sade against the Company's salt monopoly, as it is called. Public grievances are not usually ferretted out by men completely at their ease, and it is perhaps as well for the interests of society that there should be men whose position and prospects would be improved by a bold, even though it should not be altogether a fair, attack on public evils. We cannot take on us the responsibility of censuring Mr. Aylwin for pursuing a course in which he fancies that the interests of millions in India, and of the Cheshire salt proprietors, and the Manchester manufacturers, may be so happily blended with his own.

Every one in England knows that the four chief sources from which the revenue of India is derived are, the land tax, the salt tax, the opium monopoly, and the customs. We have ranked them in the order of their fiscal importance. The tax on salt differs at the four presidencies into which the British territories are divided. The lowest rate of duty is 12 annas, as at Bombay; and the highest 3 rupees the maund, as in Bengal. The population affected by the highest duty on salt has been estimated at forty millions, and as Mr. Aylwin's efforts appear to have been directed chiefly against the salt tax in Bengal, which is heavier than at the other presidencies, and yields an income of a million and a half sterling, it is to this branch of the subject that we shall now direct our remarks.

The application of the word monopoly to the salt tax of Bengal is calculated-though perhaps not intended to fix on it that peculiar odium with which all monopolies are now justly regarded in England. It is, therefore, in its nature unjust, because this revenue falls just as strictly within the category of an excise tax as the tax of 15s. the bushel, which was levied on salt in England before 1823, did. The first effort of Government to raise a revenue from the article of salt in Bengal, was made in the year 1768; the manufacture was then thrown open to all, and a duty was fixed on the sale of it; but it was soon found that the quantity of salt which found its way into the market without paying any duty, was so great as completely to defeat the object of obtaining a revenue from this article, and that, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the people and the country, Government must either take the exclusive manufacture into its own hands, and add the duty to the prime cost when exposing it for sale, or relinquish all hope of making it contribute to the public revenue. If Government felt convinced that an equal amount of revenue could be obtained by altering the present system, and throwing open the manufacture, and levying an excise duty on the sale of salt, it would, of course, cheerfully abandon the present complicated system, and relieve its operations from the odium of this misnomer. Besides, it must be clearly apparent that when merchants are at perfect liberty to import salt into Bengal to any extent, on the payment of a duty corresponding with the profit realized from the domestic manufacture, it is ridiculous to designate that manufacture a monopoly.

From what we are able to discover in the various notices which have appeared of Mr. Aylwin's pamphlet in the papers, he appears to assert that the salt tax is so heavy as to absorb three months' income of every peasant throughout Bengal and Behar; that the lower classes are thus prevented from raising more sugar to be exchanged for the cotton cloths of England; and thus the interests of the salt manufacturers in England, of the agricultural population in India, and the owners of cotton mills in England, are equally sacrificed to support the monopoly of the EastIndia Company. The assertion that the salt monopoly demands three months' income of every peasant in Bengal is so prepos, terous, that assuredly nothing would fill the mind of any native with greater astonishment than to be informed of such a fact. It would be difficult to advance a more absurd or hazardous assertion, or one which admits of being so easily refuted. Mr. Aylwin, we believe, estimates the population, who are dependent for their supplies on the salt which is taxed at the rate of three rupees a maund, at forty-six millions. The quantity of taxed salt supplied to the country is accurately known from the annual records of the Salt Board; and the revenue obtained from it amounts, in round numbers, to a million and a half sterling. Every man, woman, and child, of the forty-six millions, is therefore taxed, by the so-called monopoly, to the extent of five annas a year, and no more. Supposing that every family contains five individuals, that the labour of four is totally unproductive, and that every labourer in India has four persons to maintain in indolence besides himself, which is not the case, then the amount which each head of a family contributes to the public revenue is just twenty. five annas, or one rupee nine annas a year. Granting, for the sake of argument, the correctness of Mr. Aylwin's estimate, that the average earning of a labourer throughout Bengal is four shillings, or two rupees a month, the highest sum which he is required to contribute to the salt revenue is equal only to the produce of twenty-six days' labour; yet Mr. Aylwin has endeavoured to convince the English community that the minimum of the tax

