The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-07 00:00:00

the time of the capture
mitted other evidence, not
that of the Secretary of
was stated that 500,000 rt.,
in the hands of native bankers at Pooaah, at the ie of
its actual capture. So that there were 1,300,000 rupees
in all, which the captors claimed, as being in Poonah at
the time of the capture. The petitioners complained that
when the evidence was sent to the law officers, it was &Tan
pauied with comments auto some parts made by the Solicitor
to the Treasury. Now, if the evidenee were referred to the
law officers of the Crown as Counsel, an opportunity should
have been given for employing Counsel on the other side.
He now came to the comments themselves. One of th
objections made in them was, that declarations were not
made by the native bankers themselves, but by their chief
clerks or agents. He apprehended, however, that the ob-
jection could not be maintained. It was next objected
that Captain Robertson ought not to have been the party-
before whom these declarations should have been sworn.,
This objection, he also contended, was not a fair one.—
The next objection was, that the evidence was not suffi-
ciently particular as to the time of the money being left
with the native bankers, and the date of its discovery; but
this, he contended, ought to have been received a ith great
allowance in favour of the claimants. The last objection
was curious in itself. It was, that the principal parts of
the evidence relied upon was Indian evidence. Why, front
the nature of the transaction, it could rest on no other for
the most part. If this were made a ground of objection, it
might as well be said at once that all evidence should be
rejected, and that the money should be divided amongst
the whole Indian army. Under all these difficulties, what
did Sir L. Smith do ? The Treasury had decided that
the treasure found at Poonah should be divided amongst
the Indian army engaged in the campaign of 1817, unless
it could be shown that the treasure was in Poonah at the
time of the actual capture, of which proof was to be ad-
duced by the parties claiming. On the 10th of November,
1831, Sir L. Smith received a note from the Treasury,
written by their Lordships' command, stating that the evi-
dence transmitted by him had been laid before the law-
officers of the Crown, who bed advised that they bad con-
sidered the evidence as to the booty being " in Poonah at
the time of the surrender; and that although the evi-
dence raised strong doubts whether such might not
have been the fact, yet they were of opinion it
war not so made out as to authorize the distri-
bution to the Deccan army, on the ground of actual
capture." Their Lordships at the same time intimated
that they concurred in this opinion. In the same month
Sir L. Smith presented a memorial to the Treasury, pray-
ing to have a revision of this decision, and to be heard by
counsel, or to have time to adduce farther evidence. This
and a subsequent memorial were without any other effect,
save that an intimation that if Sir L. Smith could pro-
duce any fresh evidence before the time of distribution,
it would be received. It was unnecessary for him (Mr.
Warburton) to point out the difficulty of obtaining any ad-
ditional evidence in so short a time. The petitioners
then sent a memorial, praying to be heard by the King in
Council; but this memorial was not heard, on the ground,
as the petitioners were given to understand, that the Privy
Council had no jurisdiction in the case. On the 23d of
June last, Sir L. Smith received a letter from the Trea•
sury, stating that a distribution was about to be made.
He soon after sent a memorial, praying to he heard as to
the question of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in
his case. Even this was refused; and then came the con-
clusion of the drama, which was, that an order under the
sign manual was issued on the 31st of July, directing the
distribution of the money; and by an order in the Ga-
zette on the 3d instant, it was intimated that the distribu-
tion would begin to-morrow (this day). Now he must con-
tend that this was not fair dealing to the parties whose peti-
tions he was about to present. He thought all the probabi-
lities and presumption were in favour of the petitioners.
He knew it was said that the Privy Council in this case
had no jurisdiction, but this, he maintained, should have
been allowed as a matter of argument, either before the
law officers of the Crown or before the Privy Council
itself. He would maintain that the Privy Council ought
to have jurisdiction in this case, on the same ground as
appeals were made in claims of prize.money, from the
decisions of the Admiralty Courts. But he would further
contend, that if the warrant of 1823 could not be acted
upon without manifest injustice to individuals, as in this
case he maintained it could not, it ought to be revoked. He
thought that much was due to the merits of Sir Lionel
Smith. Independently of the great skill and bravery
which lie displayed throughout the whole of that cam-
paign, great credit was due to him for the address which
he showed in preventing the soldiers from plunder when
they took Poonah. One of the great arguments addressed
to the troops on that occasion was, that their claims would
be amply considered when the distribution of the pi ize-
money took place. If after this, it were now to go forth
to the world, that the claims of officers who had so
exerted themselves should be neglected, it might happen
that on future occasions they might not be so well dis-
posed to undertake the arduous task of restraining their
soldiers in moments of victory. Having stated the case
of Sir L. Smith, he would now call the attention of the
House to that of Sir Thus. Hislop. That gallant officer
complained that great injustice was done to him in
the propesad plan for the distribution of the prize-money.
