Lords Sitting of 24 June 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Leasehold Tenure of Land (Ireland) Act Amendment; Lodging Houses.
2a Common Lodging Houses; British White Herring Fishery; Stamp Duties (Ireland) Continuance.
Reported.—Process and Practice (Ireland).
3a Registration of Assurances; Veterinary Surgeons Exemptions; School Sites Acts Amendment.

JOTEE PERSHAUD.
The EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHrose, in pursuance of notice, to move for the production of the charges against Jotee Pershaud. As he understood that the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control had no objection to the production of such papers as he had received, bearing on the preliminary inquiries in the case of this individual, and as those which were not in his possession were of no importance, he should proceed to move for a copy of the charges, in order to give the noble Lord an opportunity of making any explanation which he might think necessary respecting them. He would commence by stating,
1124
as briefly as he could, the case of Jotee Pershaud; and, first of all, it was necessary that he should state who Jotee Pershaud was. Jotee Pershaud was not an ordinary man who had made a large fortune by the performance of contracts for the Government of India; he was the son and brother of two of the most considerable bankers in India—of men who held as conspicuous a station in India as the Barings and the Rothschilds held in this country, and who had establishments all through that continent from Calcutta to the north-western provinces. As far back as the year 1810 the family of Jotee Pershaud had employed their capital in making and executing contracts with the Indian Government; they had always appeared to be very trustworthy individuals, and, in point of fact, had rendered very valuable services to that Government. In the year 1838, when it was found expedient to send a large army into Afghanistan, Jotee Pershaud, then the head and the only representative of the firm, took a contract for the supply of that army; and the noble Lord opposite would perhaps recollect that an army better appointed and better supplied had never taken the field on the frontiers of India. He then took a contract for the supply of the army during the campaign which terminated in the battle of Gwalior; and subsequently he became contractor for the supply of the army engaged in the war on the Sutlej under my noble Friend the Governor General (Viscount Hardinge), and he was also the contractor in the last war in that quarter. On all those occasions, and particularly on the last, he had great difficulties to contend with, for there had been no long previous preparations for bringing largo bodies of men into the field: and with respect to the last and most difficult campaign under the auspices of Lord Gough, he might say that the army had never wanted a day's provision, while that of the enemy was at last compelled to surrender from want of food. Jotee Pershaud was during the whole of that campaign at the head-quarters of the army, and was thus exposed to many hardships and privations. His agents were engaged in every part of India in providing grain for the horses and men of that army. It was not impossible, that among the numerous agents which he then employed, there were many persons who had committed something more than errors, and some who had even been guilty of grave offences; but those errors and

1125
those offences might have occurred without his having any knowledge or privity to them. He understood that all the parties who had ever had any transactions with this gentleman—for gentleman he was, and remarkable for his gentlemanlike manners in a country where all had such manners—had been perfectly satisfied with the mode in which he had performed his engagements. He had never pressed any points that were unreasonable; he had shown on all occasions great forbearance in the transactions of business, and had won by his fair dealing the favour of all the Governments which had successively employed him. Now, this person, after the campaign which had ended in the victory of Goojerat, when his services were no longer required, had an accusation brought against him of a most discreditable and disgraceful character. In all well-constituted States nothing could be more dangerous than to allow services, however eminent, to compensate for grave offences; but, on the other hand, it was to be lamented when grave charges were preferred against a man who had performed eminent services; and it was the bounden duty of any Government to consider the matter most seriously before it preferred a grievous accusation against a man who had rendered such distinguished services as Jotee Pershaud. Such were the moans of that individual, such his services, and such his intelligence, that it would be difficult to conduct any transaction in which he was a contractor without success; while, on the other hand, it would be difficult, nay, almost impossible—and he spoke on the authority of a person well qualified to form an opinion—to carry on any great military operation in India without his assistance. In the month of February, 1849, almost simultaneously with the conclusion of the war, charges were preferred against Jotee Pershaud by one of his subordinate agents. In the month of May in the same year they were brought under the notice of the Commissariat Office, and were referred to the Military Board; and the Military Board directed Major Ramsay, at that time the military agent in the North Western Province, to institute an inquiry respecting them. On the 14th of September, in the same year, Major Ramsay having inquired into them, made his report, stating that the charges were unworthy of credit, and that they appeared to him to have been framed with the intention of extorting money from the party accused; and, considering the