is equal to one month's, and the maximum to four months', labour. But it is certain that four-fifths of the population are not dependent on the labour of the remaining fifth, and that the average earning of an agricultural labourer is nearer three than two rupees a month; and we think, therefore, that there is no reason to discredit the calculation which makes the salt tax equal to a tax of from four to six per cent. on the income of a man on whom, from the comparative smallness of his means, it falls most heavily.

As

Mr. Aylwin argues that, if the Company were to relinquish their monopoly, and admit Cheshire salt at a duty of one rupee a maund, the agriculturists, relieved from this fiscal burden, would be able to raise more sugar, and export it to England. Why Mr. Aylwin has thought fit thus to connect the export of sugar with the tax on salt, it is not easy to divine, for to any man acquainted with India, and with the internal economy of its manufactures and commerce, the dependence of the growth of sugar on the price of salt, must appear entirely fictitious. Assuredly, it is not the weight of the salt tax which affects the manufacture and export of sugar, but the prospects of the home market. soon as the discriminating duty on East-India sugar was removed by Parliament, it was found that the exportation of it began to increase. In the course of ten years, it has been augmented from thirty thousand maunds to one hundred and eighty thousand, although the tax on salt has continued the same. Every merchant in India knows that, if there was the certainty of favourable returns for double the quantity of sugar now exported, in would soon be raised, in spite of the salt monopoly. The cultivation of the cane and of the date tree depend on the encouragement which the European merchant and manufacturer are able to hold out to the natives, and this depends on the encou ragement which they themselves may receive from home. Nor should it be forgotten that the quantity of sugar consumed in the country itself is so vast, that even to estimate it in figures would subject one to the charge of extravagance, and that the export of this article, to the extent of more than a million and a half sterling, has scarcely affected the price of it.

The argument which Mr. Aylwin has employed to enlist the cotton manufacturers on his side is equally feeble, when tested by facts and figures. It would be ridiculous to deny that, if the natives were enabled to obtain salt at one-third its present price, they would be enabled to lay out the money saved in the purchase of cotton cloths, and thus give encouragement to the manufacturers in England to the extent of a million sterling. But those who were examined at the close of the last Charter gave it as their opinion that a reduction in the price of salt would tend to increase its consumption, that is, that a considerable portion of the sum saved by the reduction of duty would be laid out in the purchase of more salt. It must also be borne in mind that the agriculturist is entirely dependent for the land he cultivates on those who are always ready to screw the last possible farthing out of him, and that a considerable portion of the sum thus paid would probably find its way into the pockets, not of the manufacturers of Lancashire, but the zemindars of Bengal, and their inexorable myrmidons. But a reference to the annual statistics of the Custom-house will shew that the importation of cotton cloths into India from England has increased from a few thousand pounds sterling of annual value to the sum of nearly two millions, and that, during a period in which, according to the evidence of Mr. Holt Mackenzie, the price of salt has been gradually increased from 270 rupees to 400 rupees the hundred maunds. Nor has this vast importation arisen from the entire supercession of all the domestic manufactures by the fabrics of Manchester and Paisley; the looms of India have not been altogether silenced by the machinery of Great Britain. In the year 1844-45, the latest commercial annual we can at this moment command, it is recorded that nearly fifteen million pounds of twist and yarn, of the value of £830,000, were imported in that year, and kept the weavers of India from starvation. It appears, then, that even the increase in the price of monopoly salt has not prevented the increase of the importation of British cottons ; and the most powerful of Mr. Aylwin's arguments-that which he made to the "pockets" of the manufacturer-falls to the ground.

