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

bertson, who was, be believed, the political agent of the
Company at Poonah. That officer had, it appeared, con-
sidered the various circumstances connected with the owner-
ship of this treasure ; but he would say that nothing ap-
peared to him more unsatisfactory than this part. of the
ease. Captain Robertson, by what he conceit ed to be
justifiable means, procured a knowledge and got posses-
sion of a very large treasure. Captain Robertson
expressed his opinion that the treasure was not in Poonah
at the time of its capture. Now be would not say whether
that opinion was correct or not, or whether Captain Ro
bertson's judgment was right or wrong ; but it was very
evident that this circumstance heightened the difficulty of
the case. In consequence of this statement, the East India
Company interposed, and relying on the opinion of their
own agent, they claimed the treasure as an arrear of tribute.
This threw another difficulty in the way of decision. At
length on the Ist of March, 1823, a minute of Treasury
was promulgated, which laid down this principle—that with
reference to the money discovered at Poonah, it could only
be &aimed by Sir L.Smith, if it were in Poonali at the time
that pl ce was captured ; and in January, 1826, another
minute was agreed to, which recognized the principle con-
tamed in the former. No doubt, therefore, could exi•t as
to the principle on which the case was to be decided;
and it was incumbent en Sir Lionel Smith to make out
the affirmative proposition, namely, that the treasure was
in Poonah at the time of its capture. This teas a diffis
ruby which opposed itself, not only to Sir Lionel Smith,
hut to every claimant in this case. The principle laid
down in 1823, and recognized in 1826, remained unal-
tered ; and although he felt the difficulties which this
gallant officer had to encounter in making out an affirma-
tive case, still it was imperative on him to do so. The
gallant officer had had recourse to the evidence procured
subsequently by Captain Robertson, to substantiate his
claim. He was sorry that the gallant officer had adopted
such evidence. If it were English evidence, he could not
but view it with doubt and suspicion, and he felt still
more doubt and suspicion when he considered that it was
Indian. The vice voce evidence was supported by what
was called documentary evidence. It was not what, in
this country, would be called documentary evidence.—
Then, he would ask,„,if Sir Lionel Smith had not made
out his elaim, and it rested with him to prove the affirma-
tive, was this money never to be divided?—(Hear, hear,)
If they argued that there was a probable case for Sir
Lionel Smith, that there was a probability that the trea-
sure was in Poonali when that place was taken, might it
riot also he argued, as was asserted by Colonel Protheroe,
that it was removed from the fort of Reighur when that
post was surrendered ? Was it not probable that Narrolra,
when he proceeded to Poonah, thought, that in thus
placing himself in the lion's jaws he would remove all
suspicion as to his wealth ? Having taken such a step,
was it not likely that he would remove his treasures
with him ? But whilst he lamented the difficul-
ties with which the case was surrounded, he would
ask, must not those difficulties be removed ? And if so,
by whom were they to be removed ? Certainly, by Sir
Lionel Smith. The place was captured on the 17th of
November, 1817, and it rested with the claimant to make
out his exclusive claim to this treasure, by showing it
was in Poonali when the garrison surrendered. Where,
be would ask, were these inquiries, which had lasted so
many ears, to end ? He would not object to fur then in-
finity, if he could at all see his way out of it,—if those
who demanded it would declare what parties were here-
after to be examined, and would give them an idea as to
the credibility which might be attached to their evidence.
What testimony were they likely to procure at Poonah,
in 1833 or 1834, that was likely to outweigh what was
given at the time, and when the British power was para-
mount there?

Sir J. MALCOLM said, independent of the command
which he himself had held under Sir Thomas Ilialop, in
the Deccan army, he also held a situation at the head-
quarters, which entitled him to a share in the prize money
as well as the petitioners. Bat as it was a mere personal
claim, he had not pressed it; and the more especially as
he had been made Governor of Bombay. He had resided
for a considerable time at Poonah, and was conversant
with the evidence there given upon this subject. The
Hen. Member for Br sport had said Captain Robertson
had a direct interest in procuring this money, because he
would receive five per cent. for all be succeeded in reco-
vering. That, however, was not possible, because, as a
public officer, he was bound to adopt every means to reco-
ver the money that appeared to belong to the Government
fur :t•hich he acted, uninfluenced by any reward or motive
beyond the actual pay which he received. Captain Ro-
bertson was a ma❑ of too much honour and integrity to
do any thing which could be fairly censured. With re-
spect to Sir Lionel Smith, be got together the best evi-
dence that could be collected at the time. Tee Solicieor.
