The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-05 00:00:00

PORTUGAL.

Lord PALMERSTON said, that as the debate on the
motion of the Hon. Member for Waterford had listed so
long, and as another important question was about to be
agitated, he would postpone his intended motion, although
he was desirous, for reasons which must be obvious to all,
to bring it on with as little delay as possible. He hoped
he should be able to make his motion on Tuesday next.
his only reason for doubting it arose from the circum-
stance that a motion of great iasportance, by an Hon. and
Learned Friend of his near bins, stood for that day; and
would probably give rise to a long discussion. He would,
however, put it to his lion. Friend, if another day might
not equally suit Isis purpose?
Mr. WILMOT MORTON expressed his readiness to
oblige his Noble Friend, but could not consent to postpone
his motion.

Lord PALMERSTON then deferred his motion to
Thursday next, the 11th of March.
SUPREME COURTS of JUDICATURE at BOMBAY.
Mr. STEWART (of Beverley) rose to move for certain
Papers referring to the interference of the local Govern..
ment with the administration of justice in the Supreme
Court of Bombay. In 1774 or 1775, the ex tortions and
oppressions of some servants of the East India Company
were found to press so very heavily, that Government
was implored to come to the assistance of the people ; and
in consequence of the petitioners setting furth their
grievances, and stating the necessity of their having some
tribunal to protect them, were this and other Courts of
a similar nature established. He also had to observed, that in
1782, Sir Elijah Impey was impeached for a dereliction of
duty, and called to answer for having accepted office in one
of the Company's Courts, he being at that time Chief Justice
in a Supreme Court of Judicature ; and from this be argue,'
that the Government at home had recognised the inde-
pendence of these Courts in India, and acknowledged their
right to exercise a controul over the local authorities. But
lately, he continued, notwithstanding this establishment
of the independence of the Supreme Court of Bombay,
the Government of that Presidency had taken upon it-
self to exercise an authority over its proceedings that
must prove altogether fatal to its independence. The Go-
vernor had addressed a letter to the Judges of that Court,
telling them that they were not to use their own discretion
in the case before them, whatever might be their opinion of
the law. This letter was addressed to Sir John Grant. Ile
would read it to the House.—[The Hon. Gentleman then
read the letter, which has been already before the public.
The object of this communication, it will be recollected,
was to put a stop to farther proceedings in a case wherein
a native of high estate was summoned to appear before the
Supreme Court, and had pleaded in return the privilege
conferred upon him by the promise of the Government,
which exempted him from such attendance.]—The Hun.
Gentleman resumed. The question respecting the juris-
diction of the Court came on in regular course betbre the
Privy Council, and it was decided that the Court was
wrong upon the point of law. But the Privy Council
had not said whether the interference of the local
Government was or was not right; or if it was right,
whether it was made in the most advisable manner. The

correspondence he moved for might perhaps show the Go-
vernment was right; and if it did, this would be a great
satisfaction to the country ; for decidedly a strong feeling
had been excited by some most extraordinary language
which had found its way into the newspapers, and which
was attributed to the Noble Lord at the head of the Board

of Controul. This occurred in a letter stated to have been

addressed by that nobleman to the Governor of Bombay.
In this he (Lord Ellenborough) said, " I believe there is
but one opinion in this country as to the conduct of the
Supreme Court." He differed with the Noble Lord in

this. He apprehended also, that between him (Lord El-
lenborough) and the lion. and Learned Gentleman, and
the Judges of our Courts, a very serious difference would

prevail upon this question. lie doubted if the deeilion of
the Privy Council would be enough to set the matter at
rest for ever-,—he doubted if the question would not again
arise in India—be doubted if future Judges would Le

