The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-24 00:00:00

PRIVY C0T1.VC1L.—.417E.11..
letrCirridllAlf, •PPELLANT € THE Hplf. I'VE EAST Mira
COMPANY, RESPONDENTS. •
Yesterday his Majesty's Privy Guano!, aitsing as a Court 4
Appeal, proceeded to consider the appeal of James Silk Bochiqg-
barn, Esq. against certain rules, ordinance', and regulatione, otaste
and issued by the Governor.Getteral and Cuenca cd Rat .tiS'illiasie
in Bengal.
The COSMO], SERGEANT and Mr. JOHN WILI.I4II4WeII
Counsel for the appellant, and Mt. Sergeant Boeser, (attar, )L.
Sergeant Seerete, Mr. Bittetetueat, end Mr. TINDAL, tart
reepondenta.
MY DENMAN was first herod on behelf of the apperlane.. .Tl. i.
Learned Sergeant stated that the individual :or whom be appeatyt
before their Lordships had been deprived, by the regulation ec
which he complained, of a convict-stable property, aced had been
dnced from a state of comparative affluence to one of eoaileuesies
poverty. The case before their Lordship* was one of peculiar ii..
tercet. Mr. Buckingham did not cura.ider himself only as ae.
grieved, but that a large class of his Majesty's subjeca were Irv,:
vented by the regulatinn against which he appealed from enjayeeg
the great privileges of the English Constitution, Their Lorceuipe
would remember that they had a duty to perform, as sulorati and
as Important as they had ever yet performed, because it L.volvsst
the peace, and the interest., and the liberties of so owl smiler), r
of their fellow subjects. The regulation of the 4th of Aped •
the regulation against which Mr. Buckingham appealed. was li,t
the act of any Governor-Generel of India who had been mitt- 0.4 •:*
from this country ; it was not the act of that inustsi.wa. sublet:ter.
the course of whose reign in India was moat herieticad and motet glorious. No, Lord listings bad Lye:seed that the pressshou:d , •
be free; that all restriction* tepon it should be removed; that it
should be governed or.ly by the laws, and that the strong band of
power should not be stretched over it. Nor was it the act of me
Lord Wellesley, nor that of any Governor whose long acquaintance
with the country had enabled him to knew hoe India ought to Le
governed. But soon after Lord -11aetings had retired from otllce,
during the abort interval between that perimi and the arrival of his
successor, Mr. Adam, who was invested with a temporary power,.
thought proper to issue an order which aas equally at variance
with the interests of India and of this country. He (Mr. Dennean)
had not then to contend with a great authority, but simple with
one who was vested with power, as it were by accident, and wto
had been guided by a policy irreconeileable with precadingand pre-,
sent regulations. Sir Francis 111•Naughten had stated that he had
taken no part in framing the resolutions complained of, but that
when they were framed and he was asked to look at them, he twice
refused so to do, although when a third time asked be consented.
Now Sir Francis 31•Naughten was at that time the only Judge it.
Calcutta, When he was • third time shown the regulations, he
looked at them and then said he would approve of them. It was
to be regretted that he bad so done, because after so doing he could
not come so free into CoUrt as he ought to have been, to the cote:-
deration of a question of such vital importance. So that in feet
his Lordship bad given his judgment before he came into Court,
and consequently the able arguments of Mr. Ferguson and Mr.
Turton, who argued against the resolution, were in a great
degree thrown away. But Sir Francis 111‘Naughten bad
said that there was no intention to prevent the licence of
any paper, and that every paper should be licensed ; yet the
licence was withheld front the Calcutta Journal, notwithstand-
ing that that paper had been previously licensed. And although
this revocation of bin licence had ruined Mr. Buckingham, Sir F.
111`Naughten did not step forward toatate his complaint with teal or
energy, or to object to this abuse of a regulation which be had
sanctioned. But it had appeared that the East India Company
itself had sanctioned those regulations, and itt the paper their Com-
pany had sent in to their 'amidships, a complete history of the
charters of the East India Company, that of William 111., that of
George 1., and that of George IL, was given, in order to prove
that by those charters they were empowered to make such regula-
tions. But by all charters a power was given to make regulations.
provided that such regulations were not repugnant to the isw of
England. The regulation of which Mr. Buckingham complained,
and against which he appealed, that of the 4th of A ptil, 1823,
stated, that " no paper shall be published in Bengal without a
licence from the Governor. and that the Governor in Council shall
'-e empowered to resume and recal any licence so granted, whenever
Ire shall think tit so to do." Ile would now proceed to canvass the
reasons which had produced the regulation in question, as those
reasons were stated in the paper laid before their Lordships.
The Court of Directors say, in the first place. that this " rule,
ordinance, and regulation of the 14th March, 1823, ought not to be
set aside, because it was made by competent authority." This was
, not denied, but the paper proceeded to state that it was " rendered
necessary by the abuses to which the unrestrained liberty of printing
had given rise in Calcutta." Now one would naturally expect that
some facts would have been stated in support of this assertion, and
that it would have been explained what those abuses really were.
