said, that seeing an hon. member connected with the Board of Control in his place, he wished to call his attention to the reported removal or suspension of a judge in India. The alleged offence of the learned person said to have been thus disposed of was, that in the course of delivering a legal opinion, he had mentioned something, as if he contemplated the probability of the time arriving when the East India Company's charter might not be renewed. Now, he thought there could be no doubt that any man was justified in stating, without meaning to question the supremacy of the East India Company, that by law their charter expired at a certain time. Indeed, if any man should take upon himself to state that the charter would be renewed as a matter of course, that would be illegal; it would be doing what the Crown and the Parliament could not do. Mr. Justice Blackstone had laid it down to be one of the few things which the Crown or Legislature could not do, to bind themselves down as to what they would do at a future time; yet here was a judge, because he had chosen in argument, to contemplate the possibility of that which he (Mr. Brougham) earnestly wished might prove the fact; namely, that the Company's charter would not be renewed, at least not without great curtailment of their monopoly, and a corresponding extension of the rights of the subject, instantly suspended from his judicial functions, If the statement, the 1056 substance of which he had given to the House, and which had appeared in the public prints was true, it was impossible, he thought, that the House should not take up the matter. He hoped, however, that his mind would be relieved from the impression made by the statement, by hearing that it had no foundation in truth.
§ Mr. Courtenay
said, it was impossible for him to declare that the statement in question had no foundation whatever. He could only say, that no intelligence of the suspension of Mr. Courtenay Smith had reached the Board of Control. He would, however candidly state, that information had been received of an explanation having been called for from Mr. Smith of the expression alluded to. Further than that, he knew nothing on the subject.
wished to know by whom that explanation had been called for? In this country a judge could not be called to give an explanation of what he had said, except to the Court of Appeal. It was perfectly well known that any person connected with Government in this country who shall presume to call upon a judge for an explanation of what he had said, might be impeached and removed from office, besides suffering other penalties.
§ Mr. Courtenay
said, that the explanation had been called for by the vice-president of the Council.