The fallacious expectations thus held out by Mr. Alywin have combined, we suppose, with the failure of their salt speculations during the past year to change the views of the salt manufacturers of Cheshire. They formerly felt certain that English salt could be landed in Calcutta at a much cheaper rate than that at which the salt manufactured by Government was produced, and that if it was only subject to the same rate of duty which was imposed on the Bengal salt, they should realize a sufficient return to encourage larger exportations. Their views, which were embodied in the following representation to the Court of Directors, appeared very reasonable, and their pros

pects bright. They asked for no restrictions on the production of country salt, and no exclusive privileges; they simply wanted liberty to bring the cheap and transparent salt of the valley of the Weaver into competition with the dear and dirty stuff produced *in the lower parts of Bengal.

"That your memorialists, assuming the foregoing conclusions to be correct, most respectfully submit to your honourable Board that the following concessions might be made to the English salt merchants, with out detriment to the revenue which your honourable Board at present derives from the duty levied on salt in British India.

"That a sufficient number of golahs be appropriated as bonded warehouses for the reception of British salt, there to remain six months, if required; and that the duty be paid when the salt is taken out of bond.

"That the duty shall be paid on the actual weight of salt delivered into bond, and not on the quantity originally shipped in this country; or that an allowance of ten per cent. be made for wastage, and in cases of damage at sea from stress of weather or otherwise, as shewn by protest, such reasonable allowance be made as the case may require.

"That in case the cost of the manufacture of native salt should hereafter be found to be less than at present, six months' notice be given previous to any reduction in the price at which native salt is sold."

Many vessels were accordingly freighted with Cheshire salt, and sent up the Hooghly, but the result of the speculation is understood to have disappointed their hopes. Though Mr. Aylwin, on data best known to himself, has thought fit to assert that the salt sold at a profit, yet the demands now made by the committee of English salt manufacturers, and the publication of his own pamphlet, tell a different tale. If the ventures had been profitable, how are we to account for the new ground which the committee, of which Mr. Worthington is chairman, has taken; how account even for the appearance of Mr. Aylwin's pamphlet? We believe that the importers have suffered very serious losses from the enterprise, and that it is chiefly owing to a feeling of disappointment that the exaggerations of Mr. Aylwin's pamphlet have met with any countenance from sober, clearheaded, and sensible men. It is said that, contrary to the advice of the local authorities, the Court of Directors refused permission to the importers to bond the salt, and insisted on the immediate payment of the duty. It has been asserted that the failure of the enterprise is to be attributed to this cause, which, under the peculiar circumstances of the times,-Government having two years' supply in store,-constrained the consignees to make large sacrifices to clear the ships. If any such narrow-minded and illiberal policy was adopted by the public authorities, it is much to be condemned; and if this should have led even remotely to the present agitation, and that agitation should result in loss of revenue to the Government of India, it will be merely another example of retributive justice, the exhibition of which will not be without its advantages to the interests of society.

But the gentlemen of Cheshire have now enlarged their views, and taken up other ground. Their object is no longer to compete with the native-grown salt of Bengal. Instead of avoiding whatever "might be detrimental to the revenue which your Hon. Board at present derives from the duty levied on salt in British India," they are now resolved to strive for the "abolition of the present system of virtual monopoly of salt by the E. I. Company, as being most unjust and oppressive to millions of our fellowsubjects in India, by compelling them to surrender the product of from one to four months of their labour for the purchase of a first necessary of life, and being also most injurious to the manufacturing as well as the shipping and commercial interests of this country." The question in this new aspect ceases to be one of commercial regulation, and becomes one of revenue. If Mr. Aylwin's pamphlet is to be considered the exponent of the views of the Cheshire manufacturers, they demand a reduction of the duty from three rupees a maund to one, by which a revenue of more than a million sterling a year would at once be put in jeopardy. Now the whole experience of Indian finance goes to shew that no tax, equally productive, or less onerous in its nature, or less vexatious and oppressive in its collection, has hitherto been found as a substitute for the tax on salt. Twentythree years ago, Parliament abolished the excise duty on salt in England, and sacrificed a revenue of a million and a half sterling; but such was the vigour and elasticity of the national resources, that the vacuum in the Treasury has long since been filled up. The case is different in India. When the revenue furnished by any particular tax is relinquished, there is generally reason to fear that the Exchequer will be permanently affected, because there appears no other objects of taxation to which we can resort to make up the deficiency. Our attempts to raise a revenue from other sources has signally failed. We tried a tax on horses,

