THE SUDDER TUDGES.
22d April 1853. Sin—In an article on the Indian Judges in last week's Spectator, you make use of the following language—" The charges against the two gentlemen first appeared in a paper which takes a very heated part in local controver- sies. It happens that the representative of that paper in the court had been at issue with one or other of the Judges." As to the Bombay Gazette taking a "very heated part in local controversies," I shall leave others to determine ; but I am in a position to deny that the editor and proprietor of that paper, who alone has any right to be called its representative, "in the court" or out of it ever had a dispute with either of the two Judges. If by "representative" is meant Mr. Luard, I am very much mistaken if it is not a weak invention of the enemy to attribute to this gentleman any influence with the Gazette, under its present management. The articles that are said to have led to the removal of the Budder Judges are unmistakeably by the editor himself ; and as he does not shrink from the responsibility of them, it seems very unnecessary to attribute them to any other person. The editor of the Bombay Gazette is not, any more than the editor of the Spec- tator, ubiquitous or omniscient ; and of course he derived his information fronasome person or persons ; but having got it, he makes the charge in his own proper person, and abides by it. Before taking the version of the other two local papers, the Bombay Times and the Courier and Telegraph, would you make yourself quite sure that Mr. Grant, one of the Judges that have been superseded, has not a pecuniary interest in both these newspapers; and further, would you inquire whether it is not true, that both he and his fellow sufferer, Mr. Le Geyt, are related to one of the editors of these two papers ? If these things are so, is it to be wondered at that the Gazette has been vigorously assailed by its local con- temporaries? But surely the Spectator should not be very rash in defend- ing the Judge& It is not likely that Lord Falkland removed them to please the Gazette. He owes it no such good turn.
I anir Bat. VENDEX. [We have reason to believe that our correspondent is correct in the dis- tinction which he draws between the gent1emaa aggrieved by the reversal of sentence and the proper representative of the journal in question. We were misled by the manner in which Indian papers and letters speak jointly of the judicial grudge and the putative origin of the newspaper attacks. But our correspondent's correction does not affect any material points of the statement.—En.]
Previous page
