LORD BROUGHAMpresented a petition from Alexander Brodie, manager of the Bank of Scotland at Stirling, complaining of losses incurred by certain persons through the defalcations of a person whom he once called his hon. and learned Friend, but whom he could call so no longer, as every man must he anxious to dissociate himself as widely as possible from an individual who had so misconducted himself— 620 he meant Sir Thomas Turton, late the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Calcutta. The petitioner complained that he had been compelled by law to invest the funds which he had lost in the hands of the Registrar; and he (Lord Brougham) suggested to his noble Friend the President of the Council that this part of the law should be immediately taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government. There was no discovering the party who ought to make compensation for these losses. The East India Company contended that they were not liable, because the Registrar was not an officer of their appointment, and Her Majesty's Government denied its responsibility, because he was not a nominee of theirs. The fact was that the Crown, not the East India Company, nominated the Judges of the Supreme Courts in India, and that the Judges were the parties who nominated and appointed the Registrars. He thought that Her Majesty's Government might interfere in this case as it had done in the case of Mr. Ricketts, where compensation had been given to all parties suffering by his default. He had promised to state the case of the petitioner to the House—he had performed his promise, and that was all he could do for him. As to the rest, he must leave it in the hands of the Government.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved, that his noble and learned Friend was quite correct in supposing that this question was one which had been for some time past under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. It was, however, one extremely difficult to deal with; and he could not, at present, declare what might be the conclusion of Her Majesty's advisers upon it.
§ The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, that he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from the two noble Lords who had preceded him; but there was one point which both of them had failed to notice. Now, what he wanted to know was this—were the Judges who appointed the Registrar required by law, or not, to take security from their nominee for the due discharge of all the duties of his office?
LORD BROUGHAMbelieved that they were required by law to take securities for his due and efficient discharge of the duties of his office; but they were not securities for him themselves.
§ The DUKE of WELLINGTONIn my opinion, if the Judges did not demand from their officer the securities required by law, 621 They are themselves liable for his defalcations.
Petition to lie on the table.