Warren Hasting was the Governor of Madras. He was transferred to Bengal in

1772. As Governor of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, he prepared the First Judicial

Plan in 1772. It was the first step to regulate the machinery of administration of

justice. The plan being a land mark in the judicial history became famous as

“Warren Hastings Judicial Plan of 1772”

Warren Hasting was appointed as Governor of Bengal, he started his

efforts for eradicating the evils in the administration of the justice and revenue

collection. He abolished the system of “Double Government” and executed the

Diwani functions through the Company’s servants. He appointed a committee

consisting of Governor and four members of his Council to find out the causes

of the evils in the existing judicial administration and revenue collection. The

committee was also to prepare a plan for the administration of Justice and

revenue collection. The committee under the Chairmanship of Warren Hastings

prepared the First Plan in 1772. This is known as Warren Hastings Plan of 1772.

Warren Hasting administrative plan divided territory of Bengal, Bihar

and Orissa into number of District. In each district an English servant of the

Company was appointed as collector who was to be responsible for the

collection of revenue.

Under this plan the whole of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were divided into

districts. The district was selected as the unit for the collection of revenue and

for the administration of civil and criminal justice.

ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE –

Establishment of Mofussil Diwani Adalat –

As per Warren Hastings plan a Mofussil Diwani Adalat was established in every

district with collector as the Judge. The court was authorized to decide all civil

cases like dispute regarding, Properties inheritance, Marriage, Caste, Debts,

Disputed Accounts, Contracts, Partnership and Demand of Rent etc. where ever

possible religious laws of Muslims as well as Hindus were followed and

applied.

As English servant who was appointed as a collector did not understand

the religious laws. So there was Kaziz and Pundits were appointed to help them.

ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE –

Establishment of Mofussil Faujdari Adalat –

In every district Mofussil Nizamat or Faujdari Adalat was established to

try all criminal cases. The Adalat consisted of Kaziz, Mufti and Moulvies. The

Moulvies interpreted the Muslim law of crimes. The Kazis and Mufti gave

Fatwa and render Judgment. In this Adalat Collector exercise general

supervision over the adalat and saw that no corruption was made in the cases.

The judgment was given impartially.

This Faujdari Adalat was not allowed to handle cases where punishment

was death sentence of forfeiture of property of the accused. Such cases went to

Sardar Nizamat Adalat for final order.

Establishment of Small Causes Adalat –

AS NAME SAYS THIS Adalat decided petty cases up to Rs. 10/- the

head farmer of the village became the judge. This system was designed to save

the travelling expenses of poor farmers as they did not need to travel to the

district place for justice.

Establishment of Sardar Adalat –

Firstly, two courts were established namely Mofussil Diwani Adalat and

Mofussil Faujdari Adalat over them two superior Courts were established.

Namely Sardar Diwani Adalat and Sardar Nizamat Adalat. The Sardar Diwani

Adalat was consisted of Governor and member of the Council and was to hear

appeals from Mofussil Diwani Adalat. In the case of over Rs. 500/-. The First

sitting of Sardar Diwani Adalat was held on 17th March 1773. On each appeal of

5 percent was charged. The appeal were to be filed in the Adalat within 2

months from the date of the judgment decree given by the Mofussil Diwani

Adalat.

Establishment of Sardar Nizamat Adalat –

Sardar Nizamat Adalat consisted of an Indian judge known as Daroga-

e- Adalat. Who was to be consisted by the chief Kazi, Chief Mufti and Three

Moulvies. Nawab appointed all these persons as per the advice of Governor. In

case of death sentences punishment deal warrant was made by the adalat and

signed by the Nawab as the head of Nizamat.

The governor and Council supervised this adalat to control and reduce

the corruption all cases were ordered to maintain registers and records. Any

case older than 12 years was not accepted. District Courts forwarded their

records to Sardar Adalat.

In civil cases when Plaintiff field a case defendant accused person was

given only limited time to give answer then examine the witness and give the

decree pass the final orders. The plan tried to reduce the expenses of people

with this plan officers like Kaziz, Muftis were given salaries. Before this plan

judge charged the commission but the new plan abolished this law and

introduced the court fee system where fee went to government. After this plan

and establishment of Courts for common Indians it became easy to approach the

judiciary. Warren Hasting was very intelligent person he purposefully did not

take the full charge of criminal justice system and kept the puppet Nizam alive.

He did not change the forms and when possible tried to show case that company

respects the Nizam like case Nizam got the power to sign the death sentences.

In other clever intelligent system Warren Hasting kept alive was that following

Hindus Laws for Hindus and Muslim Laws for Muslims. In this Plan Collector

got the many powers Collectors was the administrator Tax Collector, Civil

Judge and Superior over the Criminal Courts with this Collectors for the

unlimited powers and Warren Hasting knew this the Collectors will become

corrupt and he already told the Company directors of the Company understood

the fear and reality of this Plan. In the year 1773 Company directed the Calcutta

Council to withdraw the Collectors as they became very corrupt. After this

Calcutta government introduced new plan for the collection of revenue and

administration of justice on November 23rd 1773 and put into force in the year

1774.

PLAN OF 1774 –

With the plan collectors were recalled from every district in place of

collectors an Indian officer was appointed called Diwan or Amil Diwan got the

power to collect the revenue as well as act as a Judge in the Mofussil Diwani

Adalat. The territory of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was divided into 6 divisions

with their headquarters at Calcutta, Burdwan, Murshidabad, Dinajdore, Dacca

and Patna. In each division many districts were created, the complete Bihar

came under the Patna Division.

A provincial council consisting of 4 or 5 English servant of the

Company were appointed in each division to supervise the collection of revenue

and to hear appeals from the cases decided by the Amil and Indian Diwan. The

appeals from this Provincial Council were allowed if the case amount was more

than Rs 1000/- the appeal went to Sardar Diwani Adalat. This time also Warren

Hasting new that the Provincial Council will do the more harm and more

corruption then the collectors. Warren Hasting thought this plan as temporary

plan but regulating act was passes in this time and Warren Hasting could not

change the Plan until year 1780.

PLAN OF 1780 –

The Indian Civil procedure Code prepared 1780. Warren Hasting knew

that the Judicial Plan of 1774 was not perfect and when Warren Hastings again

got the chance and he made changes to the Judicial Plan of 1774 on April 1780.

New plan was introduced as per the Plan of 1780. Judicial and Executive

functions were separated.

Words and Meanings –

Adalat –

Functions to do Civil Justice no revenue work.

Provincial Council –

No Judicial work only revenue related work, collection and revenue

cases. But with this plan the problem was that area was vast and Adalat were

few to administer those large areas, because of this cases were more time was

limited with the judges and this arrears piled up in every Adalat. 2nd problem

was that witness have to travel lot to reach the Adalats. There was only one

Adalat in the whole Bihar, because of this people thought is better not to file the

cases in courts as filing cases in court meant delayed justice, physical

harassment waste of time and money.

As per the Judicial Plan cases up to Rs. 100/- were referred to the person

who stayed near the place of litigant but before this. It was compulsory to file

the case in Adlalat and 2nd problem was that the person who works as a

Honorary Judge and he did not get any salary. The Zamindar or Public Officer

acted as an Honorary Judge and they charged money for this and also Zamindar

got the chance to do corruption as he became the Honorary Judge. Warren

Hasting was not satisfied with the Plan of 1780 he always thought about the

improving Judicial System in India. The Judicial System of East India

Company.

On 29th September 1780, Hasting proposed in the Council that Chief

Justice, Sir Elijah Impey be requested to accept the charge of the office of the

Sardar Diwani Adalat.

Impey accepted this offer. He remained in sardar Diwani Adalat for a

year but he introduced lot of reforms in Sardar Diwani Adalat. Impey drafted

many reulations to reform the Adalat on November 3rd 1780. First reform

regulation was passed to regulate the procedure of the Diwani Adalat. As per

this rule he was allow to take the help of Hindu Pundits or Muslims Mulla if it

was necessary to understand the cause or case.

Impey compiled a civil procedure code for the guidance of the Sardar

Adalat and Mofussil Diwani Adalat, it was the First Code of CivilProcedure to

be prepared in India. It was promulgated by the Council on July 1751 in the

forms of regulation it was the digest of the Civil rules. The Code consolidated at

one place a detailed Civil Procedure. The code contained 95 clauses and with it

all the previous regulations regulating to civil procedure were repeated. The

code of 1781 clearly defined the functions, power and jurisdiction of Sardar

Diwani Adalat.

This code was translated in person and Bengali language that time in

India. Impey was doing great job, but in England, people were not happy with

the impey because of following reasons Impey was appointed as the Supreme

Court judge to monitor the Company affairs in India. But in India Impey stated

to work as the Judge of Sardar Diwani Adalat, accepting this violated the

Regulation Act. Because of other job they believed that the Impey would not do

the Justice with the job of Supreme Court, because of all above reasons on

3rd May 1782 in England House of Commons adopted a resolution requesting

the Crown King to recall Impey to answer the charge of having accepted an

officer and violating the Regulation Act. After this Impey left India on

3rd December 1782. From the Impey appointment one should learn that

whatever post or job may be the concern person must be studied in the

profession.

Regarding Criminal Justice System Hasting took following Steps –

Machinery was created for the purpose of arresting Criminal and

bringing them before the Fouzdari Adalat for the trial. This system never

existed in India before this a new department office of the remembrance was

created at Calcutta to keep watch on the functioning of Criminal Adalats. The

department was to work under the Governor General. The head of the

department was known as Remembrance of Criminal Courts. All Criminal

Courts were required to send periodical reports to this department. Everything

was done as per the Muslims Criminal Law and Hastings was not happy with he

tried his best but Company heads did not accept his views because of this

Criminal Justice System, every one made using corrupt ways.

Merits –

1) The personal laws of Hindus and Muslims were safe guarded.

2) District was selected as a unit of the administration of justice and collection

of the revenue.

3) The jurisdiction of the Diwani and Faujdari Adalats were clearly defined.