1126
nature of the charges, and the character of the person against whom they were made, he advised that no proceedings should be founded upon them. This report of Major Ramsay was referred to the Military Board, and the Military Board, after considering it, was to a certain extent divided in opinion upon it; for two of the officers who constituted that Board concurred with Major Ramsay that the charges were unworthy of credit; while a third officer (Colonel M'Tier) differed from his two colleagues, and wished the report to be referred to the President in Council. The President in Council received the report on the 9th of January, 1850, and on the 15th of the following February referred it to the Lieutenant Governor of the North-Western Provinces. The Lieutenant Governor, on the 11th of March, directed it to be referred to the Magistrate at Agra for further inquiry. The Magistrate made his report on the 27th of June; but two other reports were subsequently made on the 12th and 19th of July by two civil servants, who were also appointed to inquire into the charges. He understood that after the report was presented by the magistrate to whom it had first been referred, it was discovered that he was a debtor to Jotee Pershaud, and, in consequence, the inquiry was intrusted to another gentleman. That gentleman, on the 7th of November, made his final report, whereupon the Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Province directed proceedings to be instituted against Jotee Pershaud; and the Governor General of India ratified that direction. Now he was bound to say that the Governor General was unaware of the early proceedings in this case; the Governor General, in January and February, 1850, when this matter was referred to the President in Council, was either at sea or only just arrived in Bombay; he therefore only became cognisant of these proceedings when the final report was presented to him. The report having been thus confirmed, the trial of Jotee Pershaud took place on the 27th of March last, and ended, after lasting twelve days, in a verdict in his favour. He had now to inform their Lordships that, after Jotee Pershaud had given bail to the magistrate at Agra to meet his trial, he instituted a civil suit in the Supreme Court at Calcutta against the East India Company for a balance of 578,000 l., which he claimed as a balance due to him. He considered that that pro-

1127
ceeding was ill-advised on the part of Jotee Pershaud, and that it arose most probably from a notion on the part of his advisers that should he succeed in obtaining a verdict in his favour in his civil suit against the Government, the criminal proceedings instituted against him by the Governor General of India would not be proceeded in—though no doubt it would have been perfectly competent for the Governor General to have proceeded in a criminal prosecution on any matters which might have come out in the course of the civil suit. It had been stated in a public newspaper, which was considered as the oracle of the Government in that part of India, that in November, 1850, Jotee Pershaud had made overtures to the Government that he would bring grave charges against some persons holding high departmental positions, provided he himself received a pardon for the offences of which he was accused. Of that he (the Earl of Ellenborough) know nothing; but he did not think it improbable that Jotee Pershaud, seeing how the case was got up, and that he was to be tried at Agra, under a new act, by judges appointed by the Government, and by a jury, part of whom were also appointed by the Government, preferred having his claims tried by the Supreme Court at Calcutta, to being tried himself at the bar at Agra. He thought that the President in Council had been guilty of a great error when he declined adhering to the report of the Military Board. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) was himself acquainted with two members of that Military Board, and more able and excellent men than Colonel Frith and Colonel Hawkins could not easily be found; that was also the recommendation of Major Ramsay to the Military Board, an opinion which he admitted was not concurred in by the third member of the board; but after that report and that recommendation, he thought that the President in Council would have acted wisely if he had concurred with them in declaring the charges unworthy of credit. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) thought that all the proceedings against Jotee Pershaud in the first instance were founded in error. The Military Board ought to have been directed to investigate the military accounts in the first instance, to ascertain what was duo to Jotee Pershaud; in the next, to pay him whatever was due, and to leave him to bring Ids action for any balance which he might claim beyond it. If there were corruption, em-
1128