It was well known that the war, in the course of which
Poonah was captured, was conducted by two separate
armies—the grand army, as it was called, under the com-
mand of the Marquis of Hastings, and the other cared the
army of the Deccan. These were two distinct and sepa-
rate armies under their respective Commanders-in-Chief..
prin-
ciplediv
of constructive capture adopted by the Lords of the
sNi :17 o the
h e capturem y ofo ft
hPe"Dneacheawnaatiloenffcteee,bdusb,yutphoen
4thtle
Treasury, the whole of the grand army was to lie admit-
ted to a participation of the booty found in that place ;
and in this decision the Marquis of Hastings was admitted
to he entitled to 1-Bth of the whole sum as Commander-
in-Chief of the Bengal army. Now this he contended
was unjust to the Commander-in-Chief of the Dec,
can army, for even admitting the principle of eos
strnctive capture, still it should be asked what were
-he commanders of the Bengal and Deccan armies?
The Marquis of Hastings, who at the nearest point had
never been within 300 miles of the operations of the
Deccan army, had left the field altogether long before Sir
Thomas Hislop, and yet Iris executors were allowed about
77,0001. out of the whole produce of the booty.—
Surely, if the doctrine of constructive capture were
admitted, Sir Thomas Hislop, as the Commander-
in-Chief of that army the 4th division of which had
captured Poonah, was entitled to the benefit of it, and
that princip'e was admitted in his case, as far as his beiug
allowed his share, as Commander-in-Chief, of the booty
taken in the daily operation of Dacean army. Nut only
was this proceeding prejudicial to Sir T. Hislop in a pea
.uniary point of view, but it was an act of injustice and nrey
fairnea towards him. Sir Thomas Hislop showed that
there was no combined army; that the statement on that
point was a mere fiction, and he proved that there were
two distinct armies, of one of which he wee the coin
(Dander. The Gazette also affirmed that which the
Lords of the Privy Council, by their aets, denied. He
had now finished his case, and he regretted greatly that it
had not fallen into the hands of some gentleman better able
to do it justice than he was. There were two appeals be-
fore the Privy Council, the object of which was to stay
proceedings under the warrant of distribution. Sir Lionel
Smith demanded a substantive share of the prize-money
captured at Poonah, and Sir Thomas Hislop asserted his
right to recieve the one-eighth of the prize-money cap-
oired by the force which he commanded. In his (Mr.
Warburton's) opinion, no distribution ought to be made
until those gallant officers were heard before that high
court of appeal to which their petitions were addressed.
The petition was then brought up.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, there were, it
this case, two petitions. The one, that of Sir Lienei
wbo claimed a considerable portion of the booty
captured in Poenah by the army under his command in
t 817; the other, that of Sir Thomas Hi,lop, who corn-
olained that injustice had been done to him by the Trea-
sury warrant which gave to the late Marquis of Hastings,
is Commander-in-Chief in India, a very large share of that
'sooty, although the Noble Lord and his army were far 1-c-
-opled from the scene of action. The delay in nettling
this question of prize-money had been much censured, but
there were circumstances connected with it which render, d
helay unavoidable. Antecedently to any warrant for the
i'tribution of the prize-money being promulgated, a most
important question was to be decided, which question, it
must be observed, was not, and could not, he decided until
List year. The assignees of Narroba, who had been the
Minister of the Peishwah of Poonah, claimed the property.
They declared that it ought not to be seized by the army,
because it was the private property of Narroba, to which
his representatives were fairly entitled, under the articlei
f capitulation agreed to at the time of the capture of
l'uonah, those articles specifying that private property
should be respected. It appeared that, on the sixteenth
f November, 1817, Narroba left Poonah, and
:eok the command of the fort of Reighur, Ichich he held
until the May or June following. After the capture of
that fort, by Colonel Protheroe, Narroba returned to Poo-
nab; and it was asserted that the treasure discovered at
Poona h after his return, had, in fact, been surreptitiously
conveyed away from the fort of Iteighur, by Narrobs's at-
.enlants, and was not inToonali at the tittle of its capture.
The treasure was found by an (dim of the name of Ito'