The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-13 00:00:00

Tie London Bridge Approaches Bill was real a first
time.

The Customs Bill rind the Stamp Duties (No. 2) Bill
severally vent through Commit,eo.

The Assig s (Ileuitid) Bill also vvEnt through Com•
mittes.

The: Marquis of CLANRICARDE having moved tat
Ow report upon the Securities (Leland) Auaen6ment
Bill 13,- received,

Tne LORD CHANCELLOR reiterated tinny of the
ohjectioni he hud urged against this Bill, and ti,elarird
his intention to oppose it in its present form. lie
hoped, however, that the measure could b yet so
amended as to remove those objections which he enter-
tained towards it.

Lord GLENGALL supported the Bill, as he thoughi
that nothing could be fairer tha❑ the principle which ii
invelved.

The report was then brought up.
The Police Superannuation Fund Bill was road a third
time end passed.

The other Bills upon the paper were then forwarded a
stage, and their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 8.
THE RAJA OF SAT rARA,
Mr. lIUME asked Sir John Hobhouse, the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control, what provision
had been made fur 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 ()vane, should be held at his disposal? He aas
very unwilling to trouble the House on this matter ;
but a sense of justice to the injured obliged him to put
that question to his Right Hon. Friend (Sir John l ob-
house). The House would allow him to state that the
late Pertaub Singh, Raja of Sattara, died in exile at
Benares, and that his followers, amounting to several
hundreds, and his widow and adopted sou remained
there. The widow and her adopted son expected that
a liberal provision would have been made to them in lieu
of the private property possessed by the late Raja at the
time of his deposition, which yielded an income of
about 167,0001. a-year. He '(Yr. Hume) theref ,re
wished to ask his Right Honourable Friend (Sir John
Hobhouse) what measures had been taken with respect
to the family, and what was the amount fixed for them.
By a return made to the House a few days ago it seemed
the Government of Bombay had refused to allow them
to take possession of the private property which belonged
to his late Highness the Raja. That did appear to
him (Mr. Hume) an insulting and urbitrery course of
conduct, and he only wanted his Right Honourable
Friend to state what the arrangements were. He
did think this a case which called loudly for
justice to be done. The House had the statement
of the Governor of the country that at the time of the
deposition of the late Raja, when the Government took
possession of his private property, that the value of that
property amounted to many thousand pounds. The Go-
vernment now refused to give any account of that pro-
perty, alleging that the 12,000/. a-year guaranteed to the
late Raja was in full of all demands. If there was
any undertaking with reference to this 12,0001., or that,
if it were to be allowed, it was to be in full of all de-
mands, such a document was unknown to the family,
and it was unknown to him (Mr. Hume). Under these
circumstances be really did put it to his Right Hon.
Friend (Sir John Hobhouse) and to the House, as a
matter of justice and humanity, whether the Govern-
ment were acting liberally to the widow and the adopted
son of the late Raja.
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 for the widow and the adopted son of
I the late Pertaub Singb, Raja of Sattara. My
Honourable Friend is aware, that when Sir
James Carnac first of all made a statement of the
provision intended for the family of the ex-Raja, the
statement given to the adopted Raja was that the
widow should receive 800 rupees a month after his death.
When he died, that sum was offered to the Ra-
nee, the surviving widow, but she refused to
receive it, stating it was inadequate. In conse-
quence of the opinion so entertained by her,
tne 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 now 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 Caruso, 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 he- insufficient. My Honourable
Friend is mistaken when he says that there
was no understanding with reference to this
12,0001., or that if the 12,0001. 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
he 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 Lard Falkland —in
a hich these words occur: " The Government deem it
necessary to state that theyhave gone into the whole
claim advanced by the ex-Raja," that is with reference
to his private property, "and they think his claims
should be declared inadmissible, except that which relates
to property, which can be shown to have belonged to
him privately. The 120,000 rupees, therefore, IN hich 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-Raja.
In fact, I know ho 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., ail things con-
sidered.together, was thought 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 reigninz Raja, the
brother who succeeded him, complained that when he
went to Benares 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 Falkland, declared this
claim to be inadmissible. Having said thus much,
I will inform my Honourable Friend in public what I
have already told him in private, namely, that I think
this claim should be re-inquired into as far as pos-
sible, and I have written privately to Lord Falk-
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 my 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 I do not agree with the Bombay
Government with regard to the allowance to the family
of the Ranee of Sattara, and this will be seen by the
papers.