4) The judges of these Courts were Englishmen and they did not have the

knowledge of the personal laws of Hindus and Muslims, but this defect

removed out to the large extent of appointing native law officers.

5) The commission basis was replaced by the court-fee which was to be

deposited with the Government and not with Judges. This changes was made so

that Judges ceased to have any personal interest in a particular case. Thus the

change was made to promote impartial and fair justice.

Demerits –

1) Less number of courts –

The head farmers were given power to decide petty cases up to Rs. 10/- in fact it

was necessary to have more subordinate courts keeping in view the population

and the population and the area of each district.

2) Concentration of Powers –

Administrative, Tax collection and Judicial in the hands of the Collectors. The

Collectors was the Civil Judge as well as Supervisor of the Criminal Courts. It

was impossible for the collectors to devote time and energy to regulate all these

affairs.

Adalat System

The administration of justice at the time Warren Hasting took over as Governor

of Bengal was in a bad shape. It was almost verging on a total collapse. The

dual system of government proved very defective and unsatisfactory. The courts

had become the instruments of power rather than of justice, useless as means of

protection but apt instruments for oppression. On realizing the fact that the

system of double government had failed the company authorized the then

Governor Warren Hastings to adopt such regulations and pursue such measures

as shall at once ensure every possible advantage to the Company and free the

ryots from the oppression of Zamindars and petty tyrants.

Warren Hastings hence proceeded to make major changes in the administration

of justice. This paper work views the various reforms made by Warren Hastings

during his time in India. This administration of justice maybe studied in four

stages. To start with Warren Hastings realized the very fact that an impartial and

regular administration of justice was extremely essential for creating conditions

for a better collection of land revenue. Thus changes were made in regard to

civil and criminal justice while various other provisions were also introduced.

Moreover one of the major development which took place was that the three

presidencies—Bengal, Bombay, and Madras— were divided into a number of

districts for the betterment of administration. Lastly, the appointment of Impey

helped in fulfilling the need of reforming the judicial system under the control

and supervision of a powerful authority. In fulfillment of his duties, his work of

compiling the Civil Procedure Code was quite recommendable. It was for the

first time that the law was put on solid and certain grounds so that the people

could know as to what the procedure of courts was.

Administration Of Justice:

FirstStage

The Judicial Plan of 1772 as been formulated by Warren Hasting consisted of

37 regulations dealing with civil and criminal laws. It was the first Anglo-Indian

Code, which worked out on the basis of experience and common observations.

An endeavour was made to adopt it to the manners and understandings of the

people and exigencies of the country, adhering as closely as possible to their

ancient usages and institutions. The idea was to retain, as far as possible, the

native magistracy and codes of law, recorded and oral, to which the people had

become accustomed. The plan aimed at correcting the defects without

destroying the traditions of the local systems. Thus the diwani area of Bengal,

Bihar, and Orissa was divided into several districts, each with an English

collector as its head. This ‘district’ was the main administrative unit in the plan.

The main features of Judicial Plan of 1772 may be explained under the the

following headings

Civil Justice: A Mofussil Diwani Adalat was established in each district to

decide civil cases. The collector was the judge of this court. The court took

cognizance of all civil cases including property, inheritance, succession, caste,

marriage, contracts, accounts etc. In the suits regarding inheritance, marriage,

caste and other religious usages and institutions, the Hindu law was applicable

to the Hindus while the laws of Koran was applied to the Mohammedans. The

collector in matters of Hindus and Muslims was helped by pandits and kazis

respectively who expounded the law. Appeals from these courts were to be

heard by the Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta where the subject matter of the

case exceeded Rs. 500. This court comprised Governor as its President and at

least two members of the council aided by Diwan Treasury and Chief

Kanungos.[1]

Criminal Justice: A Mofussil Faujdari (or Nizamat) Adalat was established in

each district for the trial of crimes and misdemeanours.[2] This court was

assisted by a Kazi or Mufti and two Maulvies who expounded the law, while the

Collector had a general supervision over the court. The court had full power to

decide and punish all criminal cases though they were not empowered to award

death sentence. In such cases, the court’s decision was submitted to Sadar

Nizamat Adalat for confirmation and finally to the Nawab for his sentence.

Sadar Nizamat Adalat, established at Calcutta, was presided by an Indian judge

known as Daroga-i-Adalat who was to be assisted by the chief Kazi, chief Mufti

and three Maulvies to hear the appeals from the Faujdari Adalat.

Revenue Administration: The whole revenue system was reorganized under the

Hastings plan of 1772. The revenue Boards at Murshidabad and Patna were

abolished and a supreme authority called the Board of Revenue was set up at

Calcutta which consisted of the Governor and all the members of the Council.

The Treasury was also shifted to Calcutta. Further, the district supervisors were

appointed as Collectors of revenue and also native Naib Diwans as heads of the

native executive in districts.[3]

Moreover, the Board of Revenue comprising Governor and his Councilors at

Calcutta sat twice a week for issuing necessary orders and instructions to the

Collectors of Districts and inspecting, auditing, and passing the revenue

accounts.

The plan of 1772 was in many respects a boon to the people at that time. The

change in judicial system brought back the confidence of the people in the

government and the justice. However, a grave defect in the plan was that the

Collector acted as the administrator; the Judge and the Magistrate in the district

i.e. there was over-centralisation of powers in a single official.[4]

Miscellaneous Provisions: A few provisions were made to promote pure and

impartial justice. All cases were to be heard in open court. All adalats were to

maintain proper registers and records. District adalats were to transmit abstracts

of their records to Sadar Adalats. This precaution was necessary so as to

discourage judicial officers from misusing their power. To make justice

inexpensive, the old vexatious impositions on administration of justice were

abolished and moderate fees were prescribed for trial of civil cases which was

bound to give relief to people. To supplement the work of the courts, the

method of arbitration was also provided for.

Despite the merits of Judicial Plan of 1772, it had certain demerits which are

stated as follows:

One of the major defects of the Plan was that there was over-centralization of

powers in a single official, namely, the Collector. He was overburdened with

heavy work as he was singularly required to shoulder the responsibility as an

administrator, revenue collector, civil judge and a magistrate in his District.

The Judicial Plan had a limited application only in the territory of Bengal, Bihar

and Orissa. It was based on an erroneous assumption of Hastings that Indian

population consisted of only the Hindus and Muslims. There were other

communities and races for which there was no provision made in the Judicial

Plan.[5]Though the functioning of Adalats was under the supervision and

control of the Sadar Adalat at Calcutta, but in absence of adequate means of

communications it was almost impossible for the government at Calcutta to

keep a constant watch on the working of the Collectors of the districts. In

absence of an effective control, the Collectors indulged in private trading and

misused their position and power for personal gains.

The judges of the courts being Englishmen, they did not have knowledge of

personal laws of Hindus and Muslims. Though native laws officers were

appointed to assist the English judges, but they could easily misguide the judges

by deliberately misinterpreting the provisions of the Quran and Shastras.

The functions of revenue collection and civil administration were combined in a

single official, the Collector. Therefore there was no separation between

revenue collection and civil administration. Obviously, the Collector paid more

attention to revenue collection than the civil administration.

Administration Of Justice: Second Stage

The abolition of the institution of Collector in 1773 on the advice of the Court

of Directors of the Company in England up-set the judicial arrangement of 1772

and a new Plan became an urgent need of the time. Warren Hastings prepared

new Plan on November 23, 1773 which was implemented in January

1774.[6]The various changes made in regard to revenue, civil justice, criminal

reforms are as follows:

Revenue: Collectors were re-called from the districts and in their place an

Indian officer, called Diwan or Amil, was appointed. He was to act as a judge of

the Mofussil Diwani Adalat and collected the land revenue also. The entire

Mofussil area in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was divided into six divisions with

the Headquarters as Calcutta, Burdwan, Murshidabad, Dinajpore, Dacca and

Patna.[7] Each division had a Provincial Council consisting of a Chief and four

senior servants of the Company. A Committee of Revenue was instituted at

Calcutta for superintending that Division, consisting of two members of the

Council and three senior servants, assisted by a Diwan and others. The Councils

and the Committee were to supervise the collection of revenue in their

Divisions. Indian Naib Diwans were appointed in the districts under each

Provincial Council to look after the same work. Complaints against the Head

Farmers, Naib Diwans, Zamindars and other principal officers of the

government, relating to their conduct in the revenue, were to be decided by the

Provincial Councils. Aggrieved parties might ultimately go to the Board of

Revenue at Calcutta.

Civil Justice: The provisions relating to appeals in civil cases were also

considerably liberalised under the plan of 1774. Now all cases decided by the

Mofussil Diwani Adalats were appealable to the Provincial Council irrespective

of the value of the subject matter of the suit. There was also a provision for

second appeal to the Sadar Diwani Adalat in cases exceeding the value of Rs.

1000/-.[8]

Criminal Reforms: The Officers of the Faujdari Adalats were forbidden to hold

farms or other offices in the Mofussil and were obliged to reside in their

districts on pain of forfeiting their employments. Complaints against them were

to be lodged with the Governor-General who would refer them to the Sadar

Nizamat Adalat for inquiry and determination.

Although the new system was an improvement over the earlier one, the change

did not give good results for long. The Council took the place of the Collector in

creating the difficulties and monopolising the trade within its jurisdiction.

Warren Hastings detected this defect very soon but he could not make any

change till 1780 when entirely a new modified system was established.

Administration of Justice: Third Stage

The defects of the system set up in 1774 were seen in the Patna Case[9] which

is concerned with the conflict between the jurisdiction of Supreme Court and

function of adalat in mofussil areas.

As it was in practice those days, the Mofussil Adalat as well as the Provincial

Council employed services of Kazis and Maulabis to interpret the Muslim law.

The judicial commission arrived at a decision after taking into account the

consultation of the Maulabis and Kazis. Thus it became a practice to neglect

judicial work.