guided, or consider themselves bound by the decision of
the Privy Council. Some declaratory Act of Parliament
was, he thought, necessary. But, perhaps, in speaking
of this " one opinion," the Noble Lord merely alluded to
his own opinion, fancying that he was the only man in
the country competent to form an opinion cn the subject—
or, perhaps, he alluded to the " one opinion" which was
alone permitted in the Cabinet, all others being com-
pelled to vanish before it. The Noble Lord then pro-
ceeded to say—
" Their law is considered bad law; but then errors in matters
of law are nothing in comparison with those they have committed
in the tenour of their speeches from the bench. Had Sir C.
Chamber; lived, I think he must have been displaced.—
Sir J. Grant seems to have confined himself more strictly
to a legal argument. He may have been led by his erring
Chief: still there is much to censure ni his conduct, and al-
though I think it will probably not he considered necessary to
recall him, his case is by no means decided upon. I our to have
some conversation upon it with the Chancellor in a few days.
We are so much occupied with our Roman Catholic Relief Bill
at present, that we have little time for other matters, however
important : to this circumstance must be attributed the delay
which has occurred on the part of the Law Officers. There was
none in sending the case to them. In the meantime the King
has, on my recommendation, made your Advocate-General (Mr.
Dewar) Chief Justice. 1 advised this appointment, because that
gentleman appears to have shown ability arid discretion during
the late conflict with the Supreme Court, and because he appears
to take a right view of the law, and be on terms of confidence
with you. I thought the putting him over Sir J. Grant's head
wou d do more to notify public opinion than any other measure
I could at once adopt ' • and you have him in action two months
sooner than you could have any other sent from here. 1 hope
this arrangement will be satisfactory to you."
Now it might be difficult to discover the writer's drift;
but if there was any meaning in the passage, it was this—
I send you a fit person to answer our purposes, he will at
once succumb to your authority, and would willingly
make his Court the instrument of oppressing the people.
He hoped, however, the Noble Lord would be disappointed
iu the opinion lie had fornred of this gentleman, who, he
trusted, would not suffer himself to be influenced by pri-
vate feelings or Government patronage, but would distri-
bute justice from his seat with honour and independence.
Next the Noble Lord said
" The Puisne Judge appointed in the room of Sir C. Chem_
hers, is Mr. William Chambers, of the Chancery bar. The Lord
Chancellor has a very good opinion of him ; and generally, I
think, he appeared to have higher claims than any other candi-
date. lie is a gentleman in his manners, and a man of cultivated
mind. He seems to ha, e right notions of his duty, and of the
law which has been so strangely misinterpreted. 11e will rather
support Government than use the authority of the Supreme
Court as a means of raising opposition. At least, if he is not all
this, I have been deceived in him. He will embark in less than
two months. He will probably be knighted before he sails; and
as it will not be right that the Chief Justice alone should not be
knighted, we must consider in what manner that can be best ef-
fected. I believe it may be done by patent; but my present idea
is, to empower you, as Governor, to confer the honour of
Knighthood on Mr. Dewar. This will evidently place the Go-
vernor above the Court. It will mark you out as the King's re_
presentative : you may make the ceremony as imposing as you
please. I have written to the Herald's Office, to know if the
tiring could be done according to precedents."
Was not this, he would ask, opposed to the express in-
tention of the Legislature, and contrary to the Constitu-
tion, as concerning the Courts in this country ; and con-
trary to the practice of all provinces in which justice was
fairly administered ? The Supreme Courts in India had
been made independent of the local authorities, by the
Government at home; and he hoped they would be re-
stored to that independence by a vote of the House. An
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Bankes) had stated, upon a far-
mer occasion, that in one of the succeeding paragraphs
the principal word was, in a copy of the letter sent from
India, review, and not renew, the Charter. He could only
say, that in the copy he had received from India the words
stood as they had been originally published in this country-.
In his opinion, however, it was no matter which of the
two words was used, since the sense of the passage evi-
dently was that the Government had made up their mind.
to renew the. Charter.
" As we may not impossibly renew the Charter next year, we
may take that opportunity of rectifying the expressions of the
Act of Parliament, should they require it. Many persons think it
would be inexpedient to open a discussion on Indian matters
this year, if it could be avoided. But as I tell you, no decision
is yet come to, you will see that there is no intention of desert-
ing you. You have acted with much firmness and prudence. I
entirely agree in the view you have expressed of the dangerous
consequences which would result from the extension beyond the
limits of the Presidency of the powers clai.ned by the Supreme
Court. Orders have been given for expediting the patent of the
Chief Judge. It is with deep regret that I have heard that the
Company arid the country are to soon to lose your services in
India. I could not ask you to stay one hour to the danger of your
valuable life ,• but I am confident you will stay till you have re-
established the authority of Government in the opinion of the
natives. I trust, indeed, that the unbending firmness you have
displayed, will have prevented much of the evil which might
have been expected to flow from the conduct of the Judges. I
feel satisried that you will act with the same firmness sander all
circumstances, and at the same time with moderation and dis-
cretion. You may thus depend upon the sup, ort of tine Board
of Controul, which I have the honour of presiding over."
Now he would say, after reading this, that it was quite
clear from the context that the Noble writer meant to give
Sir J. Malcolm to understand that the question respecting
the East India Company's Charter had been already decided
by the Administration. In conclusion, he pressed upon
the House the necessity of an inquiry. Ire then moved for
the " Correspondence between Ilia Majesty's Commissioners
for the Affairs of India, or either of them, and any of the
Authorities at Bombay, respecting the interference of the
Bombay Government with certain proceedings of his 3la-
jesty's Supreme Court of Judicature at that Presidency, in
the months of August and September, 182 S, or at any sub
sequent period."