bezzlement, and forgery in his accounts, they would have come out in the trial of that action, and then criminal proceedings might have been properly instituted against him. Now, if the reports current in India respecting the proceedings of the Government, and of the manner in which the case had been got up, were worthy of credit, there were grave charges to be preferred against those who were concerned in instituting those criminal proceedings. He had been given to understand that the witnesses against Jotee Pershaud were brought up to Agra under escort of the police to be examined by the magistrate who was getting up the ease against him. Those witnesses were principally servants of Jotee Pershaud, and when first examined generally gave their testimony in favour of their employer. That being the case, it was said that they were first threatened with criminal proceedings themselves as participators in his frauds, and afterwards informed that their participation in them would be pardoned, provided they made a full confession, and supported the charge against their master. It was also said that those witnesses were detained in durance up to the time of Jotee Pershaud's trial, and that they were not permitted to be out of custody until they had given their testimony, according to the statements in accordance with the second oath they had sworn. It was not denied, he believed, in any quarter, that Jotee Pershaud had been committed at Agra on the depositions of parties with whom he had never been confronted, and of whose evidence he had never heard a word. He did not appear before the magistrate there, and the whole of the evidence on which he was afterwards arraigned was taken in his absence. When he was arraigned, he put in bail, and proceeded to Calcutta; and there, being under the impression that he was under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that he might, therefore, disregard the proceedings of the inferior Court of Agra, he did not return to Agra in time to liberate his bail. His security there was a gentleman of the name of Lang, who was also his advocate, and the Government at Agra took instant measures to enforce payment of the sum by which he and his friend were bound to appear. When Mr. Lang appeared in the Court as the advocate of Jotee Pershaud, he was beginning to address it in his own vernacular tongue, English, under the provision of an Act which had been recently passed; but

1129
he was told by the magistrate that the Court was a court of the country, and that he must therefore speak Hindostanee, a language of which Mr. Lang understood not a word; and this demand was made when he was about to address an English Judge and an English jury, with the exception of one native who perfectly understood our language. Subsequently that objection was removed, and Mr. Lang was allowed to speak in English. But all his efforts were ineffectual. Judgment was given against him, his recognisances were estreated, and the parties proceeded to seize the baggage which he had with him, a disagreeable loss anywhere, and more particularly so in India; and, instead of seizing on the property which he had in the house in which he lived, or on the house itself, they laid an embargo on his printing press, and prevented the publication of his newspaper, thus in every respect stopping his mouth, and preventing him from proclaiming his grievances. If that were proved, as it had been asserted, he thought that the conduct of the local authorities would be placed beyond all defence. In this country, if a levy were to be made in the house of a gentleman, we should be filled with intolerable disgust, if the party executing the levy entered the bed-room of the defendant's wife, and took her jewels, before he had seized on any other portion of the defendant's property. But in this case he had been given to understand that the authorities had entered into the zenana, had violated that female sanctuary, and had absolutely taken away from the wife of Jotee Pershaud her nose-ring. Think of the indignation which the Hindoos would feel on hearing of our entry into a zenana in India; it was enough to raise an insurrection in every district of that great continent. It was an offence never to be forgiven, either by the individual so outraged and insulted, or by his caste, which suffered indignity with him, or by his country, which considered such indignities the most outrageous of insults. We held India by the respect which we had hitherto displayed towards mosques, and temples, and zenanas; and if we now thought we might despise the feelings of the people of India on such subjects, our tenure of India was not worth a fortnight's purchase. Unless the noble Lord opposite was prepared to assert that there was no foundation for this charge—he (the Earl of Ellenborough) had made such inquiry as he could into it, and could get no refu-
1130
tation of it—unless, he repeated, the noble Lord was prepared to deny it altogether, he conjured him (Lord Broughton) to lose no time in instituting an inquiry, if not into the means which had been used to get up evidence against Jotee Pershaud, if not into the conduct of the local authorities, at any rate into the conduct of the subordinate officers, and into the conduct of the police in thus rudely violating the sanctity of the zenana. He did not speak of these circumstances as actual facts; but they certainly received implicit credit in India; he had made such inquiries as he could into their correctness, and he believed that the charges which he had preferred were so well authenticated as to justify him in placing them under the consideration of the House, and in calling on the noble Lord for an explanation of them, if he had any to give. The noble Earl concluded by moving that there be laid before this House, a copy of the charges against Jotee Pershaud, an army contractor in India, and of the verdict given on the trial.