In this case, the Maulabis and Kazis were given the power to take the evidence

of the case and arrive to a decision. No established law was followed while

taking the evidence and the Provincial Council passed a judgement based on the

evidence collected by irregular procedure.

The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Council did not delegate its judicial

decisions according to the procedures held by the Supreme Court. Thus an order

was passed by the Supreme Court to send the wrong-doers to jail.

The decisions of the Supreme Court were criticized to a large extent. Following

this, the work in Mofussil Adalat came to a halt because no officers in this

adalat were ready to take up judicial work as they will have to go to jail. The

work of revenue collection also suffered because most of the revenue officers

left their jobs.

The defect when came to the knowledge of Warren Hastings, could not continue

any longer and he remedied it by giving a new judicial plan promulgated on 11

April 1780.[10]

The basic feature of this plan was the separation of revenue matters from

judicial matters. Henceforth, there were established separate authorities

(a) To deal with the collection of land revenue and to decide the disputes arising

there from and

(b) For the purpose of deciding other disputes.

Under this system the provincial councils were left only with the function of

collecting the land revenue and deciding revenue disputes and other judicial

functions were taken away from their hands.

Revenue

Bengal,Bihar,Orissa

In each District an Englishservant of the company wasappointed as collector who was tobe responsible for the collection ofland revenue.

Diwani Adalat

A new court, called the Provincial Court of Diwani Adalat was established at

each of the headquarters of the six divisions. This Adalat was presided over by

an English covenanted servant of the Company who was called the

Superintendent of the Diwani Adalat. He was to be appointed by the Governor-

General and Council. This Court was to hold its sittings thrice a week and

decide civil cases pertaining to property, inheritance and contracts. It was also

empowered to hear cases relating to inheritance and succession of Zamindari

and Talukedari which were hitherto within the purview of the Governor and

Council. The decision of the Provincial Court of Diwani Adalat in cases upto

the value of Rs.1000/- was final and in cases exceeding this value, an appeal lay

to the Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta which consisted of the Governor General

and Council.

The plan of 1780 was certainly a great improvement upon the plan of l774.

Its main merit lay in its effecting the separation of the judicial from the

executive functions. It was a welcome change. The plan, however, suffered

from defects also.

The Superintendents of the Diwani Adalats were not selected from the senior

servants of the Company. Some of them were illiterate, ignorant of the Eastern

languages and most extravagant, dissipated young men.

There was a tendency of the new Adalats to come into conflict with the

Provincial Councils. The Governor-General-in-Council had no time to sit at the

Sadar Court to hear appeals and supervise the work of these Courts. Without the

support and control of some powerful authority, it was impossible for them even

to subsist; there was possibility of their sinking into contempt or becoming

instruments of oppression.

There were only six Diwani Adalats. This number was very small in a vast area

of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. This resulted into great expense on the part of the

suitors, waste of their time and energy and inconveniences they suffered from,

on account of long journeys. Even those persons, whose cases, not exceeding

Rs. 100 in value, were referred to Zamindars or public officers, had to come at

least once to the Divisional Headquarters for such reference. The Zamindars or

public officers as honorary Judges. There was thus a danger of their abusing the

authority to their own advantage. Further the paucity of the Courts put a very

heavy strain on the Diwani Adalats.

The Provincial Council which was left only with revenue functions also had the

power to decide the disputes relating to revenue matters and to that extent it

worked as a court in its own cause which was against the principles of natural

justice.

Appointment of Impey at Sadar Diwani Adalat:

There was an urgent need of reforming the judicial system under the control and

supervision of a powerful authority. From the beginning, the business of the

Sadar Diwani Adalats was not only to receive appeals from the inferior Courts

in all cases exceeding a certain amount but to receive and revise their

proceedings, to attend to their conduct, to remedy their defects and to form

generally such regulations and checks as experience should prove to be

necessary to the purpose of their institution. The Governor-General and

Council, who previously constituted the Sadar Diwani Adalat, admitted their

incapacity of exercising these powers and expressly stipulated that Chief Justice

Sir Elijah lmpey should act as the sole Judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat on a

salary at their pleasure. They thought that this would lessen the tension between

the Council and the Court, would facilitate and give vigour to the course of

justice, lessen the burden of the Council and add, to its leisure for occupations

more urgent and better suited to the genius and principles of Government. The

Governor-General and the Councillors were non-lawyers. Impey, being an

experienced and trained lawyer was expected to discharge judicial functions in a

far better way and curb out evils from the judicial establishment of the

Company.[11]

Elijah Impey was, therefore, appointed the sole Judge of the Sadar Diwani

Adalat in October, 1780. He continued in this office till November, 1782 when

he was recalled to England. In fulfillment of his new duties, Impey prepared

thirteen articles of Regulations for the guidance of the Civil Courts. They were

afterwards incorporated, with additions and amendments, in a revised Code,

consisting of ninety-five articles, which was passed in July, 1781. This was the

first Civil Procedure Code of India. The aims were to explain such rules, orders,

and regulations as might be ambiguous, to revoke such as might be repugnant or

obsolete to frame a consistent Code, to formulate the procedure and jurisdiction

of the civil courts, to prescribe a general table of fees, to make the law of civil

procedure cognizable to the people, to provide for arbitration and appeals to the

Sadar Diwani Adalat, to provide for the limitation of suits, giving in most cases

a term of twelve years, to protect the litigating people from the extortions or

frauds of the unscrupulous officers of the Courts, and so on.

Reforms by Impey:

Sir Impey remained in his office for about a year but during this time he made

very important reforms in the administration of judiciary of that time. He issued

regulations for the improvement of all the courts existing in the Mofussil area.

By those regulations the following new changes were made.

1. The Diwani Adalat at the divisions were directed to hear all the cases in the

open court after administering proper oath to the witnesses. The law officers

should be used only for the purpose of expounding the law on the facts which

the court had decided, i.e. the law officers had no power to decide the facts or

hear the witnesses or the parties. The procedure which was found to have been

followed in Patna Case of reporting the matter to the court by the law officers

was stopped by this Regulation.

2. The number of the Diwani Adalats was increased from 6 to 18 so as to avoid

the inconvenience to the people coming from long distances and also to reduce

the arrears of work.

3. The most distinguished work which Impey did was the compilation of a Civil

procedure Code which was first of its kind ever introduced in this country. The

Code was promulgated by the Governor General and Council on 5 July 1781.

Although the Code did not make very far reaching Changes, it put the law on

solid and certain grounds so that the people could know as to what the

procedure of courts was. It also bound down the courts to follow the procedure

specified in it. The Code consisted of 95 clauses.

4. The provision regarding the application of personal laws in certain categories

of cases viz., inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages or

institutions was incomplete so far as the rule of decision in other cases was

concerned. Besides, adding the word 'succession' to the word 'inheritance',

Impey filled up the gap by providing that in all cases for which no specific

directions were given, the Sadar Diwani Adalat and the Mofussil Diwani

Adalats were to act according to justice, equity and good conscience, This was a

remarkable provision which completed the rule of decision in all civil cases of

Hindus and Mohammedans.

5. Another important feature of the Plan was putting the Sadar Diwani Adalat

on a· sounder basis. Impey brought the union of the powers of a Board of

Superintendence with those of a Court of Appeal. Laziness, laxity, impatience

and want of method were the faults of which young, inexperienced Judges,

devoid of any legal know1edge and having only an imperfect knowledge of

languages of their respective huge districts, were guilty. Superintendence was,

therefore, as urgent as appeal. The Sadar Diwani Adalat was, therefore, to

perform the following functions:

(a) To hear appeals from the lower Courts in cases exceeding Rs. 1,000;

(b) to decide any matter of civil nature referred to it by the Governor-General-

in-Council;

(c) to exercise control and supervision over the lower Court, firstly, by receiving

an original complaint, cognizable by a lower Court which refuses to entertain it,

and then referring it to Mofussil Diwani Adalat for expeditious disposal, and

secondly, by suspending a Judge of a lower Court on ground of misconduct and

reporting the matter to the Governor-General-in-Council for final decision.

Recall of Impey

The appointment of Impey to the Sadar Diwani Adalat was actually a good step

for the reformation of judicial system and he himself also worked very

vigorously and sincerely to reform it. But his holding the twin offices of the

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat

was not favoured by the authorities in England. They thought it was a violation

of The Regulating Act which had established a judicial system at Calcutta

independent of all control from the Company. To them, by accepting the

judgeship of the Sadar Diwani Adalat, Chief Justice, Impey had put himself

under the subordination of the Company from whom he got his appointment and

also the salary as judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat. Although after few months

Impey refused to draw his salary as judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat unless the

Lord Chancellor gave him a clearance. His sincerity was doubted in England

and he was recalled on May 3, 1782 from his office of judgeship of the Sadar

Diwani Adalat as well as from the Chief Justiceship of the Supreme Court.

After the recall of Impey the Sadar Diwani Adalat again came into its previous

from, i.e., the court was again constituted of Governor General Council.

Though Impey was accused of compromising his judicial independence as a

Crown's Judge, and was, therefore, called back, he gave no opportunity to

anyone to say that he, as the sole Judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat, acted in a

way which compromised his judicial independence as the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court. Whatever the criticism, his Code was an extraordinary

contribution giving new directions to Judges of the Diwani Adalats and

litigants. Its compilation was the first attempt of its kind in India, and it made

the law of civil procedure certain to some extent. Under the judgeship of Impey

the whole judicial system indefinitely became much better. Thus the act of

appointing Impey was later regarded as one of the wisest measures which

Warren Hastings carried through.

