(Signed) W. H. SLEEMAN.
Lucknow, 27th September, 1853.
My Dear James,
Under the circumstances you mention, I see but one course open to you; and that is, to recommend to the Government of Bombay to do as Lord William Bentinck did in the Bengal Presidency under similar circumstances, appoint a special Commissioner for the trial of offenders under Acts XX.[sic] of 1836, and XXIV. of 1843; or for the revision of trials under these Acts, conducted by Sessions' Judges.
The first would be the best if feasible; but the second would do, since the Sessions' Judges seem now to be disposed to give their aid to Government in putting down the evil, and the Sudder Judges do not. Formerly, I believe, the Sudder Judges were so disposed, and the Sessions Judges not. In my reply to the Government of Bombay, you will see reference made to Lord William's appointment of Mr. Stockwell as special Commissioner. He was at the time Commissioner of the Allahabad division, and the work was imposed upon him in addition to his other duties.
If the Bombay Government does not think it has authority to appoint such a special Commission, they may apply to the Legislative Council to pass an Act authorising the Government of every Presidency to appoint such a Commission when circumstances may render it necessary.
This will be better and safer than to frame and enforce new rules of evidence for the guidance of existing Judicial Courts. The one would be for a special emergency, and temporary; and Government would not be very averse to it; but the other they certainly would not venture upon, particularly at this time. A great fuss would be made about it here and at home; and lawyers are too influential in both places.
You can show that there is no alternative—that this system of crime must be left to prosper in the Bombay Presidency, where alone it now prevails, or such a Commission must be appointed; and as the Acts and the machinery for giving effect to them have succeeded in putting it down in all the rest, it would be hard to leave the people of Bombay exposed to all the evils arising from the want of such a special Commission. Such Commissions have been adopted to relieve the people from the hardships of the resumption laws, which affected but a small portion of the community; and you hope it would not be considered unreasonable in you to propose one for the relief of the whole community; for the life and property of no family will be safe an hour, if these classes of offenders by hereditary profession are assured that they may carry on their trade with impunity, as they must be if your agency be withdrawn, and all the prisoners be released.
If you make a forcible representation to the Bombay Government in this strong case, they will adopt the measure if they have the power, or ask the power from the supreme Government; and I think the supreme Government will give it. I would say a special Commission for the trial of commitments under XXX. of 1836, and XXIV. of 1843, or a special Commission for the revision of trials under these Acts, as may seem best to Government; but you can say that you think the first would answer the purpose best in the Bombay Presidency. You may offer to run down to Bombay and submit your views to the Government in Council if required. They would not think it necessary, but would be pleased with the offer. Where men are committed on the general charge, it has always been thought necessary to show that the gang committed a murder or a robbery, though it is not so to show what part the prisoners took in them. If your assistant has not done this, he has failed in a material point. He should be very cautious in dealing with whole classes. The fault of our Bombay assistants has always been a disposition to make offenders of whole classes, when only some of the members are so.