VI.

circumstances under which a Company became as LECTURE it were the rivals of the Crown, and when once established, appealed to the prejudices of conquest and resisted all attempts to alter or abolish it. The Crown from the earliest introduction of its subjects into the country provided for the administration of justice amongst them by a system analogous to that which existed at home. The design of the Regulating Act was eventually to extend that system over the conquered country. It signally failed, and was from the first impossible. The Company, in the exercise of the sovereign power which they derived from the Mogul Emperor through the grant of the dewanny, established a system of Courts suited to the wants of the country, but having no power over those who owed no allegiance to the Mogul. A compromise was made in 1781 by which the power of the Crown Courts was restricted; and the tribunals of the Company were recognized by Parliament. Thenceforward time and policy favored amalgamation, but numerous circumstances and strong party feeling tended to prevent or delay it.

I shall in the next two lectures sketch the history of the provincial Civil and Criminal Courts which were established by the Company. This however will be a convenient place to note the various encroachments which were made upon the exclusive jurisdiction over Europeans which belonged to the

to

LECTURE Crown Courts, and the attempts which were made

VI.

to transfer some portion of it to the rival institutions of the Company.

Tendency In 1813 the first step was taken to vest the amalgama- Company's Courts with Civil jurisdiction over

tion.

British subjects and destroy that complete independence of the local Courts which Europeans had previously possessed. It was enacted in that year by Parliament that British subjects residing, trading, or holding immoveable property in the provinces, should be amenable to the Civil Courts in suits brought against them by Natives. Even then their distinctive privilege of exemption was not entirely lost sight of and the right was given to them of appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where Natives had the right of appeal to the Sudder Court.

In 1836† after the establishment of the Legislature of 1834, an Act was passed which repealed the provision just quoted of the statute of George III invidiously giving a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. It enacted that no person by reason of birth or descent should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Company's Courts.

No further step was taken towards a uniform administration of civil justice till the union of the Sudder and Supreme Courts was effected by Act of Parliament.

* 53 George III, c. 155, s. 107.

† Act XI of 1836.

VI.

The general exemption of Europeans from the LECTURE criminal jurisdiction of the provincial Courts has remained till the present day. The Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian High Courts' Act, both passed in 1861, recognize and preserve that exemption. And the powers of the old Supreme Court, derived from its Charter and from analogy to the Court of Queen's Bench, are still retained by the High Court in its original jurisdiction, although neither necessity nor convenience requires it.

Circumstances however led to that exemption being slowly and reluctantly challenged. By the Statute of George III to which I have frequently referred, the Magistrates in the Provinces were authorized to act as Justices of the Peace and to have jurisdiction over British subjects out of the Presidency Town in certain criminal cases and also in cases of small debts due by them to Natives. After the Legislature of 1834 was established the jurisdiction of such Magistrates was gradually increased.† The Mahomedan Code of Criminal law was gradually disused, and for the last ten years the Penal Code has applied alike to Europeans and Natives.

At the present day Englishmen and Natives are Conclusion. subject in civil matters to the same Courts and to the same procedure; in criminal matters, to the

* 53 Geo. III, c. 155.

† See Acts XXXII of 1838 and IX of 1849, Act IV of 1843, Act VII of 1853.

LECTURE same substantive law, and the same appellate autho

VI.

rity, but in a great degree to different Courts for purposes of commitment and trial, and to a different procedure. The recent Criminal Procedure Code which is shortly to come into operation, has endeavoured to lessen the existing distinctions, and in the course of a few years we may possess not merely a uniform Criminal law but as nearly as possible a uniform system of its administration.

LECTURE VII.

LATER HISTORY: THE PROVINCIAL CIVIL COURTS.

Foundation of Civil Courts-Establishment of Supreme Court-Rival establishments of the Company-Changes in the scheme of 1772-Native authority restored-Effect of the changes-Separation in 1780 of Civil and Revenue Jurisdiction-Struggles between Civil and Revenue Courts-Sudder Dewanny Adawlut-Finally established by Act of Parliament-Re-union in 1787 of Civil and Revenue Jurisdiction by Lord Cornwallis-Changes in the Courts to effect that object-Second separation in 1793 of Civil and Revenue Jurisdiction— Reasons for that separation-Duties of Collectors-Courts of Dewanny Adawlut-Sudder Dewanny Adawlut-Provincial Courts of Appeal-Lower grades of Judges-Changes in the Civil Courts in 1831-Gradual re-union 1793-1831 of Civil and Revenue Jurisdiction-First step towards re-unionSecond step-Third step-Civil and Revenue Jurisdiction united for the third time (1831)—Further extension of the Collector's jurisdiction-Suits cognizable by the Collectors under Act X of 1859-Control over the CollectorsOpposition to the passing of Act X of 1859-Consequences of the Act-Third separation of Civil and Revenue Jurisdiction-Act VIII of 1869 (B. C.)— Further history of the Civil Courts-Necessity for their re-establishmentMadras Courts-Inferior tribunals-Bombay Courts-Revenue jurisdiction in both Presidencies.

of Civil

THE earliest proceeding of any importance, with Foundation reference to the establishment of Provincial Courts Courts. for the administration of civil justice, was the report of Warren Hastings and the scheme which was prepared in 1772.* A leading feature, it will be remembered, of that scheme was the union of fiscal and judicial authority in the same officers.

* See ante, page 37.