Administration of Justice: Fourth Stage

Under the Plan of 1772, a Sadar Nizamat Adalat was established at Calcutta. In

1775, it was shifted to Murshidabad probably to avoid any interference from,

and conflict as to jurisdiction with, the Supreme Court. There it was put under

the authority of the Naib-Nazim Reza Khan. In 1776, a plan for criminal justice

from Reza Khan was adopted, under which twenty-three Fauzdari Adalats in all

were established in the districts. But as the system had once become loose and

the Collector or the Governor-General and Council could not get enough time to

have an effective control over these courts, they failed to provide justice to the

people. Justice was neither given in time nor any principles of justice was taken

into consideration. The accused had to remain in detention for years before his

trial was finalised. The conditions of prisons were inhuman. There were number

of defects in the system which required total overhauling of criminal

administration of justice. The Mohammedan law of crimes was also very

defective. Warren Hastings was quite conscious of all this and in the year 1781

he drew a scheme for some reforms in the criminal judicial administration.

Reforms in the Criminal Judicature

The following reforms were made by Warren Hastings in the Criminal

Judicature:

In order to devise a machinery to arrest criminals and to bring them to trial, the

Judges of the Mofussil Diwani Adalats were appointed as Magistrates also.

They were, however, not given, for the time being any jurisdiction to try them.

They were to apprehend those persons who were suspected of having

committed crimes and send them to the nearest Faujdari Adalats for trial with

written accusations.

To have an effective supervision over the proceedings of the criminal courts

including the Sadar Nizamat Adalat, Warren Hastings created a separate

department at Calcutta to receive monthly reports and returns of proceedings,

lists of persons apprehended and sent for trials by Magistrates, details of

charges leveled against them, and the lists of persons released, convicted, and

put in confinement by the criminal courts.

A covenanted servant of the Company was appointed to act under the Governor-

General as head of this Department, with the title of the Remembrancer of the

Criminal Courts. He was incharge of all the reports dispatched by various

Magistrates and courts. He was to analyze these reports, prepare extracts and

arrange them in a proper way. This is how a check was to be maintained on all

persons entrusted with the administration of criminal justice.

But the control exercised by this officer was very weak and imperfect. The

system did not prove to be effective. The Remembrancer depended for

information on the reports of various courts and it was not difficult for the latter

to manipulate them so as to present a favourable picture of the things and to

conceal the real state of affairs from the Government.

In 1782, the number of Faujdari Adalats was reduced from twenty-three to

eighteen. While in 1785, for more speedy and effectual administration of

criminal justice, the Magistrates were empowered to try petty offences; but in

all cases affecting either the life or limb of the accused persons or subjecting

them to imprisonment of more than four days or to corporal punishment

exceeding fifteen stripes, the Magistrates could not try the accused themselves

but to send them to the Faujdari Adalats. This particular provision was made

soon after the departure of Warren Hastings to England.[12]

Judicial Plan of 1780, First Indian Civil Code Prepared

Warren Hastings knew that the judicial plan of 1774 was not perfect, and when

Warren Hastings again got the chance, he made changes to the judicial plan of

1774. On April 11, 1780 new plan was introduced. As per the plan of 1780

judicial and executive functions were separated. Adalats – Function to do civil

justice, no revenue work Provincial Council - No judicial work, only revenue

related work, collection and revenue cases. But with this plan the problem was

that, the area was vast and adalats were few to administer those large areas,

because of this, cases were more, time was limited with the judges and thus

arrears piled up in every adalat. 2nd problem was that witnesses had to travel lot

to reach the adalats For eg. There was only one Adalat in the whole of Bihar.

Because of this people thought it better not to file the cases in courts, as filing

cases in court meant delayed justice, physical harassment, waste of time and

money. As per the judicial plan cases up to Rs.100 were referred to the person

who stayed near the place of litigant ,but before this it was compulsory to file

the case in the Adalat, and 2nd problem was that the person who worked as

judges has to work as a honorary judge and did not get any salary . The

Zamindar or public officer acted as an honorary judge and they charged money

for this and also zamindar got the chance to do corruption as he became the

honorary judge.

Warren Hasting was not satisfied with the plan of 1780 and always thought

about improving the judicial system in India. On 29th September 1780 Warren

Hastings proposed in the Council that chief justice Sir Elijah Impey be

requested to accept the charge of the office of the Sadar Diwani Adalat. Impey

accepted this offer. He remained in Sadar Adalat for a year but he introduced a

lot of reforms in sadar adalat. Impey drafted many regulations to reform the

adalats. On November 3, 1780 first reform, regulation was passed to regulate

the procedure of the diwani adalats. As per this rule , the Mofussil judge had to

decide the facts , he was allowed to take the help of Hindu Pundits or Muslim

Mulla if it was necessary to understand the cause or case. Impey compiled a

civil procedure code for the guidance of the Sadar Adalat and mofussil diwani

adalats. It was the first code of civil procedure to be prepared in India . It was

promulgated by the Council on July 5, 1781 in the form of a Regulation. It was

the digest of the civil rules The code consolidated at one place a detailed civil

procedure. The code contained 95 clauses and with it all the previous

regulations relating to civil procedure were repealed. The code of 1781 clearly

defined the functions, powers and jurisdiction of Sadar Diwani Adalat. This

code was translated in Persian and Bengali language that time. In India, Impey

was doing a great job, but in England people were not happy with Impey

because of following reasons – Impey was appointed as the Supreme Court

judge to monitor the Company affairs in India. But in India Impey started to

work as a company servant when he accepted office as the Judge of Sadar

Adalat. Accepting this violated the Regulation act. Because of other job, they

believed that Impey would not do the justice with the job of Supreme Court.

Because of all above reasons , on 3rd May 1782 in England House of Commons

adopted a resolution requesting the crown, king , to recall Impey to answer the

charge of having accepted an office and violating the Regulating act. After this

Impey left India on 3rd December 1782 Regarding criminal justice system

Warren Hasting took certain steps. Machinery was created for the purpose of

arresting criminals and bringing them before the fozdari adalat for the trial. This

system never existed in India before this. A new department, office of the

Remembrancer was created at Calcutta to keep watch on the functioning of

criminal adalats. The department was to work under the Governor General. The

head of the department was known as Remembrancer of criminal courts All

criminal courts were required to send periodical reports to this department.

Everything was done as per the Muslim criminal law and Warren Hasting was

not happy with many things, and wanted to reform them, he tried his best but

company heads did not accept his views. Because of this in criminal justice

system, everyone made money using the corrupt ways.

Indian Legal History - Judicial Plan of 1780, First Indian Civil Code

Warren Hastings knew that the judicial plan of 1774 was not perfect, and when

Warren Hastings again got the chance and He made changes to the judicial plan

of 1774, On April 11, 1780 new plan was introduced.

As per the plan of 1780 judicial and executive functions were separated.

Adalats – Function to do civil justice, no revenue work

Provincial Council - No judicial work, only revenue related work, collection

and revenue cases.

But with this plan the problem was that, area was vast and adalats were few to

administer those large areas, because of this, cases were more, time was limited

with the judges and thus arrears piled up in every adalat.

2nd problem was that witnesses have to travel lot to reach the adalats

There was only one Adalat in the whole of Bihar.

Because of this people thought it is better not to file the cases in courts, as filing

cases

in court meant, delayed justice, physical harassment, waste of time and money.

As per the judicial plan cases up to Rs.100 were referred to the person who

stayed near the place of litigant ,but before this it was compulsory to file the

case in the Adalat, and 2nd problem was that the person who work as judge has

to work as a honorary judge and he did not get any salary . The Zamindar or

public officer acted as an honorary judge and they charged money for this and

also zamindar got the chance to do corruption as he became the honorary judge.

Warren Hasting was not satisfied with the plan of 1780 he always thought about

the improving judicial system in India. The judicial system of East India

Company.

On 29th September 1780 Warren Hastings proposed in the Council that chief

justice Sir Elijah Impey be requested to accept the charge of the office of the

Sadar Diwani

Adalat.

Impey accepted this offer. He remained in Sadar Adalat for a year but he

introduced, made lot of reforms in

sadar adalat.

Impey Drafted many regulations to reform the adalats.

On November 3, 1780 first reform, regulation was passed to regulate the

procedure

of the diwani adalats. As per this rule , the Mofussil judge has to decide the

facts , he was allow to take the help of Hindu Pundits or Muslim Mulla if it was

necessary to understand the cause or Impey Compiled a civil procedure code for

the guidance of the Sadar Adalat and mofussil diwani adalats It was the first

code of civil procedure to be prepared in India It was promulgated by the

Council on July 5, 1781 in the form of a Regulation.

It was the digest of the civil rules

The code consolidated at one place a detailed civil procedure.

The code contained 95 clauses and with it all the previous regulations relating to

civil

procedure were repealed.

The code of 1781 clearly defined the functions, powers and jurisdiction of Sadar

Diwani Adalat.

This code was translated in Persian and Bengali language that time.

In India, Impey was doing great job, but in England People were not happy with

the

Impey because of following reasons –

Impey was appointed as the Supreme Court judge to monitor the Company

affairs in India. But in India Impey stated to work as a company servant when

he accepted to work as

the Judge of Sadar Adalat. Accepting this violated the Regulation act.

Because of other job, they believed that Impey would not do the justice with the

job of Supreme Court. Because of all above reasons , on 3rd May 1782 in

England House of Commons adopted a resolution requesting the crown, king ,

to recall Impey to answer the charge of having accepted an office and violating

the Regulating act. After this Impey left India on 3rd December 1782

From the Impey appointment one should learn that what ever post or job may

be, the concern person must be studied in that profession. Sports minister should

be a sports man in his youth, Agriculture Minister should be

graduate from the agriculture collage.

Regarding criminal justice system Warren Hasting took following steps.

Machinery was created for the purpose of arresting criminals and bringing them

before the fozdari adalat for the trial. This system never existed in India before

this. A new department, office of the Remembrancer was created at Calcutta to

keep

watch on the functioning of criminal adalats. The department was to work under

the Governor General.

The head of the department was known as Remembrancer of criminal courts.

All criminal courts were required to send periodical reports to this department.

Everything was done as per the Muslim criminal law and Warren Hasting was

not happy with many things, and wanted to reform them, he tried his best but

company heads did not accept his views. Because of this in criminal justice

system, everyone made money using the corrupt ways.

