§ SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he had given notice of a question with reference to the conduct of the Governor of Bombay towards the family of the Nawab of Surat, which it would be expedient for him to preface by a short statement of the case. The late Nawab of Surat had made over his territories to the East India Company upon a stipulated pension for himself and his family of 15,000l. per annum, reserving to himself rights of sovereignty over his immediate family and dependents. This state of things ceased with his death, upon which event some difficulties arose in connection with his representative, a daughter. In consequence, an Act of the Supreme Legislature of India was placed in 1848 for the administration of the estate of the late Nawab of Surat, to continue privileges to his family. By section 2 of that Act, the Governor of Bombay in Council was empowered to act in the administration of the property of whatever nature, left by the late Nawab of Surat, &c., and no act of the said Governor of Bombay in Council in respect to the administration to, and distribution of such property was to be liable to be questioned in any court of law or equity. The Governor of Bombay in Council, having proceeded to act in execution of the powers thus conferred upon him, had exercised that power in a manner not satisfactory to a member of the family of the Nawab, and, in consequence, that member of the family sought to have the proceeding reheard or the distribution thought right by the Governor of Bombay in Council brought under the review of the Judicial Council, as a matter of right, and in the exercise of its ordinary administration. The Judicial Council, however, by the mouth of Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce, held that under the third section of the Act, under which they sat, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, because the Legislature of India had framed an Act enabling the Government of Bombay to deal with the subject-matter in his executive capacity, and not in a judicial manner, but that they had jurisdiction in the matter, if Her Majesty should be pleased to refer it to them. And he said— 1410
In the extreme case which may be supposed of corrupt or tyrannical abuse of such powers as these—which is not suggested—there must always be open to all the Queen's subjects those rights of complaint—in the last resort, either to Parliament or to the Crown—neither Parliament nor the Crown ever being deaf, we must assume and believe, to the voice of reason and abstract justice.The petitioner, therefore, was left to take such course as he might be advised, with reference to an application to the Crown, through the Board of Control, or otherwise. Under these circumstances, he (Sir E. Perry) begged to put the question of which he had given notice, whether, as the Privy Council have decided that the determination of the Governor of Bombay in Council against the claim of the daughter and only surviving child of the late Nawab of Surat to succeed to his private property was an executive and not a judicial act, the Board of Control will take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, whether the judgment of Mr. From, on which the decision of the Bombay Government has proceeded, is not a fit matter to be referred to the Privy Council for their opinion as to its soundness in point of law and its conformity with the evidence in the case— whether, if an Act of the Legislature of India takes away from any subject of Her Majesty the right of appeal to ally court of law or equity, there are any means by which such individual complaining of injustice can obtain redress?
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not see any necessity that existed for taking the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on a question which had been decided in so distinct and formal a manner; nor did he see that there were any means of meeting the views indicated in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The law which had been passed on the subject was a special law, rendered necessary by the difficulties which had arisen.
§ SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would not consent, at least, to instruct the Governor of Bombay to suspend the distribution of the property until the opportunity of remedying the grievance by an appeal to that House, or otherwise, had been afforded?
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the property, he believed, had already been distributed.
§ SIR ERSKINE PERRYhad reason to believe that it had not yet been distributed.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would take that opportunity of giving notice that he should, early next Session, call the attention of the House to the propriety of taking some steps by which the grievances arising out of such legislation in India should be averted for the future.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, he was of opinion that some competent tribunal should be created for the special disposal of these cases, and with adequate powers. Some such tribunal had been advocated by Sir Robert Peel in 1834, and it would prevent a great deal of oppression and injustice towards our Indian fellow-subjects.