and an excise on tobacco and on beetle-nut, but were speedily obliged to relinquish them. The duties on the transit of commodities from one part of the country to another, which had been levied from time immemorial, and yielded us a large revenue, were abandoned more than ten years ago, because they were found to be the "curse of the country." More recently, the Court of Directors tried the experiment of increasing the duties on seaborne commerce; but it has been found not to answer their expectations, from the decrease of importation which it occasioned. If, therefore, the salt revenue is relinquished, we have no means of obtaining any compensation for it, and the question is reduced within a very narrow compass. Even supposing the reduction of the duty on salt to result in augmenting the exportation of sugar and the consumption of Manchester goods, and we have shewn that the accomplishment of these objects does not depend on the salt monopoly,-can the Government of India afford to relinquish a million sterling a year at the present time, when it is under the necessity of borrowing money at five per cent., although there is no extraordinary drain on the treasury for military expeditions? This is the point on which the whole question hinges. We are fully aware that the tax, though collected with greater ease, and though possessing more of the elements of a good tax than any which can at present be proposed for this country, is still a tax on a necessary of life, and presses very heavily on the poor, and that the sooner it is diminished the better; but the question now is, whether, under existing circumstances, it can be safely relinquished. Those who have embarked in the present crusade assert that a reduction of the duty from three rupees to one would ensure the same revenue to the state. It is clear that they would still be gainers principally, if the experiment should not succeed, and that they are not perhaps the fittest to decide the question; those upon whom the distress, occasioned by the failure, would fall so heavily, as to impede the machine of Government entrusted to them, must also have a voice in the matter. It is certain that, unless the consumption could be immediately increased threefold, the revenues of the country, which, even with the tax, are not adequate to the payment of its establishment, would be at once disorganized. The small reduction of duty to the extent of ten per cent., which was made two years ago, has been followed by an accumulation of stock which embarrasses the finances of the state; and though this may arise from temporary causes, it is manifest that every reduction must be succeeded for a considerable time by a diminution of the public resources. The reduction which the Cheshire gentlemen demand does not therefore appear to be compatible with the integrity of that revenue which is necessary to enable us to maintain our position in the country. Every rupee which was lost to the exchequer by a compliance with their wishes must now be made good by a public loan; and the present Government must thus anticipate the resources of posterity, and not only deprive itself of the means of carrying forward those works of public utility which the country demands, but deprive its successors of the opportunity of doing their duty to India. There can be no hesitation in asserting that, if the Government of India were to consent to saddle the country with a loan of even half a million sterling a year, by a reduction of the salt tax, in order to afford a vent for the salt of the Cheshire gentlemen, or the piece goods of the Manchester power-looms, it would be guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. We shall be happy to see the question brought before Parliament in the next Session, and discussed in all its bearings, financial and political, as well as commercial, in order that all the argmuents which can be advanced for the relinquishment of the salt revenue may be fairly met in the face of the nation by those to whom the nation has entrusted the responsibility of governing India, and that they may have an opportunity of exposing the injustice of requiring them to maintain British supremacy in India unimpaired, and to be prepared to meet the emergency of every lawless aggression, while they are at the same time deprived of the financial resources necessary for this object.

