§ 8. Sir J. D. REESasked the Under Secretary of State for India, what steps, if any, have been taken to compensate Mr. Clark, the judgment against whom in the Calcutta High Court was reversed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and what steps, if any, have been taken to amend the system under which barrister judges are now appointed to the High Courts in India and to introduce reforms into the composition of the High Court of Calcutta?
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLBefore the hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether it is the fact that under the provisions of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, not less than one-third of the Judges, including the Chief Justices, must be barristers or advocates, that no responsible person has impeached the impartiality or the competence of this branch of the Indian judiciary, but that many tributes have been borne to its efficiency?
§ Mr. H. BAKERI am sure the hon. Gentleman is correct.
§ Sir J. D. REESNo, I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member had better wait for the reply.
§ Mr. H. BAKERMr. Clark was obliged to be present in England in connection with the hearing of the Privy Council appeal, and was therefore placed on deputation instead of furlough. As regards the latter part of the question, no steps of the kind suggested have been taken.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay I ask the hon. Gentleman if in saying the hon. Member (Mr. Swift MacNeill) is correct, he has not exceeded his brief?