Star.
London, England, 1830-03-09 00:00:00

Mr. FEROUSSON assured the house that no connection, he had
with the East India Company could induce him to say upon this
question what he did not conscientiously think. He was of opinion
that the Supreme Court of Bombay was in the wrong in the course
they followed. That court had not jurisdiction over the natives :
so extensive a jurisdiction was never attempted even in the times of
Sir Elijah Impey ; and if such attempt had been made, our rule in
India would have been endangered, as the native Indians would
never submit. No one was subject to the authority of the Supreme
Court but those that were specified in the charter and Acts of Parlia-
ment. The extent of the English law was limited, and all the
people residing without the prescribed limits were subject to the
Mahommedan and Hindoo laws only. In his opinion, the
1 doctrine laid down by Sir Charles Grey was erroneous ;
and. if there be a doubt yet existing, there ought to be an Act of
Parliament, declaratory of the law as laid down by the Privy Coun.
I cll. Then, assuming that the Court of Bombay and the Chief
I Justice of Calcutta were in error—of which no one, seriously con•
sidcring the matter could seriously entertain a doubt—he still was
of opinion that the two persons principally intetested In this dis-
cussion, Sir J. Malcolm and Sir J. Grant, acted conscientiously in
their respective parts. Sir J. Malcolm, the governor, feeling that
the writ ought not to issue, refused to give effect to it. This young
man was a Hindoo, residing in Poonab, and under the control of a
Ilimloo, was not subject to the writs issuing from the Supreme
Court of Bombay, but was within the jurisdiction of another Court ;
and Sir J. iilalcolm was perfectly right in not obeying the writ is-
suing from the Snpreme Court.
Mr. ROBERT GRANT said a few words in explanation of
what he said on the first night of the discussion. However just
the decision of the privy council was, he still thought a declaratory
act was necessary. The question of law between Sir J. Malcolm
and the judges was not the question for the house.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he could not anew so important a
question as the present to pass without offering a few observations
on it. Every one agreed that the judges, when they acted consci-
entiously, were entitled to protection. But when they acted not
only conscientiously but justly, they ha I a double claim to be pro.
tected. He agreed with the hon. member who spoke last, that they
were not in that house to discuss this, a question of law, although
the hon. and learned gentleman, the member for Clare, made a law
argument upon it. He (Mt. Peel) held it, that this question was
already decided by the proper tribunal—the privy council.
They decided that the judges who issued the writs had taken an
erroneous view of the law. He was not disposed to put the inde-
pendence of the judges in India upon a lower footing than that of
the judges in England, for he thought them entitled to occupy the
same station. But this was not a question respecting their inde-
pendence, but a question as to the assumption of an authority
which the highest tribunal judged to be dangerous. There was
a most material distinction between exercising an authority
within the limits of their jurisdiction and without those limits.—
For the exercise of power without these limits, he believed an
action of trespass would lie. We could not argue for the feelings
of the people of India, going upon the jargon of our own laws.—
(Hear hear.) It was net to be expected that the people of India
should be willing to go to places distant from their homes in
I order to have laws administered there which were contrary to
their customs and their religion. Sir John Malcolm found a very
great alarm prevailing on this subject, and he could not have
adopted &course different from that which he had pursued without
acing a collision between the executive and judicial powers.
he letter written by his noble friend might be called a private one,
1.
but still he did not mean to say that statements ought to be made in
a private letter which could not be sustained in public; yet, at the
same time he must observe that it was utterly impossible for any
government to go on unless private communications were made.
Again, he would repeat, that the object was to prevent any collision
between the executive and judicial authorities. Vbilc he believed
that Sir J. P. Grant and Sir Charles Chambers had taken as right a
view of the subject as Sir John Malcolm had done, he must still say
that a very erroneous view was taken of his noble friend's (Lord El-
lenborough's) letter. He denied that there was any thing in the
purport of that letter from which it could be inferred that there was
any design to interfere with the constituted authorities, or
to make the bench in India in any way subservient to the
government. The right hon. gentleman after making some com-
ments upon this point, and, citing some extracts from the letter,
proceeded to advert to the charge delivered by Sir Charles Chambers.
He observed that he must advert to this change, however reluctantly,
for though justice ought always to be done towards the dead, it was
only with a proper regard to what was due to the living. Sir
Charles Chambers had made use of these words, " If a hundred',
cases were to come betore the court, I should feel no compunction
in deciding in the same way." The right honourable gentleman
next cited some other passages from the charge of the learned
Judge, in which it was stated that a great weight rested'
upon those who were anxious to extinguish the King's autho-
rity in that presidency, by abusing power In exercising it without
responsibility. In the course of some further observations, he went
on to say, that he did not vindicate the expressions which his noble
friend had made use of, with regard to " the elephant" but the act
of publishing those expressions ; was not that of his noble friend,
and, therefore, be was entitled to the indulgence which would
always be extended to any communication made in a private
letter. If the intention of his noble friend was to degrade the
judges, he would be guilty of a very great offence, but it was
quite evident that he had no such intention. The whole intention
of his noble friend was that if the decision of Sir P. Grant should be
found to be dangerous to the government, another judge on whose
discretion reliance could be placed, should be appointed to act
with him.

Mr. STUART briefly replied, and the gallery,wu then cleared
fora division.

The numbers were, against the motion lO6
For it l5

Majority
Mr. N. CALVER'I brought up the Report on the Eut Bet-
ford Bill.

Mr. STEWART moved the insertion of a clause, " that every
member hereafter elected for East Retford, or the Hundred of Ras-
setlaw, should subscribe a declaration that his return had nut been
procured by bribety or by means of the influence of any peer."
After a few words front Mr. CALV ERT, Mr. PEEL, and Mr.
WARBURTON against the clause, and Mr. HUME in support of it,
the question was put, and the clause negatived without a division.
The report was then received. The bill to be read • third time
this day se'nnighL
Mr. PEEL brought up the second report of the Lords Commis-
sioners, which was laid on the table.
Lord LOWTHRR brought in a bill for removing the Hay-
market from its present situation in the street so called to Cumber.
land, York, and Clarence-squares, in the parish of St. Pancras.
The bill was read a tint time, and the second reading appointed for
Monday next.
The other Orders of the Day being disposed of, the house ad.
journed at Two o'clock.