The necessity which exists for the retention of the salt tax has arisen out of the efforts made by Government with a view to the protection and defence of India from foreign aggression. Under the old Mahomedan government, the emperor, as lord paramount, would have called on all the feudatories of the empire to bear a proportionate share of the expenses incurred for measures, in the benefit of which they shared; and if we acted on the same principle, the princes who participate in the blessings of tranquillity, which we maintain by our army and our expeditions, would be required to contribute their quota to the expense of them. Our finances would thus be relieved from the exclusive burden of these military undertakings. But if any such demand was made on the princes of India by our Government, what an outcry would be raised against its extortion, its cruelty, its injustice, and its breach of faith, by those who are the loudest in

demanding the abolition of the salt tax. Again: there can be no doubt whatever, that if the British Government were to take into its own hands the management of the Oude and Hydrabad territories, which yield an annual income of nearly four millions sterling, and to pension off the royal families with sums, almost, if not altogether, as large as they are now enabled to expend on their own personal gratification out of the revenues of those countries, it would perform an act of wisdom and mercy, and relieve itself from the guilt of upholding by British bayonets two monstrous systems of misgovernment, which entail far greater misery on a vast population, than any which can be chargeable on the salt monopoly. If these two principalities were incorporated with the empire, a less force would be necessary to secure their peace than we now maintain to uphold an oppressive administration. The surplus revenue we acquired would be sufficient to enable us to reduce the salt tax from three rupees to one, and we should enjoy the satisfaction of reflecting that the opportunity of thus benefitting the poor peasantry of Bengal, was the result of measures which had relieved millions in other parts of the country from misrule and oppression, at the same time that they gave additional compactness and consolidation the empire itself. Yet though we thus venture to point out the benefits which would flow from the annexation of Oude and Hydrabad, and to show that this is not only the most obvious and legitimate, but perhaps the only practicable mode of getting rid of the salt tax, the reader must not therefore think that we have so peculiar a fondness for martyrdom as to recommend it, in the present tone of public feeling at home. Only we may venture to predict that before the end of the present century, if we should still be governing India, the whole country from Cape Comorin to the Himalaya will be brought as much under one system of wise internal administration as it now is dependent for protection on one strong and vigorous government; that the people will be more happy and more prosperous than they have been at any former period; that the most distant parts of the country will be united by a net-work of rail-roads, by which its commerce will be augmented, and its civilization promoted; and that we shall be enabled to govern the whole of India much cheaper than we now govern the major part of it, and to lessen the burden of taxation to an extent which will satisfy the most fastidious.

This article has run out to such length, that we must reserve to the next week the atrocious assertion which Mr. Aylwin is reported to have made regarding the cruelties practised under the Madras government in order to enforce the salt monopoly.Friend of India.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

SUPREME COURT.-Nov. 18, 19, and 20, 1846. YOUNG AND OTHERS V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.-There were two motions in this cause, pursuant to leave reserved by Mr. Justice Grant.

The ADVOCATE GENERAL and Mr. PRINSEP moved to enter a nonsuit, or verdict for the defendants on four grounds.

1. That no contract by or on behalf of the East India Company had been proved.

2. That it was a revenue matter.

3. That the contract was not absolute, but liable to be rescinded by the Board of Revenue.

4. That the damages ought to be reduced by 7,080 rupees, that sum having been paid on account of the plaintiffs for revenue, as shewn by the particulars.

The

Mr. DICKENS (with him Mr. RITCHIE), shewed cause. learned counsel, after stating the case, contended, that the com missioner's order is subject to no revision, excepting as to the investment of surplus proceeds; he being in himself a kind of ambulatory Court of Wards, with absolute powers of leasing. The commissioner acting bonâ fide confirms the collector's pottah. The Government have demanded why the Sudder Board revoked when they gave in answer, that they were entitled by the Circular Orders to interfere. It is difficult to understand how the Government contend that they are not bound, when the proper officers grant a lease, and then cancel it themselves. The Regulation of 1793 did not create a court, but a body of official trustees. We do not dispute that the Government revenue is a paramount claim; but we contend that this is a matter apart from Government revenue altogether.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-The result is that there is a covenant by the lessees to pay rent to government as curator, instead of to the zemindars.

