In order that regard should be had to the civil and religious usages of the said natives, the rights and authorities of fathers of families, and masters of families, according as the same might have been exercised by the Gentu or Mahomedan law, were to be preserved to them within their families, nor was any act done in consequence of the rule and law of caste, respecting the members of the said families only, to be held and adjudged a crime, although it might not be held justifiable by the laws of England.

Rules and forms for the execution of process in the supreme court were to be accommodated to the religion and manners of the natives, and sent to the Secretary of State, for approval by the king.

6

The appellate jurisdiction of the governor-general and council in country cases was recognized and confirmed in cautiously general terms. Whereas the governor-general and council, or some committee thereof or appointed thereby, do determine on appeals and references from the country or provincial courts in civil cases,' the said court shall and lawfully may hold all such pleas and appeals, in the manner and with such powers as it hitherto hath held the same, and shall be deemed in law a court of record; and the judgements therein given shall be final and conclusive, except upon appeal to His Majesty, in civil suits only, the value of which shall be five thousand pounds and upwards.' The same court was further declared to be a court to hear and determine on all offences, abuses, and extortions committed in the collection of revenue, and on severities used beyond what shall appear to the said court customary or necessary to the case, and to punish the same according to sound discretion, provided the said punishment does not extend to death, or maiming, or perpetual imprisonment 1.

1

No action for wrong or injury was to lie in the supreme

1 See Harington's Analysis, i. 22. But it seems very doubtful whether the council or any of the council had in fact ever exercised jurisdiction as a court of Sadr Diwani Adalat. See Nuncomar and Impey, ii. 189.

court against any person whatsoever exercising any judicial office in the country courts for any judgement, decree, or order of the court, nor against any person for any act done by or in virtue of the order of the court.

The defendants in the Patna case were to be released from prison on the governor-general and council giving security (which they were required to do) for the damages recovered in the action against them; and were to be at liberty to appeal to the king in council against the judgement, although the time for appealing under the charter had expired.

The decision of Parliament, as expressed in the Act of 1781, was substantially in favour of the council and against the court on all points. Sir James Stephen argues that the enactment of this Act' shows clearly that the supreme court correctly interpreted the law as it stood 1.' But this contention seems to go too far. A legislative reversal of a judicial decision shows that, in the opinion of the legislature, the decision is not substantially just, but must not necessarily be construed as an admission that the decision is technically correct. It is often more convenient to cut a knot by legislation than to attempt its solution by the dilatory and expensive way of appeal.

The Act of 1781 contained a further provision which was of great importance in the history of Indian legislation. It empowered the governor-general and council from time to time to frame regulations for the provincial courts and councils.' Copies of these regulations were to be sent to the Court of Directors and to the Secretary of State. They might be disallowed or amended by the king in council, but were to remain in force unless disallowed within two years.

On assuming the active duties of revenue authority in Bengal in 1772, the president and council had made general regulations for the administration of justice in the country by the establishment of civil and criminal courts. And by the Regulating Act of 1773 the governor-general and council 1 Nuncomar and Impey, ii. 192.

1

were expressly empowered to make rules, ordinances, and regulations. But regulations made under this power had to be registered in the supreme court 1, with the consent and approbation of that court. In 1780 the governor-general and council made regulations, in addition to those of 1772, for the more effectual and regular administration of justice in the provincial civil courts, and in 1781 they issued a revised code superseding all former regulations. If these regulations were made under the power given by the Act of 1773 they ought to have been registered. But it does not appear that they were so registered, and after the passing of the Act of 1781 the governor-general and council preferred to act under the powers which enabled them to legislate without any reference to the supreme court. However, notwithstanding the limited purpose for which the powers of 1781 were given, it was under those powers that most of the regulation laws for Bengal purported to be framed. Regulations so made did not require registration or approval by the supreme court. But it was for some time doubtful whether they were binding on that court 2.

