RAJAH OF SATTARA. (Hansard, 27 February 1849)

§ MR. HUME
rose to move— For a Return of the amount of money paid for the maintenance of the family of the late 1330 Purtaub Shean, the late Rajah of Sattara, since his death, and the dates on which the payments were made. The hon. Member said, on the authority of letters which he held in his hand, that when the British Government resolved to remove the Rajah, an assurance was given that if he lived quietly, and conformed to the wishes of the East India Company, all his private property would be surrendered. But no portion of it had ever been paid to him or his heirs. Orders had been given to make certain payments to Purtaub Shean. He (Mr. Hume) was told that the Government had offered money to his family; but that the Ranee would not grant the proper receipt. The fact, however, was that the money which had been promised had not been paid. He wished to know why that infraction of public faith had taken place?

§ MR. G. THOMPSON
seconded the Motion.

§ SIR J. C. HOBHOUSE
observed, that his hon. Friend on more than one occasion had stated that a stipulated sum was agreed to be paid on account of the Rajah of Sattara. On the death of Purtaub Shean it was resolved that a certain portion of that sum should be given to his family; and, to show his hon. Friend that what he stated last year was founded entirely on fact, he begged to read an extract of a letter from the Governor General on the subject. The Earl of Dalhousie said— I fully concur with you in your opinion, that the family should be treated with ample liberality. We have done so by the Ex-Rajah and his people. 50,000 rupees were given for his funeral expenses, 2,500 rupees for the monthly support of his family and supporters, till a final settlement was made. The Ranee refused to receive the 50,000 rupees unless we received a receipt signed by the boy, as representing the ex-Rajah; and she would not receive any money unless the whole allowed to the ex-Rajah was continued to the boy. Of course we refused to pay the 50,000 rupees, and she would not have the other. Ultimately the daughter has been allowed 1,756 rupees a month from the date of the ex-Rajah's death to the 1st of July, paying all the retainers; on the 1st of July this allowance to cease, the retainers to look out for themselves, as it appeared that only a few of them came from Sattara with the ex-Rajah. The daughter will have her own allowance of 500 rupees a month, and her travelling expenses to Sattara when she goes. The old Ranee has her 800 rupees, which she would not receive. This is the course that has been pursued with the ex-Rajah's family. That letter was dated the 7th of August, and he had not had any communication since, except to the effect that the Ranee had refused to receive the money. He 1331 could assure his hon. Friend that there was every disposition on the part of the Governor General of India to act with the greatest liberality to the family of the Rajah, and to provide, as far as possible, for their comfort.

§ MR. G. THOMPSON
inquired whether, in the event of a manifestation of willingness on the part of the family of Purtaub Shean to receive the money, there would be any indisposition on the part of the Government to pay the arrears? The family was involved in great embarrassment, with a large number of retainers. They had not received the money simply because they thought it would compromise their rights. He had given a contrary opinion, and thought that, without any compromise, they could fairly accept what had been kindly and generously offered.

§ SIR J. W. HOGG
must be permitted to observe that the disposition to provide for the family of the deceased Rajah of Sattara was just as strong on the part of the local Government as it was on the part of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) and of the Court of Directors. But what he would ask, was the use of discussing the question which had now been raised, when they had no despatches as to what had been done in the matter? He repeated, that there was every disposition on the part of the local Government to give a fair, liberal, and immediate consideration to the claims of the family.

§ MR. HUME
observed, that the order of the Court of Directors was dated in June, 1846, and up to January nothing had been done. The family, therefore, remained in a state of starvation. Good intentions might exist, but intentions would not feed the hungry.

§ SIR J. W. HOGG
protested against accusations, which involved the local Government being brought on the authority of letters taken out of the pocket of an hon. Member, in the absence of official information.