General said Sir Lionel Smith should prove the affirma-
tive. Now he (Sir J. Malcolm) conceived that Sir Lionel
Smith had, so far as it was possible, proved the affirma-
tive. The Solicitor-General also observed, that he felt
strong doubts as to whether the treasure was or was not
in Poonah at the time that place was taken. NOW he
looked upon the existence of these doubts as the strongest
part of Sir Lionel Smith's case ; because, where these
eloabta existed, they might be very fairly supposed to ex-
cite doubts in the minds of others as to whether the Go.
Yen-orient was about to make a just decisio❑ or not. Look-
ing to the evidence, the impression on his mind certainly.
was-, that the treasure was in Poonah at the time the place
was captured.
Lord ALTHORP soh', in this case a solemn appeal had
been lodged before the Privy Council ; and the question for
the Government was, whether, this appeal having beet,
lodged, it was proper to proceed with the distribution of
the Ariz -mosey' Under the peculiar circumstances, it
appeared. to hint it would be wrong to go on with the dis.
tribution—(Hear, hear)—and therefore he would not :e
sist the lion. Members' proposed motion for an address to
the Crown.—(flear, hear.) He thought it only consi,
tent with justice that the appeal should be decided before
the distribution took place.
Mr. HLTME proceeded to refer to the conduct of Cap-
tain Robertson after the capture of Poonah. He stated
that Captain Robertson took Narroba, threw him into
prison, put his clerk in irons, and, in fine, practised upon
him every species of cruelty, until he at length induced
him, sooner than part is ith his life, to give up this trea-
sure. The 1-lon. Member proceeded to say, that nothing
more atrocious than the conduct practised by Captain Ro-
bertson in this instance was to he found in the history of
human tyranny. It appeared to hint (Mr. Hume) that
there ought to be a revision and a re-consideration of this
ease, in order to determine, not whether this or that party
was entitled to the division of this money, but whether in
justice and i❑ honesty it should not revert to the party
from whom it had be,n originally taken. The Solicitor-
Gtneral had said that the question was, whether one or
both of the armies was to have this sum divided amongst
them, but lie (Mr. Hume) would say that neither of them
ahould have it if they were not entitled to it. It was only
oecessary to refer to the language employed by Sir Ed-
ward West in pronouncing the judgment of the Supreme
Court of Bombay upon this case, to see the manner, the
illegal and tyraunical manner, in which this property had
been obtained from the unfortunate Narroba. Sir E. West
in pronouncing the judgment of the Court eta that occa-
sion, said, that the only question for the Court to decide,
in order to bring the matter within its jurisdiction, wa-,
whether this money had been the private property of Nar-
roba, or the public property of the Peishwah, and that it
was to be inferred that it was the property of the latter,
not only from the fact of Narroba having been the private
treasurer of the Peishwah up to the peace, but also from
the confessions which had been obtained from Narroba in
prison—by, however, the tuo3t illegal and unwarrantable
means. Upon that occasion the King's Court of Bom-
bay, after hearing all the evidence, solemnly decided
against the claims of the Hon. Stuart Elplanstone and
Captain Dundas Robertson. An appeal from that judg-
ment was transmitted to the Privy Council, and Lord
Tenterden, in pronouncing the decision of the Privy
Council with regard to it, recommending the Crown to
reverse that judgment, grounded that decision upon the
incompetency of the Court of Bombay to entertain the
case, and upon what he stated to be the fact, namely, that
this booty had been captured in a perfectly hostile man-
ner, non flagrant; sed nondum cessante bell°, though
seven or eight months had elapsed from the capture of
Poonah up to the time when this treasure was seizol.
hoped, therefore, that it was not too late to give a hearing
to the case of the unfortunate Narroba before the Privy
Council, that its merits would be fully investigated, and
that justice would at length be done in a case of such in-
justice and oppression.
Colonel SIBTHORPE did not object to the motion of
the Hon. Member for Bridport, but he really was of opi-
nion that the Noble Lord opposite should now fix a time,
beyond which the claimants should no longer be kept out
of their money.
Colonel EVANS maintained that the Marquis of Hast-
ings had not the slightest claim to any Fortiori of this booty
ay Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief of
the army of the Deccan, by a division of which the capture
of Poonah was tfected, will Sir Thomas Ilislop. The
lion. Member concluded by asserting that, according to
all the evidence, Sir Thomas Hislop had as good a right
to be considered the c•ons'ructive captor, as Sir Lionel
Smith was acknowledged to be the actual captor of the
booty in question.
Lord ALTHORP apprehended that there could lie no
doubt whatever that the Maiquis of Hastings was the
Couatuander•in-Chief cf the whole army on this occasion.