Lord ASHLEY replied i❑ an extremely low voice. It
appeared Sir J. Grant had issued a writ, summoning a Na-
tive Chief, a man of high birth, being nearly related to the
late Pcshawiah, to appear before his Court. The man, in
return, pleaded his exemption from the necessity of ap-
pearing under the promise of the Government. Sir J.
Malcolm was, consequently, forced into collision with the
Court, as he could not violate the pledge which had been
given. The result, however, of the dispute between the
Government and the Court was, even for the length to
which it proceeded, extremely dangerous. Our empire in
India being altogether founded on opinion, which could not
fail to be shaken when any division amongst the authori-
ties were observed. As it was, the Rajah of Guzzurat re-
fused to pay a loan in which he was indebted to the Go-
vernment, and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Go-

vernment was, in consequence, compelled to sequestrate his
property to convince him its authority had not altogether
passed away. There was another instance of the ill-effect
of this collision in the case of the Rajah of Eaturra, one of

the mott enlightened men in the country, who, when about
to visit Bombay, in arranging the programme of the cere-
mony of his entrance, war anxious, not how he
should meet the Governor, but how he should meet

the Chief Justice. This was not all. There was yet
another case, a native, named Morogeorant, heti been
convicted in one of the Company's Courts of embezzle-
ment (for which be would have been probably hanged
here) and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, but after
a month's confinement he was brought before the Supreme
Court and dismissed, free to rosin about the Deccan, and
extol the power of the Chief Justice, as greater than that

of the Governor. It might, perhaps, be fancied the natives
took little interest in these proceedings—quite the con-
trary—they had persons in the Court for the purpose of re-
porting them, so that the information was spread to the
most remote parts of India. The Noble Lord concluded,
by recommending those who were anxious for the intro-
duction of British laws and British institutions into India,
to innovate gradually in order to innovate well. By
adopting that course they would best secure the prosperity,
the happiness, and the independence of that people, who
were the just and rational objects of their anxiety.
Mr. R. GRANT said, that with regard to the Judges,
to one of whom he was united by the ties of friendship, and
to the other by still closer bonds, he was of opinion, that,
. . .

. ,
placed in a difficult and delicate situation, they had not
acted with all the caution and moderation which circum-

