HC Deb 12 August 1850 vol 113 cc1026-8
MR. HUME

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control what provision had been made for the widow and adopted son of the late Pertaub Singh, Rajah 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 his disposal.

SIR J. HOBHOUSE

said, the question put to him by his hon. Friend was in a great degree answered by the paper to which he had alluded, that was to say, with reference to the provision the Government proposed to make for the widow and the adopted son of the late Pertaub Singh, Rajah of Sattara. His hon. Friend was aware that when Sir James Carnac first of all made a statement of the provision intended for the family of the ex-Rajah, the statement given to the deposed Rajah was that the widow should receive 800 rupees a month. When he died, that sum was offered to the ranee, the surviving widow, but she refused to receive it, stating it was inadequate. In consequence 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 his hon. Friend had now stated, the sum which had been fixed on for the maintenance of the surviving widow and adopted son was exactly three times the amount which was fixed on by the administration of Sir James Carnac, when he made his first arrangement. Whether that sum was sufficient or not, admitted of question; but no person could say that sufficient attention had not been paid to this subject, when exactly three times the amount of allowance which was originally proposed by Sir James Carnac had been fixed on for the maintenance of the surviving widow and the adopted son. Indeed it was not until the death of the ex-Rajah that the sum was said to be insufficient. His hon. Friend was mistaken when he had stated that there was no understanding with reference to this 12,000l., or that if the 12,000l. a year were allowed that it should be in full of all demands, for he held in his hand a copy of a letter which might 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 the Earl of Auckland, in which these words occurred:— The Government deem it necessary to state that they have 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 inadmissible, except that which relates to private property which can be shown to have belonged to him. The 120,000 rupees, therefore, which are to be paid to him, that is, the 12,0001. a year, for himself and family, 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 would be seen, as he had stated, amongst the Parliamentary Papers, and which was communicated to the ex-Rajah. In fact, he knew that he was cognisant of it and of the whole arrangement that was made, not only with himself, but with all the other parties, for he happened at the time to hold the same place that he now did, and he remembered that the 12,000l., all things considered together, was thought to be adequate provision. With respect to the other part of the question, that there was a guarantee, he begged to tell him that there was no guarantee, none whatever, with respect to the private property of the Rajah. The only understanding that he ever heard of was, that whatever he could prove to be his private property he should have; and his hon. Friend must be quite aware of this, that the reigning Rajah, the brother who succeeded him, complained when he went to Benares that the ex-Rajah took away with him more than was his private property, both in jewels and in money. The claim was examined by the Secretary to the Bombay Government, and he as well as the Earl of Auckland declared the claim to he inadmissible. Having said thus much, he would inform his hon. Friend publicly, as he had already told him in private, that he thought this claim should be re-inquired into, and he had written to India, stating what his views were. It was probable that when that letter was received, it would be acted upon. His hon. Friend was aware that he did not agree with the Government of Bengal on this subject.