A DIGEST OF THE LAW RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CHAPTER I HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION BRITISH authority in India may be traced, historically, to Twofold a twofold source. It is derived partly from the British British origin of Crown and Parliament, partly from the Great Mogul and authority other native rulers of India. In England, the powers and privileges granted by royal charter to the East India Company were confirmed, supplemented, regulated, and curtailed by successive Acts of Parliament, and were finally transferred to the Crown. In India, concessions granted by, or wrested from, native rulers gradually established the Company and the Crown as territorial sovereigns, in rivalry with other country powers; 2nd finally left the British Crown exercising undivided sovereignty throughout British India, and paramount authority over the subordinate native States. It is with the development of this power in England that we are at present concerned. The history of that development may be roughly divided into three periods. in India. periods in tional During the first, or trading, period, which begins with the Three charter of Elizabeth in 1600, the East India Company are history of primarily traders. They enjoy important mercantile privi- constituleges, and for the purposes of their trade hold sundry factories, developmostly on or near the coast, but they have not yet assumed the responsibilities of territorial sovereignty. The cession of Burdwan, Midnapore, and Chittagong in 1760 makes them masters of a large tract of territory, but the first period may, ment. Peninsular and Oriental Company v. R. v. Kastya Rama, 265. Secretary of State for India in Council, 171. Powell v. Apollo Candle Company, 204. Premshankar Raghunathji v. Government of Bombay, 220. Prioleau v. United States, 172. Queen, The, v. Abdul Latib, 386. v. Burah, 203, 386. v. The Commissioners of the Treasury, 175. Queen-Empress, The, v. Barton, 242, 245. v. Daya Bhima, 386. v. Edwards, ib. v. Ganpatras Ram Chandra, ib. v. Kirpal Singh, ib. v. Mangal Takchand, ib. v. Natwarai, ib. Raja of Coorg v. East India Com pany, 172, 173. Raja Salig Ram v. Secretary of State for India in Council, 173. Raleigh v. Goschen, 171. Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canta Mookerjee, 251. Ranee Sonet Kowar v. Mirza Humut Bahadoor, 160. Rao Balwant Singh v. Rani Kishori, 239. Reiner v. Marquis of Salisbury, 171. R. v. Anderson, 345. v. Bernard, 351. v. Carr, 345. v. Edmondstone, 265. v. Jameson, 342, 344. v. Keyn, 244. v. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, 171. v. Lukhya Govind, 386. v. Meares, 207. v. Pirtal, 386. v. Reay, 106, 223. v. Thomas, 170. Salaman v. Secretary of State for India in Council, 175. Sarkies v. Prosonno Mayi Dasi, 250. Secretary of State for India v. Bombay Landing and Shipping Company, 170, 177, 251. v. Matthurabhai, 177. Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba, 172. Shenton v. Smith, 157. Shivabhajan v. Secretary of State for India, 160, 171. Siddha v. Biligiri, 386. Sirdar Bhagwan Singh v. Secretary of State for India in Council, 173. Sprigg v. Siggan, 204. Taluka of Kotda Sangani v. The State of Gondal, 177, 265, 396. Voss v. Secretary of State for India, 158. Walker v. Baird, 174, 262. West Rand Central Gold Mining Company Limited v. The King, 174. Willis v. Gipps, 159. A DIGEST OF THE LAW RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CHAPTER I HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION BRITISH authority in India may be traced, historically, to Twofold a twofold source. It is derived partly from the British British origin of Crown and Parliament, partly from the Great Mogul and authority other native rulers of India. In England, the powers and privileges granted by royal charter to the East India Company were confirmed, supplemented, regulated, and curtailed by successive Acts of Parliament, and were finally transferred to the Crown. In India, concessions granted by, or wrested from, native rulers gradually established the Company and the Crown as territorial sovereigns, in rivalry with other country powers; and finally left the British Crown exercising undivided sovereignty throughout British India, and paramount authority over the subordinate native States. It is with the development of this power in England that we are at present concerned. The history of that development may be roughly divided into three periods. in India. history of tional During the first, or trading, period, which begins with the Three charter of Elizabeth in 1600, the East India Company are periods in primarily traders. They enjoy important mercantile privi- constituleges, and for the purposes of their trade hold sundry factories, developmostly on or near the coast, but they have not yet assumed the responsibilities of territorial sovereignty. The cession of Burdwan, Midnapore, and Chittagong in 1760 makes them masters of a large tract of territory, but the first period may, ment. |