Observing that the Board of Trade had commenced a
prosecution against Mr. William Barton, a member of that board, for
various acts of peculation committed by him, they say, "We must be of
opinion, that, as _prosecutions are actually carrying on against him by
our Board of Trade_, he is, during such prosecution at least, an
improper person to hold a seat _at that board_; and therefore we direct
that he be suspended from the Company's service until our further
pleasure concerning him be known." The principle laid down in this
instruction, even before their own opinion concerning Mr. Barton's case
was declared, and merely on the prosecution of others, serves to render
their conduct not very accountable in the case of Mr. Barwell. Mr.
Barton was in a subordinate situation, and his remaining or not
remaining in it was of little or no moment to the prosecution. Mr.
Barton was but one of seven; whereas Mr. Barwell was one of four, and,
with the Governor-General, was in effect the Supreme Council.
In the present state of power and patronage in India, and during the
relations which are permitted to subsist between the judges, the
prosecuting officers, and the Council-General, your Committee is very
doubtful whether the mode of prosecuting the highest members in the
Bengal government, before a court at Calcutta, could have been almost in
any case advisable.
Pages:
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254