Proceeding to deal with the question on this basis, the learned Chief Justice remarked that if the East India Company were allowed, for the purpose of Government, to engage in undertakings, D such as th~ bullock train and the conveyance of goods and passengers for hire, it was only reasonable that they should do so, subject to the same liabilities as individuals; and in that view of the matter, the Chiet Justice expressed the opinion that for accidents like the one with which the Court was dealing, if caused by (he negligence of servants employed by Government, the East E India Company would have been liable, both ~fqre and after the 3rd and 4th Wm. IV., c. 85, and that the same liability attaches to the Secretary of State in Council, who is liable to be sued for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction out of the revenues of India. "We are of opinion," said the learned Chief Justice emphatically, "that this is a liability, not only within the words, F but also within the spirit, of the 3rd & 4th Wm. IV., c. 85, s. 9, and of the 21st and 22nd Viet., c. 106, s. 65, and that it would be inconsistent with commonsense and justice to hold otherwise."