Development of Adalat System during the time of Warren Hastings

The administration of justice at the time Warren Hasting took over as Governor

of Bengal was in a bad shape. It was almost verging on a total collapse. The

dual system of government proved very defective and unsatisfactory. The courts

had become the instruments of power rather than of justice, useless as means of

protection but apt instruments for oppression. On realizing the fact that the

system of double government had failed the company authorized the then

Governor Warren Hastings to adopt such regulations and pursue such measures

as shall at once ensure every possible advantage to the Company and free the

ryots from the oppression of Zamindars and petty tyrants. Warren Hastings

hence proceeded to make major changes in the administration of justice. This

paper work views the various reforms made by Warren Hastings during his time

in India. This administration of justice maybe studied in four stages. To start

with Warren Hastings realized the very fact that an impartial and regular

administration of justice was extremely essential for creating conditions for a

better collection of land revenue. Thus changes were made in regard to civil and

criminal justice while various other provisions were also introduced. Moreover

one of the major development which took place was that the three

presidencies—Bengal, Bombay, and Madras— were divided into a number of

districts for the betterment of administration. Lastly, the appointment of Impey

helped in fulfilling the need of reforming the judicial system under the control

and supervision of a powerful authority. In fulfillment of his duties, his work of

compiling the Civil Procedure Code was quite recommendable. It was for the

first time that the law was put on solid and certain grounds so that the people

could know as to what the procedure of courts was.

Reforms of Warren Hastings

When Warren Hastings assumed the administration of Bengal in 1772, he

found it in utter chaos. The financial position of the Company became

worse and the difficulties were intensified by famine. Therefore, Warren

Hastings realized the immediate need for introducing reforms.

Abolition of the Dual System

The East India Company decided to act as Diwan and to undertake the

collection of revenue by its own agents. Hence, the Dual System introduced

by Robert Clive was abolished. As a measure to improve the finances of the

Company, Warren Hastings reduced the Nawab’s allowance of 32 lakhs of

rupees to half that amount. He also stopped the annual payment of 26 lakhs

given to the Mughal Emperor.

Revenue Reforms

After the abolition of the Dual System, the responsibility of collecting the

revenue fell on the shoulders of the Company. For that purpose, a Board of

Revenue was established at Calcutta to supervise the collection of revenue.

English Collectors were appointed in each district. The treasury was

removed from Murshidabad to Calcutta and an Accountant General was

appointed. Calcutta thus became the capital of Bengal in 1772 and shortly

after of British India.

The Board of Revenue farmed out the lands by auction for a period of five

years instead of one year in order to find out their real value. The

zamindars were given priority in the auction. However, certain good

measures were taken to safeguard the interests of the peasants. Arbitrary

cesses and unreasonable fines were abolished. Besides, restrictions were

imposed on the enhancement of rent. Yet, the system was a failure. Many

zamindars defaulted and the arrears of revenue accumulated.

Reorganisation of the Judicial System

The judicial system at the time of Warren Hastings’ ascendancy was a

store-house of abuses. The Nawab who was hitherto the chief administrator

of justice, misused his powers. Often, his judgments were careless. The

zamindars who acted as judges at lower levels within their own areas were

highly corrupt and prejudiced. On the whole, the judicial institution

suffered from extreme corruption. Warren Hastings felt the necessity of

reorganising the judicial system. Each district was provided with a civil

court under the Collector and a criminal court under an Indian Judge. To

hear appeals from the district courts two appellate courts, one for civil

cases and another for criminal cases, were established at Calcutta. The

highest civil court of appeal was called Sadar Diwani Adalat, which was to

be presided over by the Governor and two judges recruited from among

the members of his council. Similarly, the highest appellate

criminal court was known as Sadar Nizamat Adalat which was to function

under an Indian judge appointed by the Governor-in-Council.

Experts in Hindu and Muslim laws were provided to assist the judges. A

digest of Hindu law was prepared in Sanskrit by learned Pandits and it was

translated into Persian. An English translation of it – Code of Hindu Laws

– was prepared by Halhed.

Trade Regulations and other Reforms

Warren Hastings abolished the system of dastaks, or free passes and

regulated the internal trade. He reduced the number of custom houses and

enforced a uniform tariff of 2.5 percent for Indian and non-Indian goods.

Private trade by the Company’s servants continued but within enforceable

limits. Weavers were given better treatment and facilities were made to

improve their condition. He also introduced a uniform system of pre-paid

postage system. A bank was started in Calcutta. He improved the police in

Calcutta and the dacoits were severely dealt with.

The Regulating Act of 1773

The Regulating Act of 1773 opened a new chapter in the constitutional

history of the Company. Previously, the Home government in England

consisted of the Court of Directors and the Court of Proprietors. The Court

of Directors were elected annually and practically managed the affairs of

the Company. In India, each of the three presidencies was independent and

responsible only to the Home Government. The government of the

presidency was conducted by a Governor and a Council.

The following conditions invited the Parliamentary intervention in the

Company’s affairs. The English East India Company became a territorial

power when it acquired a wide dominion in India and also the Diwani

rights. Its early administration was not only corrupt but notorious. When

the Company was in financial trouble, its servants were affluent. The

disastrous famine which broke out in Bengal in 1770 affected the

agriculturists. As a result, the revenue collection was poor. In short, the

Company was on the brink of bankruptcy. In 1773, the Company

approached the British government for an immediate loan. It was under

these circumstances that the Parliament of England resolved to regulate the

affairs of the Company. Lord North, the Prime Minister of

England, appointed a select committee to inquire into the affairs of the

Company. The report submitted by the Committee paved the way for the

enactment of the Regulating Act.

Provisions of the Regulating Act of 1773

The Regulating Act reformed the Company’s Government at Home and in

India. The important provisions of the Act were:

(i) The term of office of the members of the Court of Directors was

extended from one year to four years. One-fourth of them were to retire

every year and the retiring Directors were not eligible for re-election.

(ii) The Governor of Bengal was styled the Governor-General of Fort

William whose tenure of office was for a period of five years.

(iii) A council of four members was appointed to assist the Governor-

General. The government was to be conducted in accordance with the

decision of the majority. The Governor General had a casting vote in case

of a tie.

(iv) The Governor-General in Council was made supreme over the other

Presidencies in matters of war and peace.

(v) Provision was made in the Act for the establishment of a Supreme

Court at Calcutta consisting of a Chief Justice and three junior judges. It

was to be independent of the Governor- General in Council. In 1774, the

Supreme Court was established by a Royal Charter.

(vi) This Act prevented the servants of the Company including the

Governor-General, members of his council and the judges of the Supreme

Court from receiving directly or indirectly any gifts in kind or cash.

Merits and Demerits of the Act

The significance of the Regulating Act is that it brought the affairs of the

Company under the control of the Parliament. Besides, it proved that the

Parliament of England was concerned about the welfare of Indians. The

greatest merit of this Act is that it put an end to the arbitrary rule of the

Company and provided a framework for all future enactments relating to

the governing of India. The main defect of the Act was that the Governor-

General was made powerless because the council which was given supreme

power often created deadlocks by over-ruling his decision. However, many

of these defects were rectified by the Pitt’s India Act of 1784.

Expansionist Policy of Warren Hastings

Warren Hastings was known for his expansionist policy. His administration

witnessed the Rohilla War, the First Anglo-Maratha War and the Second

Anglo-Mysore War.

The Rohilla War (1774)

Rohilkand was a small kingdom situated in between Oudh and the

Marathas. Its ruler was Hafiz Rahmat Khan. He concluded a defensive

treaty in 1772 with the Nawab of Oudh fearing an attack by the Marathas.

But no such attack took place. But, the Nawab demanded money. When

Rahmat Khan evaded, the Nawab with the help of the British invaded

Rohilkand. Warren Hastings, who sent the British troops against

Rohilkand was severely crticised for his policy on Rohilla affair.

First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-82)

The Marathas were largely remained disunited since the Third Battle of

Panipet (1761). The internal conflict among the Marathas was best utilized

by the British in their expansionist policy. In 1775, there was a dispute for

the post of Peshwa between Madhav Rao and his uncle Ragunatha Rao.

The British authorities in Bombay concluded the Treaty of Surat with

Raghunatha Rao in March 1775. Rahunatha Rao promised to cede Bassein

and Salsette to the British but later when he was unwilling to fulfill his

promise, the British captured them. This action of the Bombay

Government was not approved by Warren Hastings. In 1776, Warren

Hastings sent Colonel Upton to settle the issue. He cancelled the Treaty of

Surat and concluded the Treaty of Purander with Nana Fadnavis, another

Maratha leader. According to this treaty Madhava Rao II was accepted as

the new Peshwa and the British retained Salsette along with a heavy war

indemnity. However, the Home authorities rejected the Treaty of

Purander. Warren Hastings also considered the Treaty of Purandar as a

‘scrap of paper’ and sanctioned operations against the Marathas. In the

meantime, the British force sent by the Bombay Government was defeated

by the Marathas.

In 1781, Warren Hastings dispatched British troops under the command of

Captain Popham. He defeated the Maratha chief, Mahadaji Scindia, in a

number of small battles and captured Gwalior. Later in May 1782, the

Treaty of Salbai was signed between Warren Hastings and Mahadaji

Scindia. Accordingly, Salsette and Bassein were given to the British.

Raghunath Rao was pensioned off and Madhav Rao II was accepted as the

Peshwa.

The Treaty of Salbai established the British influence in Indian politics. It

provided the British twenty years of peace with the Marathas. The Treaty

also enabled the British to exert pressure on Mysore with the help of the

Marathas in recovering their territories from Haider Ali. Thus, the British,

on the one hand, saved themselves from the combined opposition of Indian

powers and on the other, succeeded in dividing the Indian powers.

The Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-84)

The first Anglo-Mysore War took place in 1767-69. Haider Ali

emerged victorious against the British and at the end of the War

a defensive treaty was concluded between Haider Ali and the

British. After eleven years, the Second Mysore War broke out

and the main causes for the second Anglo-Mysore War were:

1. The British failed to fulfill the terms of the defensive treaty with Haider

when he was attacked by the Marathas in 1771.

