India Under British Rule from the Foundation of the East India CompanyWheeler, James Talboys
History
India Under British Rule from the Foundation of the East India Company
Wheeler, James Talboys
India -- History -- British occupation, 1765-1947
Nundcomar was a Brahman, and in those early days no Brahman, under Hindu
law, could be put to death; whilst killing a Brahman, even by accident
or unavoidable circumstances, was regarded by Hindus as the most
horrible crime that could be committed by man. Forgery was a capital
offence under English law, but not under Hindu or Mohammedan law.
Hastings might have reprieved Nundcomar, but would not interfere. Philip
Francis and his two allies, Clavering and Monson, were insolent and
aggressive in the extreme. They had pushed Hastings into a corner from
which he could not escape without damaging his position as Governor in
the eyes of the Bengali population. They were equally insolent towards
Sir Elijah Impey and the Supreme Court. They demanded, in arrogant
language, that every respect should be paid to the caste feelings of
Nundcomar during his imprisonment; and whilst the trial was proceeding
they addressed the Chief Justice in the language of reprimand, as though
they had been his superiors. Sir Elijah Impey went so far as to consult
Hindu pundits on the proper treatment of a Brahman under confinement,
and to act in accordance with their suggestions. Indeed he seems to have
regarded the pretensions of a Brahman to be above English law, to be as
deserving of respect as the old "Benefit of Clergy," which was still in
existence in England, although taken away by statute from several
offences. The execution was delayed for more than a month after
conviction, and Nundcomar would probably have been reprieved altogether,
but for the arrogance of Philip Francis and his two allies, and the
additional perjuries and forgeries which were committed in the course of
the trial. Had Sir Elijah Impey submitted further to the dictation of
Francis, the Supreme Court would have lost all authority in the eyes of
the people of Bengal. The abstract justice in executing Nundcomar for
the crime of forgery may be open to question, but Sir Elijah Impey, as
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was bound to follow English law,
without making any exception in favour of a Brahman.
[Sidenote: Collision between the Supreme Court and the Sudder.]
§10. Meanwhile there was a collision between the Supreme Court and the
Sudder. The Supreme Court began to exercise jurisdiction over zemindars
and other Asiatics throughout the Bengal provinces, and to override the
decisions of the Company's Courts. Its powers had not been clearly
defined, and on one occasion it had been called upon to arbitrate in a
quarrel between Warren Hastings and General Clavering, thus assuming a
superior authority by deciding differences between the Governor-General
and a member of his Council. Again, the judges of the Supreme Court were
qualified lawyers appointed by the Crown, and they ignored the decisions
of the Company's servants, who were not lawyers.
[Sidenote: Points in dispute.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account