The Act of 1781 for defining the powers of the supreme Further legislation court was not the only legislation of that year affecting the of 1781. East India Company. The Company had by 1778 duly repaid their loan of £1,400,000 from the Exchequer, and they subsequently reduced the bond debt to the limits prescribed by an Act of that year 3. By an Act passed in 1781 4, the Company were required to pay a single sum of £400,000 to the public in discharge of all claims to a share in their

As French laws had to be registered by the Parlement, and as Acts of Parliament affecting the Channel Islands still have to be registered by the Royal Courts.

2 See Cowell's Tagore Law Lectures, 1872, and In the matter of Ameer Khan, 6 Bengal Law Reports, 392, 408. The power of legislation was recognized and extended in 1797 by 37 Geo. III, c. 142, s. 8. See below, p. 71. 319 Geo. III, c. 61.

4

21 Geo. III, c. 65. The Company were unable to meet the payments required by this Act, and successive Acts had to be passed for extending the terms fixed for payment (22 Geo. III, c. 51; 23 Geo. III, cc. 36, 83; 24 Geo. III, sess. I, c. 3).

Parlia

mentary inquiries of 1781.

territorial revenues up to March 1 in that year, and their former privileges were extended until three years' notice after March 1, 1791. By the same Act they were authorized to pay a dividend of 8 per cent. out of their clear profits, but three-fourths of the remainder were to go as a tribute to the public.

By way of repayment of the military expenses incurred by the State on their behalf, the Company were required to pay two lacs of rupees annually for each regiment of 1,000 men sent to India at the Company's desire. The Act further authorized the Company to enlist soldiers1, and punish deserters, and prohibited British subjects from residing more than ten miles from any of the Company's principal settlements without a special licence.

Two Parliamentary committees on Indian affairs were appointed in the year 1781. The object of the first, of which Burke was the most prominent member, was to consider the administration of justice in India. Its first fruits were the passing of the Act, to which reference has been made above, for further defining the powers of the supreme court. But it continued to sit for many years and presented several reports, some written by Burke himself. The other committee, which sat in secret, and of which Dundas was chairman, was instructed to inquire into the cause of the recent war in the Carnatic and the state of the British government on the coast. This committee did not publish its report until 1782, by which time Lord North's Government had been driven out of office by the disastrous results of the American war, and had been succeeded by the second Rockingham ministry. The reports of both committees were highly adverse to the system of administration in India, and to the persons responsible for that administration, and led to the passing of resolutions by the House of Commons requiring the recall of Hastings and Impey, and declaring that the powers given

This was the first Act giving Parliamentary sanction to the raising of European troops by the Company. Clode, Military Forces of the Crown, i. 269.

by the Act of 1773 to the governor-general and council ought to be more distinctly ascertained. But the Court of Proprietors of the Company persisted in retaining Hastings in office in defiance both of their directors and of the House of Commons, and no steps were taken for further legislation until after the famous coalition ministry of Fox and North had come into office. Soon after this event, Dundas, who was now in opposition, introduced a Bill which empowered the king to recall the principal servants of the Company, and invested the Governor-General of Bengal with power which was little short of absolute. But a measure introduced by a member of the opposition had no chance of passing, and the Government were compelled to take up the question themselves.

It was under these circumstances that Fox introduced his Fox's East India Bill. famous East India Bill of 1783. His measure would have completely altered the constitution of the East India Company. It was clear that the existing distribution of powers between the State, the Court of Directors, and the Court of Proprietors at home, and the Company's servants abroad, was wholly unsatisfactory, and led to anarchy and confusion. Dundas had proposed to alter it by making the governor-general practically independent, and vesting him with absolute power. Fox adopted the opposite course of increasing the control of the State over the Company at home and its officers abroad. His Bill proposed to substitute for the existing Courts of Directors and Proprietors a new body, consisting of seven commissioners, who were to be named in the Act, were during four years to be irremovable, except upon an address from either House of Parliament, and were to have an absolute power of placing or displacing all persons in the service of the Company, and of ordering and administering the territories, revenues, and commerce of India. Any vacancy in the body was to be filled by the king. A second or subordinate body, consisting of nine assistant directors chosen by the legislature from among the largest proprietors, was to be formed for the