2. There was an outbreak of hostilities between the English and the French

(an ally of Haider) during the American War of Independence.

3. The British captured Mahe, a French settlement within Haider’s

territories.

4. Haider Ali formed a grand alliance with the Nizam of Hyderabad and

the Marathas against the British in 1779. The War began when the British

led their forces through

Haider’s territory without his permission to capture Guntur in the

Northern Sarkars. Haider Ali defeated Colonel Baillie and captured Arcot

in 1780. In the next year, Warren Hastings, by a clever stroke of

diplomacy, divided the Confederacy. He made peace with the Nizam, won

the friendship of Bhonsle and came to an understanding with the Scindia

(both Marathas). Consequently, Haider was isolated without any alliance.

He was defeated by Sir Eyre Coote at Porto Novo in March 1781. In

December 1782, Haider died of cancer at the age of sixty and his death was

kept secret till his son Tipu Sultan assumed power.

The Second Mysore War came to an end by the Treaty of Mangalore in

1783. Accordingly, all conquests were mutually

restored and the prisoners on both sides were liberated.

Pitt’s India Act, 1784

The Regulating Act proved to be an unsatisfactory document as it failed in

its objective. In January 1784, Pitt the Younger (who became Prime

Minister of England after the General Elections) introduced the India Bill

in the British Parliament. Despite bitter debate in both the Houses, the bill

was passed after seven months and it received royal assent in August 1784.

This was the famous Pitt’s India Act of 1784.

Main Provisions of

the Pitt’s India Act, 1784

(i) A Board of Control consisting of six members was created. They were

appointed by the Crown.

(ii) The Court of Directors was retained without any alteration in its

composition.

(iii) The Act also introduced significant changes in the Indian

administration. It reduced the number of the members of the Governor-

General’s Council from four to three including the Commander-in-Chief.

Pitt’s India Act constitutes a significant landmark with regard to the

foreign policy of the Company. A critical review of the Act reveals that it

had introduced a kind of contradiction in the functions of the Company.

The Court of Directors controlled its commercial functions, whereas the

Board of Control maintained its political affairs. In fact, the Board

represented the King, and the Directors symbolised the Company.

The Impeachment of Warren Hastings

The Pitt’s India Act of 1784 was a rude shock and bitter disappointment

for Warren Hastings. The Prime Minister’s speech censuring the policy of

the Government of Bengal was considered by Warren Hastings as a

reflection on his personal character. His image and reputation were

tarnished in England. Therefore, he resigned and left India in June 1785.

In 1787, Warren Hastings was impeached in the Parliament by Edmund

Burke and the Whigs for his administrative excess. Burke brought forward

22 charges against him. The most important of them were related to the

Rohilla War, the Case of Nanda Kumar, the treatment of Raja Chait Singh

of Benares and the pressures on the Begums of Oudh. After a long trail

which lasted till 1795, Warren Hastings was completely acquitted. He

received pension from the Company and lived till 1818.

Nanda Kumar was an influential official in Bengal. He was hanged to death

by the verdict of the Supreme Court at Calcutta for a petty offence of

forgery. The English law was applied in this judgement. It was contended

that Warren Hastings and Sir Elija Impey, the judge of the Supreme Court

conspired against Nanda Kumar. Warren Hastings imposed heavy penalty

on the Raja Chait Singh of Benares for his delay in payment of tribute and

deposed him in an unjust manner.

The Begums of Oudh were mother and grand mother of the Nawab of

Oudh. Warren Hastings helped the Nawab by sending his troops to the

help of Nawab who squeeze money from the Begums. This was a

highhanded policy.

Estimate of Warren Hastings

He was a gifted personality endowed with ‘strong will, great energy and

resourcefulness’. His long stay in Bengal ‘in the shadow of the Mughal

cultural tradition’ gave him, enough opportunity to learn oriental

languages such as Bengali (the local language) and Persian (the diplomatic

language) and to develop ‘oriental tastes’. Since he considered Indian

culture as a basis for sound Indian administration, he patronised the

learning of Indian languages and arts. His task was a challenging one since

he was surrounded by hostile forces. “He faced his external enemies with

unflinching courage and unfailing resource, and his internal opponents

with extraordinary patience and firmness.” It was on the foundation which

Warren Hastings laid down, that others erected a ‘stately edifice’.

Warren Hastings came as Governor of Bengal in 1772 at the age of forty

when he had been already two years in India. He had risen regularly up the

rungs of the civilian ladder from the position of a writer, the lowest grade in

the Company’s service.

As a member of Vansittart’s council he was posted as the resident at

Murshidabad Court.

He returned to England after fourteen years’ service in India. Impressed by

the ability with which gave evidence before a committee of the House of

Commons, he was sent back to India as the second of the Madras Council in

1769. He was next appointed Governor of Bengal towards the end of 1771

and he assumed charge early in 1772.

Advertisements:

The incompetence of Give’s successors had fully revealed the evils of Dual

Government. Miseries of the people due to oppression and exploitation by

the Company’s servants were aggravated by the famine of 1770 which

stalked whole of Bengal leaving a third part of it desolate and one-third of

the population decimated.

The Company’s dominions in Bengal then consisted of these types of

territories of a variety of titles. Burdwan, Midnapur and Chittagong were

gifted to the Company in 1960 and were revenue tree. Calcutta and the 24-

Parganas were held as Zamindary under the Nawab. Other places of Bengal,

Bihar and Orissa were held by the Company as Diwani granted to the

Company in 1765 for an annual payment of 26 lakhs of rupees to the

Emperor.

From 1765 to 1772 the administration of the diwani was in the hands of two

Indian officials called Naib-Diwans or deputy finance ministers of the

Company although legally and actually the Company was the real diwan.

There naib-diwans were Muhammad Reza Khan in Bengal and Shitab Rai

in Bihar.

This system of Indian executive officers functioning under vague British

control, known as dual system had fallen into great disrepute and while the

Company itself was in great financial straits, its servants returning to

England carried immense fortunes with them and their Indian counterparts

were amassing fortunes by all questionable means.

The directors of the Company strongly suspected the naib-diwans of

intercepting a great part of the revenue that ought to have reached the

Company’s exchequer. Such, in short, was the state of things Hastings was

called upon to deal with. As Warren Hastings understood the situation is

clear from his remark when appointed Governor of Bengal: “a station” he

said “of more eclat, but of more trouble and difficulty.”

His task was to consolidate the Company’s rule in Bengal, preservation of

the British possessions from deadly danger without, and bitter schism

within. He found the Company, a Commercial Corporation turned revenue

former with all the attendant problem of such transformation.

The Court of Directors wrote:

“We now arm you with full powers to make a complete

reformation”. The dictatorial instructions, by which Hastings was

guided, however, left much scope for his own discretion of which he made

full use.

Hastings’ reforms fall under four heads, namely to:

(1) Deal with the diwani or revenue administration,

(2) Reform of the judicature,

(3) Settlement of land revenue, and

(4) Commercial reforms.

Diwani or Revenue Administration:

The Court of Directors instructed him that the Company must“stand

forth as Dewan”, and take over the Civil administration directly in the

hands of the Company. This was, in the words of Warren Hastings,

“implanting the authority of the Company, and the Sovereignty of Great

Britain, in the constitution of the country”. This was only a half-way house

measure towards the British Crown’s taking over of their conquests. It

continued to remain in this state until the Revolt of 1857 precipitated its

completion.

Hasting’s first task was the abolition of the officers of the naib-diwans of

Bihar and Bengal and prosecute the naib-diwans Shitab Rai and

Muhammad Reza Khan for peculation and tyranny. Hastings had to do all

this under instruction from the Directors.

He was also instructed to use Nanda Kumar, former Naib-Diwan who had

been ousted by the Company to put in Reza Khan in that position as their

representative and was not to be removed by the Nawab without Company’s

consent. Hastings was ordered by the Directors to give the whole matter of

deposing the naib-diwans an ethical colour by staging a formal trial of the

two. This was obviously a political measure to meet any possible opposition

to the deposition of the two native high officials. Shitab Rai naib-diwan of

Bihar was acquitted honourably and Hastings himself wrote: “Indeed I

scarce know why he was called to account”. Muhammad Reza Khan was

also ultimately acquitted.

The burden that lay on one man—Warren Hastings—was too heavy to bear.

He aptly described the situation as “every part of the Government had

been clogged”. But Hastings’ ability-was Herculean and he addressed to

the job with ability and efficiency.

He reduced the allowance of the Nawab to sixteen lakhs from thirty-two

and this was the third reduction of allowance which was fifty-three lakhs in

1765, reduced to forty-one lakhs in 1766, to thirty-two lakhs in 1769.

Hastings, however, cannot be blamed for the third reduction (to sixteen

lakhs) for it was done under the orders of the Court of Directors.

Hastings now turned his attention to work out a satisfactory system of

revenue administration and to reform the civil justice which was a part of it.

In 1769 Supervisors were appointed and they had been given a roaming

mission to study the revenue system in their districts.

But they had neither any training nor any inclination to have a clear idea of

the revenue system of the time. Hastings appointed a Committee of Circuit

which was to visit each district to effect revenue settlement with tax farmers

or Zaminders. A preliminary revenue settlement was made for five years,

lands being farmed out by auction to the highest bidder, although a few

hereditary Zamindars were appointed tax farmers in this process, the

system of rack-renting kept most of the hereditary Zaminder houses out,

and fortune-seekers became the highest bidders in their eagerness to realize

whatever they could within the span of five years without any thought of the

ability of the ryots to pay the higher demand of revenue.

Hastings proceeded from the motion that the State was the Supreme

landlord which was contrary to Hindu theory, although the Muslim theory

was that the land of the conquered belonged to the conqueror. To the

English, the status of revenue farmers posed a difficult problem. Under the

Mughal revenue system the revenue farmers or Zamindars had become a

heterogeneous body of descendants of old Hindu chiefs, court-favourites,

farmer officials etc.