Mr. DICKENS.-Precisely so. The last circular order is that the commissioner of revenue and circuit in his capacity of Court of Wards is subject to no control, excepting as to the investment of proceeds. Circular Orders, June 8, 1843, say that the com

missioner is to exercise all the powers of the Court of Wards, provided that if he shall wish to invest, &c., in any other manner than in Government securities, he shall report the same to the board for conformation. He can, therefore, make an absolute lease, as in the present instance, without making any report to the board. There is no statement by the opposite side, that Mr. Jackson was not acting properly as a Government servant, norin an unauthorized manner up to and at the time of granting the lease. Their argument is merely that the Sudder Board had the power of cancelling it afterwards.

The ADVOCATE GENERAL.-I admit that the property was in the custody of the Court of Wards; but deny that the Government is liable ex contractu for contracts made with the Court of Wards. 1 deny that Government is the curator.

Mr. DICKENS.-There is clearly a trust existing somewhere, between the Government and the party, where the lands are in their possession. This case is distinguishable from all others. The case of the Bank of Bengal v. The East-India Company (in Bignell's reports) turned not on the question of liability, but of authority. That the agent there had no authority from Government. He argued, that the bank was misled by Oxborough having acted for a series of years in that manner, with the full knowledge and consent of his superiors. But he held no authority from the Government so to act. That is not the case here. The defendants have not shewn any paramount power to that of the commissioner, nor that the plaintiff had notice of any power of the kind. The defence is also contrary to public policy.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-Here is a promise by one party, and a breach by another. Against whom is the action to be brought? We will hear the arguments on the other side.

The ADVOCATE GENERAL.-In opium cases and others of that description the Company has an interest. Here if the Company has no interest, it is no answer to say, "If you are not liable who is?" Lord Mansfield in Macbeath v. Haldeman, 1. T. R. held that there was no remedy excepting by petition to Parliament. The remedy here is in the Mofussil Courts against the Board of Revenue; there the question would be properly tried, whether they had power to cancel the lease or not. But here the real question is whether the Government can be sued ex contractu for contracts made by the Court of Wards.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-Have the Court of Wards any authority to make contracts for themselves? If I were trying the cause upon facts I should not hesitate in finding that it was a contract by the East India Company. The pottah itself contains covenants to pay the money into the Company's treasury. There is a reservation also in the last clause in case of deaths. That the sircar shall have the power, &c.

The ADVOCATE-GENERAL.-A corporate body cannot be sued on contracts not under their seal. Bac. Ab. Leases. It would be use and occupation; which would give a tenancy from year to year only. No implied covenant for title.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-How can that law apply to contracts by Mofussit officers of the East India Company?

The ADVOCATE-GENERAL.-I understand that the law of England would apply. The ordinary contracts that I have seen, and all grants of land, are under the Company's seal. I remember one case in which the purchaser refused to take unless it was under the Company's seal. And I consider him to be quite justified.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-Suppose it not to be a demise; but a mere contract.

The ADVOCATE-GENERAL.-It is laid as a demise. The CHIEF JUSTICE.-That objection is on the record, and would have been ground for a motion in arrest of judgment.

The ADVOCATE-GENERAL.-1 only put it in this way,-whether the pottah proves a contract with the Company. The regulations and rules were passed by a in some respects different body. The Company have no interest in this matter, and stand wholly apart from either Court of Wards or Board of Revenue. No agency is established. It has been merely shewn that they are officers appointed by Government and employed in the collection of revenue. I do not say that Mr. Jackson did any thing he was not empowered to do. I merely say, that whatever liability he came under did not affect the Company. The original notice is, that it is about to be let, on the part of the Court of Wards.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-There is abundant evidence that the Court of Wards was acting as the agent of the Company. The present argument seems to me to go upon a question of fact, not of law-and which was decided at the trial.

The ADVOCATE GENERAL.-Regulation 6 of 1822.-Sect. 1, cl. 3, is the first authority to the Court of Wards to lease minor lands. Regulation 1 of 1829, vesting the commissioners with the powers of the Court of Wards within their respective districts. As to sect. 19 of the circular orders, quoted by Mr.

