§ MR. OTWAYrose to ask the President of the Board of Control, whether he was now in condition to inform the House as to the dismissal of two Judges of the Sadder Adawlut Court? A short time ago two Judges were suspended by the Bombay Government, it was generally understood, on charges brought against them by a member very high in the civil service in that Presidency. That gentleman, Mr. Luard, was himself suspended by the Bombay Government. Shortly afterwards one of the Judges was promoted to the office of Judge at Poonah—an office in nowise inferior to his former one. The other Judge was offered the office of Paymaster General, which he did not think proper to accept, and he returned to this country. Shortly after that, Mr. Luard was restored to his office. He now asked the President of the Board of Control, whether he was then in a condition to inform the House of the cause of the dismissal of two Judges of the Sadder Adawlut by the Bombay Government, and whether he had approved of that act; also, whether he approved of the suspension of Mr. Luard, and whether that suspension was in consequence of charges brought by that gentleman against those Judges; and further, whether the suspension of Mr. Luard had been withdrawn in consequence of orders from the Home Government?
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that of 644 the Judges referred to, Mr. Legeyt, finding that he was indebted to one of the parties in a suit which was coming before him for adjudication, applied to his creditor, Mr. Sunkersett, to suggest somebody to whom the debt might be transferred, in order to avoid the imputation of being swayed in his decision by improper motives. The imputation made was, that the transaction was not real but fictitious; and, being called on to explain, he replied, that as regarded himself the transaction was bonâ fide; but whether, as between Sunkersett and the party to whom the debt was transferred, the tranfer of the debt was fictitious or not, he was not able to say. That was not such a denial as left him free from suspicion, and the Bombay Government thought it undesirable that a person in such a position should remain on the bench. In the case of Mr. Grant, it was stated that he was found to be pursuing a course of conduct which caused great scandal at Bombay. He (Sir C. Wood) did not mean to say that he entirely approved the conduct of the Government of Bombay. What he had to consider was, whether, in compliance with the desire of those two Judges, he should direct their restoration. After full consideration, but with great pain—for they were in other respects men of high character—he had come to a conclusion on the matter. He could not think it would raise the character of the Sudder Court if he directed the restoration of those two Judges. With respect to Mr. Luard, he had given great dissatisfaction in the performance of his duties of a collector of inland customs; and it was a question how far he ought to be continued in that office. He had also chosen to write a letter, in which he affirmed indirectly general charges of corruption against two other persons high in office at Bombay. There was nothing so indecent and improper as that persons in high office should bring general charges against other persons, unless those charges could be proved. The Bombay Government suspended Mr. Luard, referring the case home to this country; and Mr. Luard had been called upon to state whether he would put his charges in a distinct shape.