The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-08 00:00:00

IMPERI

.AMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 7.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his sett upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'ci,ek.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH gave notice of a
motion for Tbursday on the subject of the Merchant
S -amen's Fund.
FARM BUILDINGS BILL AND LANDLORD
AND TENANT BILL.

Lord KINNAIEI) moved C ,mmittee ()n this Bill.

The Earl of HARDWICKE thought that facilities
ought not to be given to landed proprietors to burden
their estates, which burdens their children would have to
pay after them. He moved that the Bill be committed
this day six months.
Lord KINNAIRD thought that all the objections
which had been made to this Bill could be met by amend-
ments to be proposed in Committee.
The Earl of LONSDALE thought the Bill would be
of very great u.e, but there ought to be some guarantee
against an abuse of its powers.
The Earl of GALLOWAY said that in the part of
the country" with which he was connected some such
measure as this was very much wanted.
The Duke of CLEVELAND thought the Bill ought to
go into Committee.
The Earl of MALMESBURY was opposed to the
principle of the Bill.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM did not approve of the provi-
sions of the Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT considered the Bill to be most
objectionable. There was to be no estimate made of
the increased value expected to result from these im-
provements. The tenant for life had no right to charge
the property of the remainder man.
Lord KINNAIRD replied.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and their
Lordships divided, when there appeared—

Contents
Non•contents
Majority ...
The Bill is therefore lost.
Their Lordships then went into Committee on the
Landlord and Tenant Bill. Several amendments were
agreed to, and their Lordships resumed.
CONVOCATION.
Lord REDESDALE gave notice that he should on
Friday bring forward his motion on the subject of Con
vocatinn.

... 18
... 36
... -18

JOTEE PERSHAUD.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, in moving for a re-
.urn of the names of all persons committed to and dis-
charged trom the gaol of Agra between the 11th March
and the 7th November, 1850, specifying in each case the
magistrate by whose authority each such committal
or discharge took place, together with the grounds, if
any, assigned for the same in the warrant. He said be
had given this notice with the view of obtaining an op-

portunity of making a statement with respect to some
facts which appeared to him to have an important bear-
ing on the question he had recently submitted to their
Lordships' attention. If the Noble Lord had given any
notice that be intended to institute an inquiry into these
matters he would have refrained from saying anything
on the subject; but as he was not authorised to entertain
an expectation that the Noble Lord intended to originate
an inquiry, he felt it therefore to be his duty to make
the statement of which he bad
_already given notice.