Dickens, that is governed by sect. 2, saying that the board is authorized to call for, revise, alter, &c., the proceedings of a subordinate revenue authority not made final by law.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-If the question were merely whether the Company were liable for a covenant by the Court of Wards, But I should have great difficulty in saying that they were. in this case the question is whether there is not a liability deduced from the evidence itself. We will hear Mr. Prinsep

to-morrow.

Nov. 19.-Mr. PRINSEP, same side.-There is no evidence that the Company ever actually made itself liable. The express contract is with the Court of Wards. The estate was one in which the Company had no interest-the advertisement itself shews that the estate was the rajah's under the Court of Wards. The curatorship of the estate was vested by adequate legislative authority in the Court of Wards, who were not the agents of the Company; but on authority appointed, or at least specially recognised after their appointment by the Imperial Parliament.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-You have admitted that the East India Company turned the plaintiff out of the lands. The action is on a contract, and alleges the breach of it. You do not traverse the breach of it.

Mr. PRINSEP.-I submit that the action ex contractu, if I deny the contract, no admission of the breach, or neglect to deny the breach, or proof of the breach in evidence can raise ground for the action ex contractu which the first plea denies. Here I might have turned the defendant out of the lands, and be liable, therefore, to an action of trespass; but it does not follow I am bound by a contract to leave him in possession, the very existence of which contract 1 deny. The pottah put in evidence shewed two payments, one to the Court of Wards, and one of revenue to the Company, which marks the distinction between the two. Mr. Welby Jackson, who sanctioned this lease, was the Court of Wards for the several collectorates in his commissionership. The Company had no control over the Court of Wards, any more than over the Court of Sudder Dewanny, save by removing the judges at pleasure for miscon. duct, as formerly the Crown of England did with the English judges.

Suppose the collector had made the lease on behalf of the Company. Where was his authority? (Bank of Bengal v. The East-India Company, Knapp & Bignell's Reports.) The learned counsel then referred to Reg. 10 of 1793, Reg. 6 of 1822, and Reg. 1 of 1820. This lease at any rate, even if made by the authorized agents of the Company, was shewn to be subject to confirmation. Therefore it was a limited contract declared on as an absolute one. Then, could the Company demise excepting under seal?

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-Must not that be pleaded? (Fishmongers' Company's case, 5 Man & Grainger.)

The ADVOCATE GENERAL cited Beverley v. The Gas-Light Company, 6 Ad. & Ellis.

The COURT.-We should like a reply on this one point.
Mr. DICKENS.-It was not raised at the trial.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-The point has never been expressly decided, but on principle, I think that this objection should be specially pleaded.

Mr. DICKENS and Mr. RITCHIE, in reply, contended, that the objection as to not being under seal, should have been raised specially it might have been good on demurrer or arrest of judgment, but not for non-suit at the trial. The only cases which might appear to the contrary, were one before the new rules, and the other form the Palace Court where the new rules did not apply, under the old rules of pleading non-assumpsit, would have been sufficient. The new rules require that the objection should have been put upon the record. Further, it appears on the face of the plaint, that this was not a merely executory, but a partly-executed contract, and is within the cases, where the party, having taken a benefit under the contract, cannot take the objection of its not not being under seal.

[The CHIEF JUSTICE. In those cases it was the whole benefit; here a partial one only.]

The learned Counsel submitted that Church and Beverley v. The Gaslight Co., Ad. and Ellis, and the other cases, do not shew that the Company should have received the whole benefit. Sufficient if they have received the substantial benefit. Several cases shew that they may sue on executed parol contracts. It is impossible to contend that the plaintiffs could not have been sued by the Company had they failed in fulfilling their part of the contract; and if one is at liberty to sue, so also must the other be by reciprocity.-(See also Smith v. Birmingham Co.) Use and occupation does not require a demise. There is no general rule to prevent them from suing on an exécuted parol contract. It has also been decided, that they may be sued in

debt on a similar contract; therefore, an action is maintainable in assumpsit.

