The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-12 00:00:00

THE RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. HUME asked Sir John Hobhouse, the Pre.
sident of the Board of Control, what provision
had been made for the widow and adopted son
of the late Pertaub Sing, Raja of Sattara, now
detained in exile at Benares, and the reasons for
withholding from the legal heir the private property of
which his late Highness was possessed at the time of
his deposition, and which, according to the documents
on the table of the House, it was guaranteed by the
Governor of Bombay and by the political resident,'
Colonel Ovans, should be held at hit disposal?
Sir J. HOBHOUSE—Mr. Speaker, the question put
to me by my Hon. Friend is in a great degree entered
on the paper to which he has alluded, that is to say,
with reference to the provision the Government pro-
posed to make fur the widow and the adopted son of
the late Pertaub Singh, Raja of •Sattara. My
Honourable Friend is aware, that when Sir
James Came first of all made a statement of the
provision intended for the family of the ex-Rsjah, the
statement given to the adopted Rajah was that the
widow should receive 800 rupees a month until his death.
When be died, that sum was offered to the Rs-

nee, the surviving widow, but she refteei to
receive it, stating it was inadequate. In conse-
quence of the opinion so entertained by her,
the home authorities communicated with the Indian
authorities, and instructed them to make an addition to
that sum, not only for the widow but also for the adopted
son ; and, as my Honourable Friend has nuw stated,
the sum which has been fixed on for the main-
tenance of the surviving widow and adopted son is ex-
actly three times the amount which was fixed on by
the administration of Sir James Carnac, when he made
his first arrangement. Whether that sum is sufficient or
not admits of question ; but no person can say that suf-
ficient attention has not been paid to this subject, when
exactly three times the amount of allowance which was
originally proposed by Sir J. Carnac has been fixed on for '
the maintenance of the surviving widow and adopted son.
Indeed it was not until the death of the ex-Raja that
the sum was said to be insufficient. My Honourable
Friend is mistaken when he says that there
was no undertaking with reference to this
12,0001., or that if the 12,000/. a year were allowed
that it should be in full of all demands, for I hold
in my hand a copy of a letter which may
be seen in the Parliamentary papers of 1843.
page 296, a letter from the Secretary of
the Bombay Government to the Secretary of
the Government in India. that is to say
from Sir James Carnac —to Lord Auckland
in which these words occur: " The Government deem it
necessary to state that theyhave gone into the whole
claim advanced by the ex-Rajah," that is with reference
to his private property, " and they think his claims
should be declared tnadmisible, except that which relates
to property, which can be shown to have belonged to
him privately. The 120,000 rupees, therefore, which are
, to be paid to him, that is the 12 000/. a year for
himself are to be paid in satisfaction of all demands
whatsoever against the Sattara Government." That was
the letter written by the Secretary at Bombay, which
will be seen, as I. have stated, amongst the Parliamentary
papers, and which was communicated to the ex-Rajah.
In fact, I know he was cognizant of it and of the
whole arrangement that was made not only
with himself', but with all the other parties
for I happened at the time to hold the same place that 1
do now, and I remember that the 12,0001., all thing con-
sidered together, was thoeght to be ample remuneration.
With respect to the other part of what my Honour-
' able Friend says, that there was a guarantee, I beg
to tell him that there was no guarantee, none
whatever, with respect to the private property of the
Raja. The only understanding that I ever heard of
was that whatever he could prove to be his private
property he should have, and my Hon. Friend must be
quite aware of this, that the reigning Raja, the
brother who succeeded him, complained that when he
went to Bernares he took away with him more than was
his private property, both in jewels and in money.
My Honourable Friend says he was not deprived of
the money, but at the same time the claim to it was ex-
amined by the Secretary to the Bombay Government,
and he as well as Lord Auckland declared this
claim to be inadmissible. Having said thus much,
I will inform my Honourable Friend that I think
this claim should be reduced (as we understood) as far
as possible, and I have written privately to Lord Auck-
land, telling him what my views are on the subject.
Very possibly on receiving my letter he will cause inquiry
to be made into the matter. I will also tell ray Hon.
Friend that I think, with the Government, the allowance
was ample, so far as the ex-Raja was concerned; but I
must also add that Ido not agree with the Government
with regard to the family of Ranee of Sattara, and this
will be seen by the papers.
ISLAND OF JERSEY.

Mr. HUME asked Sir G. Grey whether any measures
had been adopted by the Government of the Island tif
Jersey, to carry into effect the alterations recomtnended
by the Commissioners that inquired and reported on the
state of law in that island?
Sir GEORGE GREY said the Government of the
island, in accordance with the recommendations of the
commissioners, had made some very material alterations
in the criminal law, and those alterations in com-
pliance with the usual course pursued on such occa-
sions had been referred to the Attorney and Soli-
citor• Generals, and they were at present under their
consideration; and he had no doubt they would devote
that time and attention to them which the importance
and magnitude of the stbject demanded.
• Mr. SMYTHE asked the Foreign Secretary whether
there was.any objection to:lay before Parliament copies of
instructions to Mr. Hood, senior, Lord Bowden, Captain
Gore, Mr. Hood, junior, and Mr. Southern, some-
time Agents in La Plata: Whether our relations
with France in La Plata were of such a nature as to
afford any hope of a ,successful issue from the offer of
our good offices made in the third article of the new
Convention? and whether security to the lives and pro-
perty of British subjects residing in the Banda Oriental
had been guaranteed?

Lord P‘ALMEitBiON replied, that as the instruc-
tions which had been sent out in regard to the affairs
of La Plata had concluded in a treaty, it would not be
consistent with his public duty to produce the cor-
respondence, because it was obvious great inveni-
euce might arise from such a course. That
treaty he considered to be very satisfactory. With re-
gard to our relations with France the Govern-
ment had thought it better for the interest
of all parties to conclude their treaty with
General Rom and the Argentine Republic without
wilitiog the Toult of the irgociatioue which were going