LORD BROUGHTONsaid, the noble Earl, in the early part of his address, had given an account, accurate on the whole, of the early part of the proceedings to which he had alluded; but there was this inconvenience in discussing the subject in its present state—an inconvenience which the noble Earl had been frank enough to acknowledge—that the official documents which had reached him (Lord Broughton) and the Court of Directors, had not yet come down to the period of the transaction to which the noble Earl most particularly alluded, and which he had thought most worthy of his censure. He should take the liberty, in the first place, of saying that he was most happy to find that the charge which in the first instance had been brought against the Government of India had not been repeated that evening by the noble Earl, but, on the contrary, that he had had the candour and straightforwardness to own that the charge of the Government of India having instituted a criminal proceeding in order to stop a civil suit had no foundation. But that was the first charge which was made, and which had had the greatest effect, not only in this country, but in India—a charge which if well founded, would have made the Goverment of India liable to all the imputations, and to more than all the imputations, which had been cast on it. The case, however, was exactly the contrary. The civil suit was not instituted

1131
until after the early and the really important part of the criminal investigation had been entered on; and it would be easy to show that there were good grounds for supposing that the civil suit was instituted in consequence of the criminal prosecution. The facts of the case could be briefly stated as far as they affected a justification of the Government of India in having taken these proceedings. On the 30th of March, a native of Agra in the Commissariat Department, mixed up in the affairs of Jotee Pershaud, sent in a representation to the authorities, stating that Jotee Pershaud had been guilty of corruption, embezzlement, and forgery in connexion with his dealings with the Government of India. The case was submitted to Major Ramsay, who reported, in the exercise of his discretion, that he did not think the matter worthy of consideration. This charge and the report thereon was then submitted to the Military Board. Two of the three constituting the Military Board agreed with Major Ramsay, that the charge made against Jotee Pershaud was unworthy of attention; but Colonel M'Tier, the third, a gentleman of great weight in the service, did think that the accusation ought to be inquired into fully. Such, indeed, was considered the value of the opinion of Colonel M'Tier, that the Military Board, in submitting their report to the Council, submitted at the same time a statement of the opinion of the single dissentient. Upon all these facts being placed before the Council, they were considered, and the result was that the President in Council ordered that an investigation should take place. Mr. Cummins, the Chief Magistrate of Agra, being at the time absent from his post, the examination was entrusted to a subordinate magistrate, Mr. Denison; and the report which Mr. Denison made, after carefully looking over all the charges, was to the effect that he had ascertained one false charge for 4,400 bullocks to have been made, and that he had discovered an intention to make another false charge for 25,000 bullocks, a charge which had not been made only in consequence of the announcement of the inquiry. Mr. Denison did not continue the examination. On the return of Mr. Cummins, the investigation was referred to him, as the superior officer; and this circumstance attested to the fairness, and not to the unfairness, with which the inquiry had been conducted. Mr. Cummins reported to the effect that he had examined the whole of the evi-
1132
dence, had heard several witnesses, and that he had become satisfied of the existence of the most extensive frauds. The noble Earl had spoken of a serious discovery which had been made with reference to Mr. Denison, which had necessitated his being withdrawn as the examiner in this case. It was quite true that Mr. Denison had on a previous occasion borrowed money from Jotee Pershaud, and that this debt had not been altogether discharged at the time of the investigation. But in order to show the spirit by which the Government of India, or, at least, Lord Dalhousie, desired that this inquiry should be characterised, it was sufficient to mention that the very first moment the Governor General was made aware of the position in which Mr. Denison stood to the party accused, he gave orders that the examination should be placed in other hands, and he expressed himself deeply concerned that Mr. Denison should have been placed in such a position. These were, however, not the only two magistrates who came to a conclusion adverse to Jotee Pershaud. Two other magistrates besides Mr. Cummins and Mr. Denison were appointed, and concurrently inquired into other charges; and these two gentlemen also reported that they had detected frauds to a very considerable extent. Now this was all in July, 1850, and up to that time there had been no hint on the part of Jotee Pershaud, or on the part of any of his friends, of an intention to proceed with a civil suit against the Government of India for the recovery of an alleged balance duo to him. It was not until some months after all these reports had been delivered in, namely, in August, and after all this mischief had been done to the reputation of Jotee Pershaud, that he or his friends resolved to bring a civil suit in the Supreme Court of Calcutta, against the Government.
The EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: After he had been arrested?
LORD BROUGHTON: Yes, after he was arrested; but the one transaction followed upon the other; and the connexion could be easily traced. On the 4th of October, 1850, the attorney of Jotee Pershaud made a formal demand and instituted a suit for the payment of the sum of 570,000 l. The Assistant Commissary General (Captain Newbolt) in the Commissariat Department was applied to for an explanation, and he expressed his surprise that those demands of Jotee Pershaud should now have been made so sud-

1133
denly, no such demands ever having been heard of before in the Department. He would read an extract from Captain New-bolt's letter, which would show his opinion of this proceeding on the part of the accused:—
"As the head gomashta has never yet offered a veto to the retrenchments made cither by the military hoard or myself, nor tendered explanation of any kind. I am surprised to find him instituting, as a primary stop, a suit against the Government for balances alleged to be accruing to him in connection with this office."
The Government acted in the plainest and most proper manner. On the institution of the suit, a most respectable person was named in addition to the Military Board to look into these demands; and as a proof of the impartiality of the person so selected, it might be satisfactory to their Lordships to know that he (Lord Broughton) had received information that an award had been made in some measure favourable to Jotee Pershaud.
LORD BROUGHAM: What is the amount of the award?
LORD BROUGHTON: He was not aware of the amount. But after those proceedings of Jotee Pershaud it was very natural that the Government of India should take into account the counter action; and on this point he would read an extract from a minute made by Mr. Lowis, a Member of the Supreme Council, dated the 16th of October, 1850:—
"From what transpired at the council table on Saturday last, it was apparent not only that an offer had been made by Lalla Jotee Pershaud to stay proceedings in the Supreme Court if the Government would consent to drop their prosecution against him in the Mofussul Fouzdany Courts, but that a strong disposition was evinced in certain quarters to meet his views and compromise the whole affair. This suggestion we held to be altogether improper, and it was unanimously repudiated. The Government has no wish either to pay a great debt, or get rid of an unjust claim by compounding felony, and we determined, as I understood the matter, to contest the case in the Supreme Court to the utmost, and to proceed simultaneously, hut as expeditiously as possible, with the adjustment of the outstanding commis-rariat accounts, paying, of course, or tendering payment, of what is found to be due, just as if no case in the Supreme Court had been instituted."
The whole of the transactions were finally reported to the Governor General of India, Lord Dalhousie, and he (Lord Broughton) would read the opinion pronounced by Lord Dalhousie upon a review of the complete case. The Minute was dated the 4th November, 1850:—
"I fully share the indignation with which my hon. Colleagues in the Council have condemned
1134
the overtures which, from the minutes, appear to have been made for a compromise of the claims advanced against the Government by Lalla Jotee Pershaud, the commissariat contractor, on condition of its relinquishing the proceedings against that person which have been commenced in the Mofussul. I heartily approve of the determination of the Council to persevere in the just and necessary measures which have been adopted, and of their resolution to reject all proposals to hush up anything which these measures have elicited or may expose. If it he true, as has been insinuated, that the prosecution of Jotee Pershaud's suit 'would affect the character of high departmental officers,' it is the interest of the Government to aid the suit in order that alleged misdeeds may be the sooner exposed. If these insinuations are, as I trust and believe they are, without any good foundation, then it is the duty of Government to aid this suit, in order that the character of its officers of trust, passing uninjured through this ordeal, may be the sooner vindicated publicly before the world. If the claims of the Lalla against the Government are unsound, we are bound by every consideration to dispute them, whatever may be the trouble and expense to which the resistance of a false claim may expose us. If, on the other hand, the demand of Jotee Pershaud is good, it will be for those who are charged with the immediate direction of this portion of public affairs to show how it has come to pass that the payment of a just debt has been so unconscionably delayed. And if, in this investigation, the departments under the Government of India should have discredit thrown, as well on their mode of administration as on the system they administer, it will he the duty of the Government to meet it fairly, and to extract good out of the evil which may come to light, so as to amend its departmental administration, and to remedy the proved errors of a faulty system."
