The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-15 00:00:00

CASE OF BHAWANNY LALLAII.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for a re-
return
of the appointments held by Mr Thomas in the
civil service of the East India Company in the month of
September 1854, and of the appointments he may have
since held up to the date of the latestaccounts, distinguish-
ing judicial from other appointments ; and also for copies
of any correspondence that may have taken place between
the Governor or other superior authorities at Madras
and Mr. Thomas relative to the case of " Bbawanny
Lallah v. Thomas," and to the judgment delivered
thereupon in the Supreme Court of Madras by Chief Jus-
tice Sir Christopher Rawlinson. The noble earl pro-
ceeded to observe that the case he was about to submit
to their lordships was a case of great tyranny
and oppression. It appeared that upon some unfounded
charge, Bhawanny Lallab, a merchant of great worth
and respectability, was arrested at the instance of Mr.
Thomas, in 1854, and for 14 days was marched
backwards and forwards in charge of a con-
stable, without any charge being made. In fact, for
upwards of 17 days this Indian gentleman was kept in
confinement, and was exposed to mach suffering,
without ever being brought to trial, or declared
to be guilty of any specific charge. He afterwards
instituted legal proceedings against Thomas, and Rained
a verdict with damages to the amount of 1,000 rupees ;
but a point was reserved for the consideration of a supe-
rior court. That judgment had been afterwards set
aside, and up to the present moment this much-'njured
gentleman had been unable to gain any redress for the
indiznities and injury to which he bad been sub-
ected. (Hear, bear.) These being the facts of the
case he had thought it his duty to draw their lordships'
attention to the circumstance. He had been told that
Mr. Thomas had been disini-sed from the service, and he
should to glad if such was the fact. Could his noble
friend say so ?
Earl GRAN VILLE said the noble earl was not jus-
tified in making such sweeping charges against the admi-
nistration of justice in India, and the civil servants of
the Indian Company. The correspondence to which
the noble earl had referred had not yet been received, bnt
was expected in the course of a few days, and until then
be did not wish to express any opinion as to the actual
merits of the case. An icqeiry, without doubt, would
be made into the whole affair. _ _

_
Lord CAM PBELL was uoacqnainted with the circurn.
stances of this eve, and was therefore unprepared to pro-
nounce an opinion upon it, but he felt it his duty to
xpress his deep regret that no effective measures
bad been taken for improving the administration of
justice in our Indian possessions. As the noble marquis
bad stated, justice was most satisfactorily administered
in what were termed the Queen's courts—the supreme
courts at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay ; bat in what
were called the Mofussil courts, existing throughout the
extec,ive area of our Indian possessions, the administra-
tion of justice was rnc,t defective, fur the simple reason
that the judges had received no proper legal training.
Indeed, many of the judges were piing men who were
first appointed police magistrates, and who were soon
afterwards placed as judges upon the bench. The con-
sequence was that serious complaints were made of the
manner in which justice was administered. With regard
to criminal law, all Europeans were under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the supreme courts, and when they en-
tered into civil contracts they generally made it a con-
dition that the supreme courts alone should determine
any disputes which might arise under such contracts.
The great mass of the population, however, comprising
many millions of people, were subjected to the jurisdic-
tion of such magistrates and judges as he had de-
scribed. The pressure of the evil had been so great that
a commission bad been appointed to consider the best

means of improving the sdm.inietration of justice in India,

questions arising out of the harbours for mercantile and
general purposes.

HONG KONG.

Mr. DUNLOP asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, with reference to the fact, appearing from the
Pail anientary paper No. 147, of last session, that, while
the emigration officer at Hong Kong had refused to
grant a certificate for more than 81 Chinese coolies being
taken to sea by the John Calvin, bound for Havana,
that vessel carried away 297 such passengers, of whom
110 perished on the voyage, by suicide and disease,
and 23 more in quarantine and hospital at Havana :
whether the conduct of the master, in taking pas• engers
exceeding so greatly in number that for which the certi-
ficate was granted, was a contravention of the Chinese
Passengers' Act of 1855, and, if so, whether instructions
had been siren for enforcing the penalties under the
hood granted at Hong Kong in terms of that act ; or,
if it be not, whether her Majesty's Government would
propose an amendment of the act to remedy a defect
which gave occa-ion to kidnapping and its consequences :
and, whether any communication Chad been made to his
department of an explanation having been demanded or
received from the British Consul General in Cuba of the
' statement, so far as regards the John Calvin, contained
in his report on the cases of that vessel and the Duke of
Portland, that he had minutely inquired into them, and
Ithat there was no blame whatever attached to the mas-
ters of that vessel ?
Mr. LABOUC HERE said that the officers at Hong
Kong only licensed for SO coolies, and that the others
I were carried against that license. The authorities were
considering whether th© law was sufficient to prevent
such conduct, and if so, measures would be accordingly
taken, and it it was found the law was defective he
should take steps to amend it. With regard to the
conduct of the Consul at Havannab, no blame was
justly imputed to him.