The Sun.
London, England, 1825-04-01 00:00:00

THE DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ASIATIC JOURNAL.
"SIR—To withhold a debt justly due, is to inflict a manifest
injury. On this principle, what must be the general feeling,
in reflecting upon the injustice done to the Deccan Army of
1817, who have not yet received a single fraction on account of
the immense property captured there in that year, and the be-
ginning of 1818 ; though th.. revenue of the East India Com-
pany was increased four millions a year by their sweat and
blood ! Some man, or set of men, must have defeated the ends
for which the generous Kings of England resigned their power
over prize-money. But surely the Government of India ought
to have taken care that the reward of toil and 'duty was not con-
verted into a subject of complaint and regret.

Eight years have now elapsed since we performed the services
to which I have ventured to draw your attention. Many, very
many, of the brave spirits, who then thirsted for &Me, and
panted beneath the burning sun, now lie unconscious of the
debt due to them. Some of these have terminated life with
their own hands, under the pressure of poverty and the destitu-
tion of half-pay. If the Deccan prize-money had been issued
in due course, all these would still be busy anti brave menbers
of the community ; as well as those who have sunk, pining in
solitude, under disappointment and blighted expectation: The
injury cannot now be remedied ; but what is possible may be
done immediately. The first payment may be made, as a small
recompense for the detention of the whole, and the deprivation
of its use for a period in which interest would nearly equal
principal.
Ido not know any medium through which this subject can
he pressed more properly than the pages of your Journal, de-
voted, as it usefully is, to topics connected with the British
Empire in the East. I trust it is one which also merits your
particular attention ; and that you will not cease to revive i
until public justice shall bate been done to the suffering par
ties, of whom, Sir, I am

London, March 12, 1823.

AN INDIVIDUAL.

TO THE EDITOR Or THE A SIA TIC JOURNAL.

Stu—The subject of the prize-money due to the victorious
army of the Deccan has, I am happy to observe, at length at-
tracted public attention. Various representations have been
made in the Newspapers respecting it, but they are much at
variance. and we are yet without any explanation that appears
to emanate from authority. If the Government of this coun-
try, or the East-India Company (for itis uncertain upon which
party the blame of delay rests) were sensible of the. injury the
delay has already produced, and the necessity of tranquillizing
the minds of the claimants, in this country •and in India, some
explanation would, I think, ere this have been published.
With the hope that this letter may meet the eyes of those
who are able to accelerate the business, I beg leave to request
its insertion in your Journal.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
E. T.

We are glad of an opportunity to make a few remarks upon
this painful subject.
The facts of the case (which has been muth.misrepresented)
are these :—The Army of the Deccan, in 1817 and 'IMO, cap-
tured treasure, guns, stores, and other booty, to the amount,
it is said, of five millions sterling. This property wax at the
disposal of the Crown,- and his Majesty appointed trustees
(one of whom* was the Duke of Wellington) to receive the prize
property from the servants of the Company, whose conttoul
over it instantly ceased, to realize it, and distribute it amongst
the captors: But an obstacle arose out of the conflicting claims
of the ,hlarquis of Hastings and Sir Thos. Hislop, which 'were
referred to the consideration of the Lords 'of the Treasury, by
whom the question has but recentlyt been determined. Another
question likewise occurred, as to what property was to be deem-
ed prize—a large proportion of the captures being, we under.:
stand, liable to litigation on.this-ground-- This-question; we
believe, is still undecided by the Treasury.
That delay in xuch circumstances is unavoidable, must be
apparent : a delay of seven years is, however, far too long;
and a fault, we think, must be imputable somewhere., It -has
been asserted that the Company have admitted only a small
portion of the claims, and have paid nothing; but if this were
the fact, would the Crown hesitate to enforce payment, espe-
cially as the King's regiments are, equally with the Company's
troops, debarred of their prize-money ? As the has as..
sinned the controul over this property, transferred it to its own
servants, referred all matters in dispute to its -own Board of
Treasury, and has ample power to enforce obedience to its de-
crees, it appears to us that even if the Company were so impo-
litic and unjust as to procrastinate payment, the charge of delay
ought still to rest elsewhere.
We sincerely commiserate oar correspondents and their fel-
low-sufferers ; and we hope the money will speedily be paid, or
that a very satisfactory reason will be assigned for Withholding
it."—( The Asiatic Journal.)