Now he (Lord Broughton) contended that these sentiments were highly honourable and highly statesmanlike; and he put it to their Lordships if it was not impossible that the Governor General, having delivered such opinions on this case, could have been any party to any injustice to this or to any other person. With respect to the minor charges against the Government adduced by the noble Earl, he would say little. They were charges borrowed from newspapers with which he had not become acquainted officially, and with which, therefore, he could not deal. He held in his hand the report of a speech delivered by one of the gentlemen concerned in the examination into the alleged frauds of Jotee Pershaud; and what was said in this speech might be accepted as a reply to the accusation urged against the Government in regard to the treatment of Jotee Pershaud. He would read to the House an extract from the Indian newspaper, called the Delhi Gazette, of the 12th of April, 1851, inserted in Allen's Indian Mail, dated June 3; 1851:—

1135
"Mr. Wylly (of the Bengal civil service, employed for the prosecution) then addressed himself to the subject of the misrepresentations current with regard to the treatment of the defendant by the criminal authorities. He proved that every indulgence had been shown to him; that his person had never been subjected to restraint, and that the statement about the prosecution being instituted after the civil suit was entered against the Government, was wholly untrue. He had been permitted to go to Umballah, on the joint application of Major Ramsay, of the Commissariat, and himself; asked for another month's leave, and obtained it; but, instead of appearing at the end of the term he fled to Calcutta; commenced an action for 57 lacs of rupees, and fancied himself altogether out of the reach of justice. The natives thought so too: but the execution of the warrant in Calcutta undeceived them. He had forfeited his recognisances twice, but the amount had in neither case been recovered; and since his return he had remained in Agra, or travelled about the country unmolested."
All that the noble Earl represented was, therefore, supported only on the authority of newspapers, which had been guilty in this matter of gross exaggerations; and until better proof was supplied of the truth of such representations, he (Lord Broughton) must take the liberty of attaching little credence to them. The grave charge against the Government stood by itself; and he had fairly met it. Did the noble Earl mean to say that this man had not been fairly tried? This could not be maintained. He was tried according to that law which was passed in 1832, and which at the time it passed, was regarded as a great boon to the subjects of India. He was tried by a jury, which included four half-castes and one native. He had the advantage of an able advocate—an advantage obtained for him by the law passed in 1850. And after this fair trial he was acquitted. Of what then could the noble Earl complain? The argument of the noble Earl was that there had been an error in judgment in instituting the prosecution in the first place. But what would have been said if the Government of India had not prosecuted? It would have been said that there was a complicity between the officers of the Commissariat and Jotee Pershaud, and that, in fact, the Government dared not face the exposure. The Government had no option but to prosecute after the reports of the magistrates. These magistrates had had no interest in pronouncing Jotee Pershaud guilty. The Government could not help itself, and it would have committed a dereliction of duty if it had acted otherwise. The charge was definitive, supported by the authority of four magistrates, and by other persons
1136
engaged in the Government of India, and this was backed by the opinion of the Governor General. It was most unjust to argue, because the jury returned a verdict of acquittal, that the Government had been without grounds for the prosecution. We knew that even in England the verdict of a jury was a matter of great uncertainty. He would give no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Jotee Pershaud. All that it was his business at present to show was, that the Government had not been without such a case as warranted the course taken in prosecuting. The functionaries of a Government were, in such cases, entitled to consideration. Jotee Pershaud was a great contractor, and undoubtedly in difficult times had been of great use to the Government; but if Jotee Pershaud was supposed, on good ground, to be guilty of a fraud upon the Government, his past position ought not to protect him. Jotee Pershaud might be a fine gentleman and a great man; but when grave charges were made against him, those charges were properly investigated without reference to his circumstances. The question, therefore, resolved itself into this—Were there good grounds for the charge and for the prosecution? If there were good grounds for the prosecution, the accusation against the Government fell to the ground. As regarded the papers which the noble Earl moved for, he could only say that they would be laid on the table as soon as they were fully completed. All the documents hearing upon the case were in an unfinished state, and if it should afterwards be found that he had made any incorrect statement, he hoped it would be recollected that he had spoken according to the best information which he had been enabled to obtain.
The EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHexplained that he had not made any accusation against the Government of India. What he said was this—that when Major Ramsay reported that the charges against Jotee Pershaud were without foundation and unworthy of credit, and when two Members of the Military Board were of the same opinion, it was an error in judgment to proceed criminally against him. Further, it was an error in judgment to take any measures at all against Jotee Pershaud until he had brought his civil action, in the course of which matters would have come out—if they had any existence at all—which would have formed the subject of a certificate by the Judge, on which a criminal prosecution could have been founded

1137
in the ordinary way. It was not surprising that Major Ramsay reported as he did of the charges, for they bore the stamp of untruth and absurdity on their face. Take one charge as a sample. It was alleged that Jotee Pershaud had overcharged in one account to the extent of 13,000 l. Major Ramsay called for the account, and found that altogether it did not amount to the sum which Jottee Pershaud was stated to have overcharged. With respect to the Governor General, he believed that he had no cognisance whatever of the institution of the prosecution, and, indeed, that he was out of the country at the time it was determined on. True, when the matter was brought before Lord Dalhousie in July, and he saw what had already been done, he could not well have condemned the proceedings; but he was inclined to think that if his Lordship had been at Calcutta in February, he would not have authorised the prosecution. The gravamen of the case was not so much the conduct of the Government as of those persons who got up the evidence and conducted the proceedings against Jotee Pershaud and Mr. Lang. The noble Lord was in error in supposing that he had spoken on the authority of newspaper accounts. He had been in communication with a person in this country who was most likely to be best informed on the subject, and he had reason to believe every statement he had made to their Lordships.
Motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
LORD CAMPBELL,in moving the Third Reading, said, there could he no doubt of what the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) had laid down, that the appointment of these important functionaries, the Registrar and Assistant Registrar, must be substantially in the Chancellor; but no provision was necessary for that purpose. The Judges were substantially appointed by the Chancellor, and they were exactly as those registrars named by the Crown under the Great Seal. So the Registrar would be really appointed by the Chancellor under the same words.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, this argument was far from satisfying him. The Judges, that is, the Puisne Judges and Chief Baron, were certainly appointed as his noble Friend (Lord Campbell) had stated. No Minister ever interfered. The Chancellor took the pleasure of the Crown, without any previous consent of his Colleagues, and generally before he ever named the indi-
1138
vidual to any of his Colleagues, in order to prevent all access to party or personal intrigue. This course was long established, and the habitual pursuing of it made the rule clear and inflexible. But how was it with newly-created judicial places, or, what came to the same thing, judicial places to which the appointment was newly arranged? How was it with Masters in Chancery? This furnished a case exactly in point; for those functionaries—and they were important judicial officers—were since the Act of 1833 appointed exactly as it was now proposed by this Bill to appoint the registrars, namely, by the Crown under the Great Seal. Before 1833, a Master was appointed in a manner which he (Lord Brougham) conceived to he wholly unbecoming such an important office, by the Chancellor calling up to the bench the Counsel whom he had selected, putting his hat upon him, and then having him sworn in. It seemed to him more becoming that the appointment should be like that of the Judges, by patent, under the Great Seal; and this was done with the express intention of placing the Masters on the footing of the Judges; and then being, as a matter of course, named by the Chancellor, without the interference of his Colleagues, exactly as the Judges were. But this course had not been taken. The Treasury had interfered, and the Great Seal, he was sorry to say, had yielded, at least on several occasions. Persons had been appointed by the Minister, whom the Chancellor had not selected—some whom he would not have selected. There were more instances than one of this interference. He spoke of his most certain knowledge, and from communication, in some instances, both with the Minister and the Chancellor. It was most hateful to name names; but if any one disputed his statement, if any one cast a doubt upon it, he would certainly name the instances. He observed, having paused, no one disputed or doubted, therefore he should name no parties. But he must add that he did not complain of improper appointments having been made: nothing of the kind—some might have been better, others less good; but he complained of the mode and manner of the appointments, namely, the interference of the Minister with the Chancellor's judicial appointments; and he made this complaint with every respect and all kindness, both towards those friends who unhappily wore no more, and whose loss he lamented, and towards those friends whom he still had surviving. He