stances required : he might even go further, and admit
that they had mistaken the law. It was said that Sir J.
Grant had used contemptuous expressions from the bench
with respect to the Zillah and Sudder Adaulut Courts, and
declared that he knew nothing of them. If these expres-
sions were used, Sir J. Grant must have referred to a ju-
dicial knowledge of these Courts, which he probably did
not consider himself bound to recognize, as their autho-
rity had not been properly set forth in a return laid before
him. Making the admissions which he did with respect to
the Judges, he felt also bound to say, that the situation of
Sir J. Malcolm (who was a most meritorious and honour-
able public servant) was an extremely difficult one, and in
that situation he had made more and greater mistakes than
the Judges. There was one position which he ventured
to take up—namely, that Sir J. Malcolm ought to have
taken a public course (whether by proclamation or other-
wise) at whatever risk, and that he should not have sent
a private letter to the Judges on a subject which was by-
fore them in their public capacity. This act of Sir J.
Malcolm might be morally, but was not legally, justifiable.
However, the Government at home might extend to the
Go rernor of Bombay the same indemnity upon this occa-
sion as the Government of the day extended to the Bengal
Government in 1731, when it resisted the orders of the
Supreme Court by force, on the ground that though legal
they were not strictly justifiable. With respect to the
letter of the Noble President of the Board of Control, be
would not take advantage of those inaccuracies which
might easily creep into a composition hastily written ; but
must observe that all that was substantial in that letter
had been fully and deliberately adopted by the Government.
It had been offered as an excuse for that letter, that it was
written in answer to urgent communications from Bom-
bay. How, then, he asked, could we come to a right
conclusion or, the subject of the letter, without having
those documents before us, and being thus enabled to see
grounds which gave rise to it ? It had been said that
nothing was more visionary than the idea that any attempt
bad b:en made ut• contemplated to interfere with the lode-

pendence of the Judges in India. For his own part, he did
think there were indications of such a desire in the letter
in question. With respect to the jurisdiction of the Court,
the letter so often alluded to clearly intimated that the
Governor was to define its limits. The house of Com-
mons, however, had formerly come to a reso!ution against
all that should tend to place the Supreme Court in a state
of dependence to those whom it was intended to con-
troul ; and it was under this resolution that Sir Elijah
Impey narrowly escaped impeachment. The terms of
the articles of impeachment, which were drawn up,
but not preferred, were that Sir Elijah Impey had de-
• graded the Supreme Court by staking it dependent upon
the Governor, and that he was therefore guilty of high
crime and misdemeanours.—(Hear, hear.)—This letter
certainly tended to degrade Sir John Grant and 'the Court,
and was therefore contrary to sound policy, and in viola-
tion of this resolution. He would wave the law of the
case; but he must be allowed to observe, that it was not
fitting even for so high an authority as the Privy Council
to set aside well-kn •wn and general decisions of the Courts
of India. But the letter went on to say, that Sir John
Grant might have been misled by his erring chief,—mean-
ing Sir Charles Chambers. Now ke knew Sir John
Grant ; and every body who was acquainted with• that
Learned Gentleman would agree with him when he said
that Sir John Grant was far two just to throw a burden
upon others which he knew to be his own, and far too
conscientious to be drawn front the performance of his
duty by the opinions of others.—(Hear, hear.)—With re-
spect to Sir Charles Chambars, the manner in which be
had discharged the functions of his office would for ever
endear his memory to the natives of India.—(Hear, hear.)
—And if Sir Charles Chambers had perished at the stake,
it could not have been more truly said of hint than it could
be said now, that he died for his opinions on this subject.
—(Hear, hear.)—Distress of mind, produced by the cir-
I cumstances of this case, had brought him to the grave—
(Hear, hear, )—and yet the friends of Sir Charles Cham-
bers were to see his posthumous fame tarnished and dis-
graced by it being said, that if he had lived he must
have been driven from his situation..(Hear, hear.).—
In conclusion, he begged to remind the House of the
opinion+ of Sir W. Jones, respecting the Judges of India.
The words of that great writer were—" Whatever might
have been the reason for the first establishment of the Su-
preme Cuurt, of which I ant not perfectly apprised, I will
! venture to say that it has been continued for one obvious
reason—namely, that an extensive dominion without a
complete and independent judicature, is an anomaly of
which this world does not offer one example."
Colonel GRAHAM contended that the provincial
Courts enjoyed an independent jurisdiction, and that the
attempt of Sir John Grant to establish the authority of the
Supreme Court in the manner he had done, and his dis-
charge of a convicted person was contrary to the letter of
the law. He believed that no one had ever denied that
Sir J. Malcolm had done his duty in openly resisting an
authority which he believed to be illegal.
Mr. HUME moved that the question be adjourned, and
said he should be ready to allow the adjournment to stand
for any time that might be the most convenient to the
House.

Some discussion followed as to the time to which the
question was to stand adjourned, when it was finally settled
thut it should be adjourned till to-morrow (this day) ; but
that the motion of the Hon. Me►nber for Thetford, upon
the subject of East Retford, should take precedence of ir.