Mr. DICKENS also contended, that the East-India Company could not be looked upon as a mere corporation, being a body to whom the grant was made by Parliament. And that they are entitled to make contracts by a different law-suit of Calcutta, That there is a different law prevails without the limits of Calcutta. There are the Mahomedan, Hindu, and a third law modified by the regulations, none of these recognizing any difference between contracts under seal and not under the seal. That this being a real contract, the lex loci must prevail. And that the great body of pottahs out of Calcutta are not under seal.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-What do you say to Mr. Dickens's observation, that this is real property out of Calcutta, not subject to English law?

The ADVOCATE-GENERAL.-I still hold that it must be shewn that Mr. Jackson was authorized by Government, by some instrument under seal.

The COURT intimated that they would put their judgment into writing.

Nov. 20.-The Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the Court as follows:

This action was tried before Mr. Justice Grant and Mr. Justice Seton, who found a verdict for the plaintiffs on all the issues. It now comes before the Court on a motion of the defendants to enter a nonsuit or a verdict for the defendants. No motion has been made to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence; and, therefore, the only question for our consideration is, whether there was an evidence given at the trial to prove the contract as alleged in the plaint. The contract alleged in the plaint is a contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants, whereby the defendants agreed, on a certain consideration therein expressed, to let certain lands to the plaintiffs to farm for a certain term, and to permit the plaintiffs to farm the same, and to collect the rents and profits thereof for the said term; and the breach alleged is, that they did not suffer the plaintiffs to farm the lands, but expelled them from the possession of them. The defendants pleaded, 1st, non-assumpsit, denying the contract alleged. 2nd, to the jurisdiction of the Court, that the promise was a matter concerning revenue; and the last plea was also a plea as to the jurisdiction as to part of the demand. The argument at the bar embraced several points, on which if the Court delivered any opinion it would be merely an extra-judicial and so an unauthoritative opinion. What we have now to decide is whether there was any evidence before the learned judges who tried the case, from which they might legally conclude that the defendants had contracted as alleged. It appears to us that there was such evidence; on its weight it is not necessary for the decision of this motion to express any opinion. The advertisement in the Gazette, some of the letters in evidence, and the recitals in the pottah, all intimate that the lands were to be let on behalf of the Court of Wards, and this was strongly relied on the counsel for the defendants. On the other hand, it appears, that by regulation, the commissioner of the district in which the lands lie, has power to exercise the powers of the Court of Wards, subject to the direction and control of the Sudder Board of Revenue, that the lease was made in this instance by the authority of Mr. Welby Jackson, such a commissioner, and that the collector of the district in which the lands lay was, under the direction of Mr. Welby Jackson, engaged in the transaction of letting the lands. It appeared also, that both Mr. Welby Jackson and the collector were civil servants of the East India Company, and it was conceded that the Board of Revenue is also a board of the East India Company, composed of gentlemen the servants of the same body. At the trial, it was stated, and not disputed, that the eviction complained of was done by the authority of the Board of Revenue, under a claimed but contested right to cancel leases made by the commissioner exercising the powers of the Court of Wards. The expulsion and eviction alleged in the plaint to have been committed by the defendants, is admitted by the pleadings to have been committed by them. And the same conclusion may be drawn from this admission on the record, which might have been drawn if the plaintiffs had expressly proved by the evidence the fact admitted. It was argued by Mr. Prinsep, that this admission was of no consequence, since it was not necessary that a party should traverse both a promise and its violation. It certainly is not necessary. He must rest his defence on either. But a fact admitted on the record, if relevant to the proof of an issue as to which it is admitted, may be treated in the same manner as a fact proved in evidence. No question arises here whether a fact admitted on pleading as to one issue, can be used as evidence of the fact admitted, tending to proof of another and distinct issue (a point on which some difference