1139
contended that they had committed a great error in judgment, arising from grossly misunderstanding the ground of the change which had been made by the Act of 1833. But the provision of that Act had been held to transfer the appointment of Masters to the Treasury from the Great Seal; the present Minister had distinctly stated in a Committee, when he was examined, that he laboured under this complete misapprehension; and the same provision in the present Act might be well expected to have the same effect, and to be construed into authorising the Minister to interfere with the Chancellor in naming the registrars, a thing which all were agreed ought not to be permitted.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, after what had been done as now stated, and not denied, express words should be added, vesting the nomination in the Chancellor.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, it would be an unprecedented course to take.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), Amendments made.
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEbegged leave to call the attention of their Lordships and the country to the fact, as he believed, that in the Bill before the House they had now arrived at a satisfactory solution of a most important and difficult question. He made that statement with the less hesitation, because—although this measure had been a Government measure, and had been introduced with the full sanction and approbation of the Government, and introduced also into Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the Session—the chief merit, nevertheless, of solving the difficulties of detail provided for by the Bill belonged to able and learned men; and, above all, to the members of those Commissions which had been appointed on this subject; and most of all was that result owing to the indefatigable labours of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), who was Chairman of the Commission. He wished more especially to call the attention of the House and the country to the fact that this measure, having come now to their Lordships' House, far from being rashly, hastily, or inconsiderately adopted, had been the result of the most complete and careful inquiry that had ever accompanied the introduction of any great measure of legal reform, and had originated in the universal disposition to attain an object which had been desiderated for centuries past in this country. The simple object of the Bill
1140
was to make the history of the title to every estate in the country easily and cheaply accessible. The way in which the Bill sought to accomplish that object, had received, after a little discussion, the authority of every Member of weight in their Lordships' House, or learned in the law. It would leave that House, he was persuaded, with the highest sanction that had ever been accorded to any great measure, and he trusted it would receive the concurrence of the House of Commons.
On Question, agreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMON LODGING-HOUSES BILL.
The EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill (which he did in a low tone of voice), took occasion to explain that it was the deep interest he felt in the objects of this Bill, and the urgency there was for legislation on the subject, which had induced him to address their Lordships so early after his call to their Lordships' House.
LORD MINTOmade a few remarks across the table, which were wholly inaudible in the gallery.
The DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the lodging-houses of the great cities in Scotland were as bad, if not worse, than those in the great cities of England. In no part of the United Kingdom was such a measure more to be desired than in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and, in fact, all the larger Scottish towns. If it was not possible to extend the provisions of this Bill to Scotland, he hoped a similar measure would be introduced having in view the improvement of the lodging-houses in Scotland.
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEbriefly supported the second reading, and complimented the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) upon the success of his exertions to ameliorate the condition of the poor and destitute.
Bill read 2a, and committed.
House adjourned to Thursday next.