The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-18 00:00:00

- LIVE/WOOL CORN EXCHANGE.—Feb. 16.

There was a thin attendance of either town or country
dealers at our market to-day, and the trade in Wheat was
dull ; the finer descriptions barely supported our last week's
currency, and inferior was offering at a decline of I d, to
2d. per 701bs. Oats were taken more freely, both by the
trade and on speculation, and for some prime parcels (of
which no great quantity was offering) id. per bushel over
our former quotations was obtained : holders are generally
very firm, anticipating higher prices. In the value of
Barley no change. There was rather more inquiry for
Flour, and superfine parcels were quite as dear. Oatmeal
brought fully last week's prices. In other articles no
alteration.

EAST INDIA.

(From the Times)

Letters from respectable sources in India repre-
sent in strosig language the bad effects resulting
from the system which has been pursued by the
Company with regard to the administration of jus-
tice, and to the deduction from the army of its sti-
pulated pay and allowances. It is stated, that the
purpose for which the Bombay Judges had issued
their writ of habeas corpus, and thereby incurred
the anger of Lord Ellenborough, was to enforce the
production of witnesses who nsight have given evi-
dence in favour of a native then under prosecution
by the local Government of Bombay. But it seems
hardly credible that Sir John Malcolm could have
interposed against an authority exercised with a view
to the defence of a party whom he himself was pro-
secuting. Such an imputation would be toe dread-
ful to maintain: we are therefore the more anxious
to know the circumstances in which a charge (if
true, so disgraceful) could have originated. One
point, indeed, which has not yet been resolved to
our satisfaction, would furnish materials for settling
the present question, to far as its legal merits are
involved. had ge Supreme Court jurisdiction, or
had it not, over those parties in respect of whom the
writ of hakas corpus was issued ? If the jurisdic-
tion existed, to disturb its exercise ought to bring
down impeachment on its authors. If a jurisdiction
of a nature so beneficial and so salutary were even
doubtful, to determine against it was an act of gross
i:npolicy, and the Governor ought at once to be re-
called. It is only in case of the Court having clearly
outstepped its powers, and usurped a prerogative not
conveyed to it by his Majesty's commission, or by
act of Parliament, that Sir John Malcolm can stand
exculpated, and the promotion of Lord Ellenbo-
rough's two " tame elephants" defended. There
can, we believe, be no doubt that throughout India
the authority of what are called the " Supreme
English Courts of Justice" for controlling and re-
buking the iniquities of Ow Company's tribunals, is
looked up to by the natives as a beneficent and
protecting power, and that they fly to it on import-
ant opportunities as an unfailing sanctuary from
oppression. The jurisdiction, therefore, of such
Courts ought, we submit, to be strengthened and
extended rather than in any manner thwarted, and
their Judges ought to be selected rather for a spirit
of sturdy professional independence, than for that
sort of " notion of their duty" which consists of
complaisance towards the will of governors and the
maxims of military rule. The state of the Bengal
army is by another correspondent described to be
most distressing, and its temper formidable. But
there, again, one short interrogatory will go far to-
wards deciding the merits of the case—viz. has faith
been broken with the officers ? If not, the whole
question is one of policy, of which it would be pre-
sumption in these military gentlemen to assume,
and pitiable weakness in the Government to admit,
that they were competent judges.

EXTRACT OF A LETTER. FROM. CALCUTTA, DATED

SEPT. 13.

" We are privately aware that the Privy Council, er
at bast a political majority, have decided iu favour of

