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
The collision, however, was entirely due to the false position which the
East India Company had taken up. The servants of the Company had as yet
received no authority from Parliament or the Crown to act as judges, or
to make laws. They affected to treat the Nawab as a sovereign, and to
act in his name; but the Nawab was a fiction set up to hide the
territorial power of the East India Company from the British nation.
Warren Hastings pleaded that the Bengal zemindars were servants of the
Nawab, over whom the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. The judges
replied that the Nawab was a puppet, a phantom, as unsubstantial as a
king of the fairies. Unfortunately, the maintenance of this phantom
Nawab for the benefit of the East India Company has been for more than a
century a dead weight on the revenues of Bengal.
[Sidenote: Parliamentary settlement, 1781.]
In 1781 another Act of Parliament was passed which put everything to
rights. It authorised the Governor-General and Council of Bengal to make
regulations which should have the force of laws, and it restricted the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the old bounds of the settlement
between the Mahratta ditch and the river Hughly. But the state of
Englishmen--that is, of British born subjects of the Crown--was
exceptional. They could not be tried by any of the Company's Courts, or
under any of the Bengal regulations. A British born subject who
committed a criminal offence in any part of the Company's territories in
Bengal could only be tried by the judges in the Supreme Court, in
accordance with English law, and could only be convicted by a jury of
his own countrymen.
[Sidenote: Alleged corruption of Impey.]
Whilst the struggle was going on between the Supreme Court and the
Sudder, Warren Hastings appointed Sir Elijah Impey to be chief judge in
the Sudder, on a salary of 7,000_l._ per annum, in addition to his post
as chief justice in the Supreme Court. Philip Francis denounced this
arrangement as a bribe to Impey; possibly it may have been so, but in
itself the appointment was admirably suited to the exigencies of the
time. As an experienced lawyer, Sir Elijah Impey was far better fitted
than Warren Hastings to act as chief judge in the Sudder, to hear
appeals from the Company's Courts up-country, and to control the
judicial administration of the Company's judges, who could not pretend
to any legal training. But the malice of Philip Francis was as obvious
in the case of Impey as in the case of Hastings. Francis had been cast
in heavy damages by the Supreme Court as a co-respondent; and he was
bent on the ruin of Impey. The result was that Impey was recalled to
England and impeached.[13]
[Sidenote: Origin of the Mahratta power.]
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