But even without that statement there was ample room
for inquiry, as would be seen from the statement of facts
which had appeared in the Indian newspapers. It was
openly ?rated that a large number of witnesses who had
given evidence on the trial of Jotee Pershaud were un-
worthy of credit. One witness had sworn to certain
circumstances before a magistrate who had afterwards
contradicted that statement on oath. Another witness
had made one statement on oath, a second statement ou
oath contradicting that statementeand a third statement,
also on oath, declaring that his first statement was true.
In additiou to these extraordinary matters he
found that the defendant had never been con-
fronted by the magistrates with any of the witnesses
against him, and the judge on the trial brought
out the fact that witnesses for the defendant had never
keen examined at all. He found, also, that counsel ob-
j...cted to the reception as evidence of documents, the
signatures to which were unproved. He considered that
the admitted facie were of themselves amply sufficient
not only to justify, but to require the Government, here
and in ladle, to Invitute a searching inquiry into the
conduct of parties implicated. The suit, it must be re-
membered, was not got up by a solicitor, but by the
magistrates, who used all the strength and power they
could command to bring witnesses before them. Whe-
ther Jotee Pershaud were guilty or not was of no im-
penance. The question involved in his statement was
of more importance. There could be no protection for
innocence, unless a man reputed guilty had a fair trial.
A fair trial was not given to Jotee Pershaud, because
means were used to obtain evidence which ought by
no means to have been used. The case especially
concerned the Government of India, whose duty it
was to take • care chat its power was sufficiently exer-
cised to punish wrong-doing on the part of subordi-
nate officers. In this and all well-constituted countries
the people looked to the laws for protection ; in the
East they looked not to the laws, but to the Govern-
ment for protection. He understood it was not cor-
rect to say that the first person who gave information to
Government in this case, was a person employed in the
commissariat. -He understood that person was a convicted
felon just released from gaol. He believed that while
evidence in tavour of the accused was not attended to by
the magistrates, that evidence ' against the accused was
received by them with thank& These were the general
points which could be supported by the testimony of
witnesses, that Jotee Pershaud only by accident became
,tcquainted with the proceedings, aid the indictment
against him, and that he was net made properly ate-
quawted with the allegations of the indictment. He
would proceed to wake a short statement of facts, and
before ne left that Home he would place in the hands of
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Broughton) the name of
his interment. Oue of the witnesses in favour of Jotee
Pershaud had been arrested; and had beeu threatened
day by day with beiug committed to gaol if he did not
vary the depositions he had previously made. His in-
terment had seen this person in the custody of two of the
wive police at the-door of a house of a magistrate
named Denison. This person declared bo had been con-
fined for nearly twelve days because he refused to vary
the deposition he had given in favour of Jotee Pershaud.
This man, he contended, was illegally taken into ous•
tody and illegally confined. The Noble Lord might
i
satisfy hiwselt to-morrow of the truth of th . •
se allega-
tions. The person was ultimately committ d to gaol.
This was the first case which affected M . Denison.
The second case affected Mr. Cummins, another magis-
trate. A banker of &gra who had no connexion with
the commissariat, was called before a magistrate, and he
scads position which the magistrate considered un-
satisfactory, a
tisfactty, whereupon the magistrate abused him in
terms to i gross to repeat. The Agra banker sent to
Mr. Laing, an eminent counsel-at Calcutta, to know
whether he could not prosecute the magistrate for defa-
mation on to;count of the abusive terms applied to him in
court, and the reply of the barrister. he understood, was
that a bill of indictment would lie against this magistrate.
This hanker was called before a magistrate, and was
committed to a common gaol, because he refused to alter
his deposition. This banker was confined in a small
cell, and was obliged to perform offices which were con-
sitiered an abomination to persons of his creed. This
banker was only released at last upon petition. n re-
ep,cteble gentleman—au Indian planter—was cognisant
of all the circumstances, and could ooufirni this state-
ment. (The Noble Earl here handed over to Lord
Broughton a slip to paper, on which he said was written
the name of his informant.) He contended'that these
were subjects which called fur inquire; He asked nothing
more than what was essential for the honour, he had
almost said for the security, of government in India.
Ho wanted to show to the world that these things could
not be none with impunity, and that if done no disposi-
tion existed to Durk inquiry.
Lord BROUGIi FON must submit that these motions
and these statements placed the Government in India
and the Government at home in a position that .could
hardly be called fair, because Government were not in
possession of any information On the subject to enable
him to reply to the statements of the Noble Earl. He
submitted that these statements contained grave accu-
sations, and coming with the weight of the Noble
Earl's authority, who had filled the highest place iu
the Government of India, they ought not to be lightly
made, certainly not on the authority of newspapers or
of a private person. unless that person was willing to
submit Minded, to whatever punishment he would not
say, but to whatever consequences, in case it should
he proved he had given wrong information 'on so seri-
ous a matter. The Noble Earl must be aware he was
in a situation not to be able to answer the statements
just made, but as fermer statements on the same sub-
ject had been proved not to be correct he was em-
boldened to say that he believed be should ultimately be
able to prove that the present statements were not of
that authority which the Noble Earl asserted they
possessed. Now, what was the charge in these state-
ments ? Why, that the Government of India had
endeavoured to 510 p the efforts of an Indian gentleman
to get money due to him. by instituting criminal pro-
ceedings against him. He was.satisfied a true statement
of facts "add show that this was not correct. The
Noble Earl would recollect the wrong statement he made
the other evening, relative to an alleged irruption into
1 the ladies' Apartments of Jotee Pershaud, and that one
[ of the officers had been guilty of the monstrous outrage
of tearing the rings from the nose of one of the ladies. All
the foundation for this was, that the inventory of goods
taken by this officer was an item relating to a nose ring.
Ac this allegation was shown not to be true, he was not
without hope that some of the recent statements of the
Noble Earl would be ascertained to be equally unfounded.
He did not say the statements now made by the Noble
Earl were unfounded: he had no means of knowing whe-
ther they were true or not until he obtained evidence
from India, which be had wailer) for, and until he re-
ceived which he did not think to hear any details from
the Noble Earl.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he did not enter
into details, except such as he conceived the Noble. Lord
was prepaed to sets wer. The. Noble Lurd could have
stopped him if he (dejected to them.
Lord BROUGHTON was new to the practice of their
Lordships' House. He had written to India, and had as
yet received nu answer. He did not like to interrupt the
Noble Earl, hut had the Noble Earl and himself been in
the Howse of Commons he should have stopped him in
five minutes. With respect to many of what the Noble
Earl called facts, the Noble Earl would find them contra-
tlictedinthe speechrhe charges of
Willie, who appeared for the
prosecution.weseir'ef violence against
He h
nst Mr.
aDden
Deni-
son and Mr. Cummins
re-
ceived a name from the Noble Ball as the Noble Earl's
informant, lint be thought it hardly gracious for a ser-
vant, who (tight to be a faithful servant, to furnish
matter for attack on the Indian Government as soon as
he arrived in this cbuntry. -Hechi not mean to say that
cases of gross malversation in the Indian empire should
be passed over, that everybody's mouth should be sealed,