. ,
Governor Malcolm against Mr. Justice ' Grant ! But
such a decision does not make law. Nothing short of a
declaratory act can do that, and the Judges here, who are
infinitely hurt and displeased with the result of those do-
ings, will eertainly no more regard it, than did the Bum-
my Court the decision of the same illustrious body re-
specting the now obselete Bengal law respecting the press.
Sir".l. Malcolm has put the comblc to his judicial iniqui•
ties, by his last violence—that of resisting by force the
subroceams and habeas corpus ad subjiciendurrt, (not ad
sathjictieudym), directed to the main and fndispensable
witnesses required by Madoo Sewbah, prosecuted by Go •
vernrrient for perjury, criminally, in having sworn that
afldavt last Year, out of which the habeas corpus ad
stiljieleitdum arose, which was then resisted by Governor
alleged grounds of political expadienry wholly
fictitious and unfounded. The distinction between the
two writs of habeas is familiar to all lawyers, and the
writ to produce a witness withheld, is not only essential
absolutely to all courts and all justice, but has been habi-
tually issued by every King's Court in India since 1774
without objection or dispute. The case is infinitely ag-
gravated by the fact that Government was prosecuting the
man whose witnesses it withheld, for a crime which those
witnesses were naturally the best evidence fur either party,
if not the sole efficient witnesses. It is supposed that the
law advisers of Sir J. Malcolm (among whom is counted
the notoriously unfit new Chief Justice Dewar) had net
wit or knowledge enough to set him tight on.this point
of legal distinction ; but since the first resistance, they
are said to have taken fright and recommended submission.
It is sad to see every puny whipster of a civil or military
functionary taking the tone of the Bombsy Governor,
and insulting and impeding the King's Court. Doubtless
some attempt will be made next session to have these dis-
putes settled by a declaratory law. The friends of good
gavernment in India should be on their guard, and the
inteerity and independence of the King's Courts ought to
be the especial object of their attention ; for, with all their
faults of expense and delay, they are immeasurably supe-
rior to the wretched tribunals of the Company. In them,
and them alone, a man is sure of bring at least fully heard,
and, what is not of less consequence, publicly heard.
The King's Courts, in short, are the only shadow of a
constitutional institution which we possess,—the only
bodies independent of the vast despotism which every
where surrounds him. Instead of curtailing their power
And influence, these should be gradually extended. To
every unprejudiced Englishman here it is notorious, that
men of property and knowledge among the natives
neither fear nor dislike the King's Courts. The very
reverse is the case, and how indeed should it be other-
wise, for no where else are they sure of safety and pro
tection ? In all important transactions, the natives wil-
lingly covenant to subject themselves to the King's courts,
who are locally and personally exempt without such co-
venant. The impending insurrections and other evils
with which Sir John Malcolm and other servants of the
East India Company have endeavoured to alarm the Eng-
lish public, on the subject of extending English 1 rw, are
what are vulgarly but pertinently called sack-and_buii
stories, and here, at least, are treated with contempt,
which they well deserve. I refer, with confidence, for
their exposure to the deep and universal regret of the whole
native community of Bombay, on the death of the late
Chief Justice, Sir Edward West, the most inflexible and
uncourtecus Judge that ever sat on the Indian bench, and
to the affectionate expression of their sorrow contained in
their address to his successor. Never was a Judge upon
worse terms with two successive Governors than Sir Ed-
ward West, and yet it is the jurisdiction of which he was
at the head which it is now pretended that the natives of
India hold in dread and abhorrence. The abhorrence in
which all native functionaries hold the King's Courts
arises solely from the natural hatred of absolute power to-
wards restraints, checks, and publicity. Their very dis-
like is a prima facie evidence for concluding that these
courts are eminently useful and beneficial. Let it be re-
membered that substantially the dispute between the Go-
vernor of Bombay and the King's Court originates in a
pretension of the Company's functionaries to prevent na-
tives who seek the protection of the English law, and seek
it in rare eases of oppression only because of its costliness,
from being allowed their choice of a tribunal, which, by
Sir John Malcolm's own hypothesis, they would not pre-
fer if an appeal to it were in •their power. But, after all,
the habeas corpus ad suljieiendum does not lead to die-
charge of a prisoner lawfully and justly dealt with by com-
petent authority, and only to inquiry, in the first instance,
as to the legality of duress previously sworn to exist. The
King's courts in India were first erected for the avowed
purpose of over-awing and checking the despotism of the
Company's servants. After between fifty and sixty years
of the benefits derived from these courts, are we really
again, when the tranquillity and stability of our dominion
is confirmed beyond all hope or expectation, to he thrown
hack into the state of lawless anarchy which existed before
their establishment ? Those who, by misrepresentations
to the Home authorities, would propose measures to im-
pair the efficiency of and independency of the King's
courts, deserve the execration of their countrymen, and are
unworthy of the name of Englishmen. In a period of
57 years, there have existed but four or five cases of colli-
sion between the King's Judges and Company's Gover-
nors. These examples have been much insisted on, but of
the subserviency of the Judges to the Governors we hear
nothing, although this be by far the most frequent offence,
and that from which the Indian community has most to
apprehend."