But by the middle of the eighteenth century the Mughal system of land

revenue had almost completely decayed and the English Company found

the revenue System in utter confusion. Hasting’s revenue settlement,

therefore, was experimental. He ignored the claims of hereditary

Zaminders and strongly objected to the Zamindars being accepted as the

owners of (he lands subject to payment of a fixed rent.

He appointed collectors, one in each district, in place of the supervisors.

The collectors had no settlement or assessment work to do, for this was

done by the Committee of Circuit, Hastings himself accompanying it. The

collectors were under strict orders to prevent the Zamindars from raising

rents and Indians were appointed to assist them.

A Board of Revenue with the Governor and his Council was constituted

with its seat in Calcutta upon which was entrusted the highest authority in

revenue matters. The treasury of the diwani was shifted from Murshidabad

to Calcutta.

Hastings’ revenue experiment proved a failure largely due to the lack of

caliber and power of the Collectors. Physical difficulty in dealing with

villages throughout the deltaic plain added to their difficulty. The Collectors

only added to the confusion. Defaults were frequent, the evils of settling

lands with speculators of poor standing led to the hopeless failure of the

quinquennial settlement. Bengal Presidency was put under six Revenue

Boards and the system of Collectors was abolished. A Metropolitan

Revenue Board was placed upon all these six Revenue Boards.

Thompson and Garratt are reluctant to put the blame for the failure of the

quinquennial settlement on Warren Hastings on the grounds that he was

not responsible for legal chaos produced by the Regulating Act of 1773; he

had to satisfy the rapacity of the Court of Directors at London who had an

unusually exaggerated notion about the wealth of Bengal which forced him

to assess the revenue too high. Further, he had not the staff, Indian or

English, under him who had the knowledge, probity or willingness to carry

out his scheme.

It is also contended by Thompson and Garratt that the criticism of Hastings

in ignoring the claims of the hereditary Zamindars is untenable because

according to them due to the anarchy in the early eighteenth century a large

proportion of the Zamindars were adventurers, many of whom had secret

link with gangs of robbers, dacoits and river pirates. Hastings indeed failed

to provide an alternative policy but Thompson and Garratt pointed out that

the Zamindars did not justify the later policy of Permanent Settlement “by

their services to the country-side or their treatment of the

tenantry”.

Yet we cannot lose sight of the facts that the system of settling land by

auction to the highest bidder brought in fresh horde of speculators who, not

sure of a renewal of tenancy, exploited to the utmost. The Company’s

servants themselves also participated in the bidding at the auction through

their banians or servants. Warren Hastings also cannot escape the charge of

corruption. There was a grant of land registered in the name of a ten-year

old son of Can-too Bamboo (Krishna kanta Nandy), a banian of Warren

Hastings, inordinately high assessment, despite pressure from Directors for

it, should have been resisted by him. This, added to the harshness of

collection, contributed to the failure of Hasting’s revenue

experiment. “Hastings failed, but his policy is important because it

marks the first tentative effort to evolve the district system and

the district Officer”.

After the expiry of the term of quinquennial settlement in 1776, Hastings

reverted to annual revenue settlement on the basis of open auction to

highest bidder. Preference was, however, given to Zamindars in settling

land. In the same year (1776) Hastings appointed the A mini Commission

for gathering information about the land revenue system of Bengal and on

the basis of this abolished the six Provincial Councils of revenue and

reappointed the collectors, one to each district in 1781.

According to Penderal Moon all the members of the abolished Provincial

Councils had to be provided with job under direction from the Directors

and Hastings had to absorb many of these former members of the

Provincial Councils as collectors and judges of Diwani Adalats. Quanugos

who had been an important Mughal revenue staff and who had ceased to

function were reappointed and the supervision of the entire revenue system

was centralized in the hands of the Committee of Revenue at Calcutta.

Hastings’ Judicial Reforms:

Under the Mughal system, the diwan was in charge of the revenue

collection of the Subah and to decide all cases related to land and land

revenue. With the grant of the Diwani (1765) the Company also obtained

the responsibility of the civil justice. With the change in the revenue

system, therefore, change in the system of civil justice was inevitable.

The Criminal justice was, however, the responsibility of the Nizamat, as

such the Company had no right to effect any change in the criminal law a

criminal justice. But the Company did not regard this legal distinction in

the powers of the Company and the Nawab in civil and criminal justice.

It may be mentioned here that judicial system in Bengal before Hastings’

reforms was very unsatisfactory. The Zamindars were in charge of both the

civil and criminal justice in their own areas and arbitration rather than

judicial trial was the popular method of justice. “Every decision is a corrupt

bargain with the highest bidder. Trifling offenders are frequently loaded

with heavy demands and capital offences are as often absolved by the renal

judge.” (Verelst) Interference by the Company’s servants or their servants

made the situation worse still. With Company’s obtaining the grant of

Diwani the Civil Justice became the responsibility of the Company and it

was defrayed through the naib-diwan of the Company.

Warren Hastings addressed himself to the task of reform of judicial system

immediately after the new revenue Settlement in 1772. On the

recommendation of the Committee of Court he set up a Diwani Adalat and

a Faujdari Adalat in each district and called them Mofussil Diwani Adalat

and Mofussil Faujdari Adalat.

Mofussil Diwani Adalat:

This court was presided over by the Collector of the district, and. it was

competent to decide relating to inheritance relating to Zamindary and

taluqdari. It also decided all cases relating to landed property, caste,

marriage, debts etc. If the litigants were Hindus, the Hindu Law and

custom would be applicable and in the case of Muslims, the Muslim law

and custom. This court was competent to deal with cases up-to the value of

Rs.500. An-appeal against the decisions of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat

would, however, lie to the Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta which was con-

stituted of the Governor and two members of his council assisted by Indian

Officers.

Mofussil Faujdari Adalat:

The Mofussil Faujdari Adalat was competent to try all criminal cases. Only

in cases where the accused was awarded capital punishment, the

punishment had to be sent to the Sadar Nijamat Adalat which was presided

over by the Nawab. Nawab’s confirmation was necessary for Capital

punishment or confiscation of property. The Mofussil Faujdari Adalat was

presided by an Indian Officer of the Company who was assisted by a Qazi, a

Mufti and two Maulavis. The Collector of the district had power of

supervision over the Mofussil Faujdari Adalat and he could see that the

evidence was duly considered and impartial judgment arrived at.

From the Mofussil Faujdari Adalat appeal would lay to the Sadar Nizamat

Adalat at Murshidabad. The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was presided over by the

Nizam who would be assisted by the Chief Qazi, Chief Mufti and three

expert Maulavis. The President and Council at Calcutta exercised right of

control and supervision over the Sadar Nizamat Adalat.

Supreme Court at Calcutta:

In 1773 Regulating Act was passed by the British Parliament in order to

control and regulate the affairs of the East India Company in India. Besides

provisions relating to general administration etc. this Act provided for, the

establishment of a Supreme Court at Calcutta with a Lord Chief Justice and

three puisne judges under him. This court was competent to by all British

subjects. Over Calcutta and the English factories the Court exercised

jurisdiction over all persons European or non-European.

But outside this jurisdiction if parties would agree, their case might be

heard by this Court. The Supreme Court administered English laws. It may

be mentioned here that the Sadar Dewani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat

with their subordinate Adalats administered justice according to Hindu and

Muslim laws, supplemented by the capacity.

The Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction and actually did exercise it over all

persons and not only ignored the authority of the Company’s courts but

even entertained cases against the judges of those\ courts, by cases again

which had already been tried by other courts. This court began to exercise

jurisdiction over Zamindars and others who were neither British subjects

nor servants of the British subjects All this was being done taking

advantage of the failure of the Regulating Act in defining the jurisdiction of

the Supreme Court. This was also responsible for the conflict between the

Supreme Court and Supreme Council which will be discussed elsewhere.

Other Reforms of Hastings:

Hastings’ reforming hands touched a variety of subjects. As the Company’s

Courts, i.e. the district and Sadar Courts used to deal many cases according

to Hindu and Muslim laws, Hastings caused a translation of the Sanskrit,

i.e. Hindu Laws in a Code called Code of Gentoo Laws was published in

1776.

He also introduced:

(i) The system of preserving the records of judicial cases,

(ii) That cases would become time-barred if not instituted within twelve

years from the time of the cause of action,

(iii) The debtor could not be tortured after taking him to the house of the

creditor,

(iv) Prohibited imposition of heavy furies by courts,

(v) Rate of interest was fixed at Rs.100/-,

(vi) Application of the Hindu laws in cases of the Hindus and Moham-

medan law in cases of the Muslims was formally accepted, and

(vii) Abolished the system of acceptance of fees by the Qazis, Muftis etc.

from those who would seek justice and instead he introduced payment of

salaries to them.

Hastings found that free movement of Trade and Commerce was hindered

by innumerable customs within Zamindaries. These were all abolished and

only five customs houses or stations at Calcutta, Hooghly, Murshidabad,

Dacca and Patna were retained. Customs duty was lowered down to 2 ½ %

payable by all merchants and misuse of dastaks was checked with a strong

hand. Exploitation of weavers by the Company’s agents was suppressed.

Hastings, reformed the currency system and thereby removed the

mismanagement of the currency of the time.

Hastings tried to expand the Company’s trade to Tibet and through Tibet to

Nepal and Bhutan. To this end he had sent George Bogle in 1774 to the

court of Pashi Lama in Tibet as an emissary. He also had sent Abdul Qader

mission to Nepal for prospecting the future of a trade relation with Nepal

and the Company.

Supreme Court and Supreme Council: Their Conflict:

In 1773 the British Parliament enacted the Regulating Act finding that the

earlier charter was not adequate to meet the exigencies of the situation and

to prevent the corruption among the Company’s servants.