Such, however, was not the case; and lie, (Mr. D.) was instructed
to state, that against the Calcutta Journal, which appeared to be
the object especially attacked by the regulation, only two actions
bad ever been brought. In one of them the proprietor had beers
acquitted, and in the second case, judgment was suspended, and at
the present moment remains hanging over the proprietor's head ;so -
that the Calcutta Journal, at least, had not been guilty of abuses,
nor was it imagined that other papers had been any more so. The
very preamble of the regulation states—
" The preamble of the said rule, ordinaace, and regutation,
states, that matters tending to bring the Government of Bengal, ae
by law established, into hatred and contempt, and to disturb the
peace, harmony, and good order of society, had recently, before
the making thereof, been printed and circulated in newspapers and
other papers published in Calcutta. The effect of such publica-
tions, in a country where the British rule con:essedly depends upon
the opinion entertained by the (rehires of its power, is too obvious
to require any comment : prevention alone can obviate the evil
punishment by process of law comes too late,"
But we question the matter of fact of the preamble, as we do the
justice of the regulation. " Prevention alone can obviate the
evil, and punishment by process of law conies too late." lie
would say that such a regulation did not prevent the evil; but
certainly prevented all the good that might arise from the press.
Was it just, was it wise, to say that because it had, been abused,
they were warranted in the prevention—to say that because the
branches had become too luxurirnt, the tree should be rooted up ?
Was it not against all the principles of justice and of policy ? V.'here
could such a system end, but in preventing printing altogether?
The second reason of the Court of Directors, why this regulation of
the 14th 3larch, 1823, should not be set aside, was a somewhat
singular one:—
" Because the nature and circumstances of the British Estab.
lishmenta in India have required, and the Royal Charters and
Acts of Parliament, under which they have been regulated, have
sanctioned a control over the conduct, and a restraint of the free.
dote of British subjects while resident in the territories subject to
die government of the East India Company, unknown to any other
foreign dependencies of this country. Even the resort of British
subjects to India, and their right to reside there, have with.few
exceptions been placed in the discretion of the East Indict:oNa-
, panty:,
' he paper then proceeds to state—
" That the restrictions imposed by the rale, ordinance,'and re-
gulation, which is the eubject of appeal, were called fur by the
state of affairs in the settlement of Bengal, and wcre adapted to the
exigency of the case, and that they were not injurious to hialMa.
jesty's subjects in the acid settlement, is to be inferred from the
concurrent judgment of the Supreme Government of the •Eart
India Company and of the Supreme Court of his alajerg. is
incumbent upon the appellant who impeaches the regulatirs to
manifest the impolicy or injustice of then., to the satisfaction of Ins
.31ajeety in Council.
Ile thought the burthen of proof was improperly and unjustly
cast upon the appellant, who was thus called upon to prase a nega-
tive; and lie apprehended that their Lordships would rather tea
upon the respondents to prove what the abuses were and the cilia
produced by their). Ile would contend that the regulations which
were recommended by Mr. Adam. and his two or three coadjutor.
in counsel were not necessary, or they would have been adopted by
the Marquis of Beatings, who was quite as good a judge of what
Vial fit and politic for India, as those who made the regulations
the moment his back was turned. The third reason as stated-was—
" Because the said rule, ordinance, and regulation bad become
more particularly necessary to the good order and civil goverpment
of the Presidency of Fort-William, in Bengal, in consequhnce of
the removal of the practical security against the systematic abuse
and licentiousness of the press, which had existed while printing
was exercised only by British subjects of hie Majesty, residing itt
India by permission of the East India Compnny and its Ookere-
ments, and by the censorship to which the publication oh news-
papers hail been subject. Thirst security ceased, when Wren des •
covered that the ostensible conduct and legal responsibility of such
publications might be transferred to persons of a different dercrip.
tion, natives or others, not liable to the restraints imposed by law
upon the British subjects of his 31ajesty in India."
The fourth and last reason was one that called for more length.
coed comments. It ran o.us—
“ Because the restrictions in question are not repugnant to acv
law of the realm upon the subject. The Legislature of England
has often interfered, by imposing restraints noon printing, more Sc
less rigid. Some are now in existence : and by virtue of the sta.
totes empowering the Indian Governments to make regulations,
they may provide for cases unprovided for by the laws of England,
as the welfare of the settlement may require.
."Fhey may make ordinances praicr, but riot contra lrgern,
provided they be reasonable ; and then reasonable:tees must depend
upon the circumstances and situation of the country to which they
are applied. " J. B. BOS.ANQUET,
" R. SPANKIE,
" 11. BROUGHAM,
" N. C. TINDAL."
Now certainly, in England laws did once exist, which prod re-
straints over printing—laws against which Milton raised pow-
erful and eloquent voice; but they became alinelostiopi:lri sthe
x
e during
reign of King Charles Ile and were sefre
but it was strange
that of William 111. No doubt they.
equal
are
reasoning
oto erhicod whenu thati.ur
oia:potirnhti regulatione: this
mighto ectorwyiu;np‘
ritb,.o,otwrh..
ar
proclamation
ni
was
i;■
shameful.) ik. etoe follow,
cwrnoswa from thetc:otruiti
voe;fe
rpoiopubtrt:fieg:::E:eseirlennf:
les
je
atnbdidales.:
force of an Act of Parliament.
f
rsl was
ve laws
e
ivil
came footfrywaambnrdlit zt
ret s
cst:Oehohueeph rr fl:'PMediVr vres: e! snhi:eenntrae"eitCliii e.nairn3:edYito•C
withoutNUCaCthnliealYrB( suchl:°awr tmaleseAar the
pretence.ai:rnt e-"hUtsteru:PeectrposiAllusion had been a
re-
grievousre-
peatedly made to certain acts mooed in the reign of his late Ma.
testy, and which were said to be perfectly analogous to the tat
regulation in India. These Acts were passed white tumults