STAFFORD said that the Noble Lord the Mem.
ber for Bath had a notice of motion which stood firs;
for Thursday. He desired to know whether he would
also give way. The notice of motion was a commission
to inquire into the practicability and mode of subdivid-
ing, into distinct and independent parishes, all parishes
in England and Wales, the population of which exceeds
4,000.
Lord ASHLEY said he had so repeatedly postponed
the motion which stood in his name for Thursday, that
he could not postpone it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no objection to ad-
vise her Majesty to grant a commission on the subject'
RELAYS 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 pf'
ties interested in the matter, but the subject was obel
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 vari-
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 ree
moved to the convict depot in Spike Island, preparatory
to their expatriation.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANY.
Mr. LABOUCHERE stated, in reply to an lion.
Member, that he understood that the Joint-stock Com-
panies' Winding-up Bill applied to the winding-up of
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 of
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 treaty 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,
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 dew
scendants of Pertaub Singh a certain sum of money
during his residence in Benares. That portion of the
order was fulfilled; but since his death it has not been
continued to his descendants, as I contend and am pre'
pared 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
certain sum of money to the widow of the deceased
Raja, but that it had not been paid, as she had declined
to give the receipt that was required of her. Sir, from
a letter, which I hold in my hand, addressed to Colonel
Macgregor, dated the 17th of March, 1848, it appears
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 money has been paid to her. UP to
this hour, as lam informed, the money has not been
paid, though sixteen months have elapsed since 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 the burial of her late husband.--(Heee'
hear.) The House will, I hope, bear in mind that this
is not a case of asking for money out of the public
purse, but from the revenues of the Sattara estate, as
ordered by the Court of Directors. I, therefore, move
for the correspondence referred to in my motion, In
order to put this matter on a proper basis, and to afford
the Right Hon. Baronet an opportunity of explaining
why au infraction- of a treaty so solemnly made bad
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 fatniiirit
tke late Raja are not deprived of that protection to which
I believe them to be entitled, instead of being left, ns
they are at present, in a state of abject poverty.
Now, not one shilling had been paid as far as he (Ntr-
Hume) understood, though three years arrears were now.
due, and the family of the Raja had been deprived of all
those comforts which they had a right to enjoy, gins'
tice had been done them. He wished to know why that
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. HOBLIO USE next addressed the House, but the
Right Hon. Baronet, spoke in so low a tone of voice that it
was wholly impossible to catch two consecutive sentences
of what he said, the difficulty being increased by his
speaking with his back to the gallery. The Son'
Baronet was understood to say that on more than one
occasion his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had
stated that a stipulated sum had been agreed to be Psi'
to Pertaub Singh on account of the Baja of Setters.
On the death of Pertaub Singh it was resolved thaP
certain portion of that money should be given to PI"
family; and to show his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) that
what he (Sir J. Hobhouse) stated to the House last Yell'
on this subject was founded entirely on facts, he might
take the liberty of mentioning that, although he had o°'
received any public dispatch relative to the claims of the
family of the Raja of Sattara, he had received from thc
Governor-General not long ago, namely, in September
last, a letter of which this was an extract :—Lord Dal"
housie in his letter said,—" I fully concur with Yelt.in,
your opinion that the family should be treated wit'
ample liberality.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") We have
done so to the ex-Reja and his people. 50,000 rupees
were given for his funeral expenses, 2,500 rupees for
the monthly support of his family and retainers, till
final settlement was made. The Ranee refused to re-
ceive the 50,000 rupees unless we received a receipt
signed by the boy, as representing the ex-Raja, and she
would not receive any money unless the whole allowed
to the ex-Raja was continued to the boy," that we'
to say, unless the remuneration that had been
allowed to the ex-Raja was continued to the son, she
would not receive any money at all. "Of course," con"
tinues Lord Dalhousie, "we refused to pay the 80,00"
rupees, and she would not have the other. Ultimate'?
the daughter has been allowed 1,750 rupees a month
from the date of the ex-Raja's death to the Ist of Jul.le
paying all the retainers ; on the Ist of July tlizs
allowance to cease, the retainers to look ant
for themselves, as it appeared that only a I.".
of them came from Sattara with the ex-Raja. Tic
daughter will have her own allowance of 500 rupees
month, and her travelling expenses to Sattara, when
she goes. The old Ranee has her 800 rupeesl
which she would not receive. This is the course
that has been pursued with the ex-Raja's family.
The date of that letter was the 7th of August, and it W 0
received in September last. He (Sir J. Hobbouse) had
not had any dispatch since that time, except to the effect
that the Ranee had refused to receive the money.. • The
family of the deceased Raja had refused to receive the
money unless the whole allowed to the ex-Raja was
continued to the boy, and unless the Governor-General
would accept a receipt, signed by the boy, as represent
ing the ex-Raja. Although they had refused to receige
the money, it was perfectly true that there was every
disposition, on the part of the Governor-General
India, to behave with generosity to the family of the'
Raja ; and he (Sir John Hobhouse) would not refuse f,,
concur in any. settlement that might be mad"
to put the family into comfortable circumstances. ti
Mr. G. THOMPSON said he felt exceedingly obligati
to the Right Hon. Gentleman for the statement he he
just made to the House. He (Mr. G. Thompson) he;
lieved it was true, as the Right Hon. Baronet hae
stated, that the family had refused to receive the atone,
unless the male portion of them were adopted and ree°s
Wised as the sons of the late Raja; but he understoe
that they did, so long ago as November last, intimate
their protest against receiving the money, and that
te
money had also been offered for the support of the fe'i-'t,
pending the final decision with regard to the disposal
that money. The Right lion. Baronet would perhaps°°
be disinclined to enswer the question whether, in the
event of a manife`station of williugness on the Pare
of the family of Pertaub Singh to receive
money, there would be any objection on t,.,,";
part of the Government to pay up the arrears, for ets
family had been obliged to involve themselves in del
eml:arrasstnent with a large number of retainers. 'they
were wholly dependent on the Ranee and her resotoleeo,
They did not receive the money, simply because
were apprehensive that their so doing might compromise)
the rights of the young Rsja. He (Mr. G. ThomP'e d
di
gave them contrary counsel.—(Hear, hear.) He
not think their receiving that allowance would affect in
,o.
the smallest degree the decision of her Majesty's tile
vernment or the Court of Directors. He did hope tirt
Right Hon. Gentleman, in concert with the Co
of Directors, would fulfil the pledge he had given.
and that the descendants of the late Raja would not,. be
.„
left unprovided for. The Court of Directors, 80
ago as the summer of 1846, had urged an impartiat,_
quiry into the claims of the son, on his removal fro
re
Sattara, and on his way to Benares. Those claims Za
still unsettled. The man was deprived of all that be had
left behind him, and of all that he carried with am/