• The other the Right Hon. C. Arbuthnot.
The claims of Sir Thomas Hislop and Lord Hastings
were decided by the Lords of the Treasury in February, 1823
servants possessed themselves, &c. remain uncle-
Since then all the other questions which have arisen, on -the
their civil
although they were delivered in
claims of the East India Company to the property of which
having been brought either before the Lords of the
Trustees Irnudstitar;GC°iamtteelaYn'ttunn of 1023 i—EDITOk.
Treasury or the Privy Council. It is even said, that the second
and third claims of the Army have not yet been made known
t 0
00
thethe two.

MR. C. B. SHERIDAN'S REPLY
TO MR. E. PALMER.

,`

TO TILE EDITOR.
Duke-street, St. JaLTICSi4.

Strt—Permit me to request the insertion of
some remarks on a letter, signed "Edward Painter;" which I
have read in to-day's Morning Chronicle. I will nuraher.fhi

clauses I quote.
" (1) The money received at the doors for admission was
most certainly received by the family, sis.stated by Mr. Duna t
but (2) the ticket.triney; including presents (one from the rel.-
sent Countessof Derby for fifty pounds), was'received:by Mr.
Fosbrook, who is still living, and resides within a fell, doors
of the White Swan, Kennington-Common, and itl. by W.
into the hands of Mr. Sheridan. I beg leave to state further,
that (3) Mr. Sheridan, a few days previous to his death, ac-
knowledged the debt in the presence of my sister Isabella, who,
as well as my sister Lucretia, never received the money. and
(4) sent his son, who is still living, into the drawing- room of
No. 14, Saville-row, Btalington-gardens,- to say it should be
paid ; which I assure you, Sir, was-never the case."
No. 1 refers to Mr. Palmer"SaSsertion before the Lord Mayor
—" Mr. Sheridan was-at that time the proprietor, and we got
nothing of (1w receipts,'' 'and requires no comment.
No. 2 will be answered by the subjoined note froth Mi.
Fosbrook.
No. 3 by that from Mr. Bradley, my father's medical at.
tendant.
No. 4 I declare to be utterly false, and my memory cannot
betray me ; for so unusual a departure from my father's inva-
riable delicacy and reserve towards me about his affitirs would
have made the deepest impression on my mind.
Dr. Bain, the surviving physician who attended my father,
and Mr. Dunn, not being in London, I am too anxious for the
immediate publication of this letter to lose time by applying to
them. I am, Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
C. B. SHERIDAN.
Mlt. FOSBROOK'S NOTE.
Kennington, March 31.
" SIR—In answer to your question, I beg to state that the
money taken by me at the Box Book Office on the benefit
given to Mr. Palmer's family, was paid, not into Mr. Sheri-
dan's hands, but into the Drury-lane Treasury, with a regular
account of the same, as is the invariable custom on all benefit
nights. Mrs. Collier, sister to Mr. Edward Palmer, called
here on the appearance of Mr. Dunn's contradiction, to speak
with.me on the subject, when being unable to see her myself, I
directed my niece to state to her what I have written above,
which was done.

March 31.

" I au your obedient Servant,
" J. FOSBROOK."

To C. B. Sheridan, Esq.
LETTER FROM MR. BRADLEY TO MR. C.D.SIIERIDAN.

" John-street, Berkeley-square.
" MY DEAR SIR—As regards the assertion of Mr. Palmer's
sister, Isabella, having personally received an acknowledgment
of the debt from your late father, I conceive there must be some
mistake. To the best of my recollection Mr. Sheridan was not
in a state to have had any one introduced to him upon busi-
ness, nor was any person admitted to his room, except a few
of his most intimate friends, for at least two months or Inure
previous to his decease. " I am, my dear Sir,
" Yours truly obliged,
" Thursday Noon. "J. BRADLEY."
LETTER FROM MR. flung F.Si.

" Curzon-street, March 31,

" Sir—ln answer to your enquiry, whether any claim from
the children or representatives of the late Mr. John Paline.,
upon the late Mr. Sheridan, was sent to' me in consequence of
an advertisement in the newspapers by me, 1 beg leave to in-
form you, that 1 have looked amongst the papers and list con-
taining the claims at that time admitted to be correct, and I do
not find any 'elating to Mr. John Palmer, or. his family. If
such claim had been made, I should have rejected it from my
knowledge that nothing was due upon that account, and in that
case, the paper or letter making such claim, would have been
returned. " I have the honour to be, Sir,
• •

- • "'Your most obedient servant,
". HENRY BURGESS."
" To Charles Brinsley Sheridan, Esq."