Слике страница
PDF
ePub

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

origin of

British Crown and Parliament, partly from the Great Mogul and authority

in India. 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.

During the first, or trading, period, which begins with the Three charter of Elizabeth in 1600, the East India Company are history of

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.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

1821. Charles Bathurst. 1822. Charles Watkins Williams

Wynn. 1828 (February). Robert Dundas

(afterwards Viscount Melville). 1828 (Sept.). Lord Ellenborough. 1830. Charles Grant (afterwards

Lord Glenelg). 1834. Lord Ellenborough. 1835. Sir John Cam Hobhouse. 1841 (Sept.). Lord Ellenborough. 1841 (October). Lord Fitzgerald

and Vesci. 1843. Lord Ripon.

1846. Sir John Cam Hobhouse. 1852 (February 6). Fox Maule

(afterwards Lord Panmure and

Earl of Dalhousie). 1852 (February 28). John Charles

Herries. 1852 (December 30). Sir Charles

Wood (afterwards Viscount

Halifax). 1855. Robert Vernon Smith (after

wards Lord Lyveden). 1858 (March 6). Lord Ellenborough. 1858 (June). Lord Stanley (after

wards Earl of Derby).

SECRETARIES OF STATE FOR INDIA.

1858. Lord Stanley (afterwards Earl

of Derby), 1859. Sir Charles Wood (afterwards

Viscount Halifax). 1866 (February). Lord de Grey and

Ripon (afterwards Marquis of

Ripon). 1866 (July). Lord Cranborne

(afterwards Marquis of Salis

bury). 1867. Sir Stafford Northcote

(afterwards Earl of Iddes

leigh). 1868. Duke of Argyll. 1874. Lord Salisbury.

1878. Gathorne Hardy (afterwards

Earl of Cranbrook). 1880. Lord Hartington (afterwards

Duke of Devonshire). 1882. Lord Kimberley. 1885. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1886 (February). Lord Kimberley. 1886 (August). Sir Richard Cross

(afterwards Lord Cross). 1892. Lord Kimberley. 1894. H. H. Fowler (afterwards Sir

H. Fowler). 1895. Lord George Hamilton. 1903. St. John Brodrick. 1905. John Morley.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Damodhar Gordhan Deoram

Kanji (the Bhaunagar case), 39,

177, 207 Doss v. The Secretary of State for

India in Council, 171, 174. Dunn v. The Queen, 158.

v. McDonald, ib.

Madhub Chunder Porana mah v.

Rajcoomar Doss, 251. Mandalay v. The East India Com

East India Company v. Sandys, 25.

v. Syed Ally, 172. Empress v. Keshub Mahajun, 265.

v. S. Moorga Chetty, 352, 386. v. Surmook Singh, 386.

Forester and others v. Secretary of

pany, 172. Marais, D. F., Ex pte., 172. Mayor of Lyons v. East India Com

pany, 51, 251, 324.
Muhammed Yusuf-Ud-Din v. The

Queen-Empress, 394.
Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, 88,

204.
Musgrove v. Pulido, 175.

State for India in Council, 173.
Freeman v. Fairlie, 251.
Frith v. Regina, 171.

Nabob of the Carnatic v. East India

Company, 172.
Nga Hoong v. Reg., 242.
Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker, 175.
Nobin Chunder Bannerjee v. Romesh

Chunder Ghose, 250.
Nobin Chunder Dey v. The Secretary

of State for India, 171.

Ganpat Pataya v. Collector of

Canara, 175, 177.
Gibson v. East India Company, 169,

172.

Papayanni v. The Russian Steam

Navigation Company, 355.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

a'la 14. O..

Asalida Covic Mining

The King,

ܘܬܠܐܘܦ

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.

During the first, or trading, period, which begins with the Three charter of Elizabeth in 1600, the East India Company are history of

periods in primarily traders. They enjoy important mercantile privi- constitu

tional leges, and for the purposes of their trade hold sundry factories, develop

ment. mostly 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,

B

ILBERT

« ПретходнаНастави »