This Act vested the administration of British territories in India in the

hands of a Governor-General with a Council of four members. The

Governor of Bengal was given the name of Governor-General of Bengal. The

four members of the Governor-General’s Council were named in the Act,

they were Clavering, Monson, Barwell and Philip Francis.

The Council was appointed for a term of five years but could be removed

from office earlier on the recommendation of the Court of Directors. Over

the Councils of Bombay and Madras the Governor-General and Council had

supervisory power in matters of declaration of war and signing of peace.

The Governor-General was to preside over the meeting of the Council and

matters were to be decided by majority votes. The Governor-General had

no over-riding power, he had only a casting vote in cases of tie. Three

members formed the quorum. Of the four members of the Council named

in the Act, Barwell was already in the Company’s service in India, others

came from England.

The three members who came from England were greatly prejudiced

against Warren Hastings and the Company’s government which they

thought were utterly corrupt. Clavering, Monson and Francis formed a

triumvirate and were out to find fault with Warren Hastings who had a lone

supporter in Barwell. The defect of the Regulating Act in not providing the

Governor-General, who was the President of the Council with overriding

power made the situation extremely difficult from the very start. On their

arrival the members of the triumvirate complained of “mean and

dishonourable”reception accorded to them, and even imputed motive in

Warren Hastings’ failure to show befitting courtesy in receiving the

members of the Council. This was a bad augury for things that were to

follow.

The first meeting of the Council showed the shape of things to come. The

Councillors, except Barwell, demanded all papers relating to Hastings’

transactions with Nawab Wazir of Oudh and all correspondence with

Middleton, the English Resident at Lucknow to be placed before the

Council.

They also wanted to examine the propriety on the Company’s part in the

Rohilla War. Warren Hastings Who knew his own weak points refused to

place the papers demanded by the majority, before the Council whereupon

the majority recalled Middleton from Lucknow and appointed Bristow in

his place as President and arrived at the conclusion that Company’s

involvement in the Rohilla War was unjust and impolitic. The majority

comprising Clavering, Monson and Francis entered into a new treaty with

the. Nawab of Oudh known as the treaty of Fyzabad. Asaf-ud- daulah was

now the new Nawab of Oudh who succeeded his father.

By this treaty the Nawab was required to pay an increased amount of

rupees two lakh sixty thousand in place of two lakh ten thousand for the

maintenance of Company’s troops in Oudh. The Nawab had also to cede

permanently Benares to the Company. The majority criticized the

quinquennial settlement of 1772 as it was unrealistic as the amount of

revenue fixed by auction with the highest bidder was extremely exhorbitant

and beyond the power of the tax fanners to pay.

Hastings’ reforms of the criminal justice was also objected to by the

majority inasmuch as the power of the Nawab was curtailed. By a resolution

all rights of the Nawab with regard to criminal justice were restored.

Mohammad Reza Khan was reinstated in his position at naib-subah. In

external affairs as well the majority did not endorse Warren Hastings’

policy of interference in the internal disputes of the Marathas and objected

to policy of territorial expansion.

For the period from 1774 to 1776 Warren Hastings was in an uncomfortably

embarrassing situation because all his powers and authority had been

virtually usurped by the majority in the Council which was hostile to him.

But the situation changed in the same year when Monson died (Sept. 25,

1776). With his casting vote Hastings now had a majority in the Council.

But in 1775 when Warren Hastings was having a very hard and trying time

with the hostile majority in the Council, he wrote to Colonel Macleane in

London desiring to be relieved of his post. His desire was conveyed to the

Court of Directors who accepted Hastings’ resignation and appointed

Clavering as the Governor-General in his place (Nov., 1776). Edward

Wheeler was appointed a member of the Council of the Governor-General

in place of Hastings.

But in the meantime (Sept. 1776) died Monson which gave Hastings

majority in the Council with his casting vote changed the situation for

Hastings and he informed the Court of Directors of his intention to

continue as Governor-General. Early in 1777 instruction had reached

Calcutta about Clavering’s appointment as Governor-General and Clavering

took oath as Governor-General on June 20, 1777. Hastings however did not

make over charge to Clavering and the matter was referred to the Supreme

Court which decided in Warren Hastings’ favour. Wheeler arrived in

Calcutta and it was apprehended that he would toe the line of Philip

Francis. But again luck favoured Warren Hastings, Clavering died (Aug.,

1777) leaving Hastings in the majority. Francis was too intelligent and firm

a person to relax his criticism and opposition to Warren Hastings.

Philip Francis’ conflict with Warren Hastings was both a conflict of

personalities as well as of principles. Both differed in principles, and policy

matters of the Company. Francis was an honest, puritanic type with whom

conviction was more important than convenience. He had started from

England with the conviction that Warren Hastings was an oppressing

tyrant with whom human consideration was out of question. Francis’ letter

to Lord dive bears out this attitude about Hastings. “Mr. Hastings

wholly and solely has sold and ruined Bengal” wrote Francis.

Francis was also not without age or ambition.

It was his conviction that it was he alone who could save- Bengal and in

order accomplish that he needed power and it could be had by removing

Hastings from office. As such there were occasions when his attack of

Warren Hastings or criticism of his work and policy was unmerited. Thus

far the conflict between Warren Hastings and Francis was of personalities.

But the difference in principles and policy between the two was deeper and

of a fundamental nature.

Philip Francis was an ardent believer in the French Philosophers and

honestly and sincerely thought that Bengal could not thrive under a

European Government. His idea was that in order to put an end to the

prevalent corruption the British Government should assume sovereignty of

Bengal which was to be restricted to defence of Bengal and receipt of a

tribute. The Government of the country should be felt with the Nawab with

no mandatory power over him from the British side.

Francis was against Company’s rule in Bengal because from its very nature,

the Company would try to enhance profit, extort money, resort to every

type of corruption. He also did not endorse the Company’s standing forth as

the diwan. He wanted the administration to be left with the Nawab. It was

due to this conviction of Francis that the majority restored the power of the

Nawab in matters of criminal jurisdiction. Francis also suggested a plan for

permanent settlement of revenue and was highly critical of the

quinquennial settlement of Warren Hastings (1772).

Warren Hastings, however, had enough experience of the affairs of Bengal

and was aware of the evils of the dual government He believed that the

miseries of the people of Bengal could be removed if the system of

responsibility without power on the part of the nawab and power without

responsibility on the part of the Company was abolished.

He also believed that the prevailing administrative confusion and

inefficiency and the financial corruption among the Company’s servants

could best be tackled by assuming direct responsibility of the diwani and by

relegating the Nawab into the background. He also realized that a weak

Nawab of Mirjafar’s type or a strong and” independent Nawab of Mir

Qasim’s character was not conducive to the interests of the Company and

therefore, the Company must assume the position of a trustee in respect of

its Indian conquests on behalf of the British nation.

Again Warren Hastings believed that the Indian system of administration

was decadent and disorganized and the only way to infuse life and

efficiency in it was to undertake a programme of reforms and render it

workable. Francis who was against British interference in Indian affairs on

the other hand thought that the English should not undertake the

responsibility of making the Nawab’s government workable, on the

contrary if the Company would let the Nawab freedom of action the

Nawab’s administration would be reformed on native initiative.

While Hastings contended that the Sadar Diwani Adalat, Sadar Nizamat

Adalat with district civil and criminal courts under them were necessitated

by the assumption Diwani and by the need for better administration of

justice, Francis, a theoretician fed in the school of French Philosophy was

opposed to the reform of native judicial system by the Company.

He was critical of the abolition of the judicial function of the Zamindars in

their own estates. According to him the traditional despotic system of

government in India could not be mixed up with the enlightened system of

English jurisprudence and Hastings’ judicial reforms was an interference in

the traditional judicial system of the natives. About the judicial reforms of

Hastings Francis remarked that Hastings had “rashly forced the

accumulated wisdom and experience of ages to yield to the crude ideas of a

few foreigners”. Out of this conviction the majority in Council passed a

resolution to abolish the Sadar Diwani and Sadar Nizamat Adalats and to

restore the Nawab’s criminal jurisdiction. To Francis the establishment of

the Supreme Court alt Calcutta was an outrage on the native prejudices and

institutions.

The revenue arrangements made in 1772 for five years had been criticized

by Francis on the ground of its narrow commercial outlook of raising as

much revenue as possible by settling land with adventures who had given

the highest bid in the auction of land settlement. Francis also did not agree

with Hastings’ view that conquests had made the Company proprietor of

the soil.

He was for a permanent settlement of land with the Zamindars. He wanted

to reduce the Company’s interference in the district revenue administration

by abolishing the Six Provincial Revenue Councils and reverting to the

system of supervisors as under the dual government. Hastings, however,

refused to agree with Francis’ points of view.

In foreign policy Warren Hastings believed in the principle of expansion in

the circumstances of the Indian political situation at the time. He also

believed in the principle of extension of British influence on territories on

the borders of Company’s dominions.

In pursuance of this policy Hastings created Oudh a buffer state against any

possible attack by the Marathas, Rohilla or Maratha attack and made Oudh

dependent on the British support. Francis wanted no further extension of

British control beyond Bengal and vehemently opposed Hastings’ policy,

which he described as, one of extirpation, annihilation and extermination

of the native powers on the borders of the British territories.

Francis regarded Oudh as a dangerous rival of the Company and it was at

his instance that the treaty of Fyzabad in 1775 superseded the treaty of

Benares which according to him corrected the imbalance between Oudh

and the Company effected by the treaty of Benares. It was also the idea of

Francis to reinstate the Emperor to his position as the emperor of India and

to turn his help to the Company’s advantage. Francis also opposed

Hastings’ policy of offence as a means to defence.

The personalities and principles of the two antagonists Philip Francis were

not reconcilable. While Hastings’ policy was dictated by exigencies of the

situation and was pragmatic, and his policy ruthless and domineering,

Francis’ policy was more theoretical and at the same time dogmatic.

Although it would not perhaps have been altogether impossible to bring

about a harmony between the policies and principles of the two and effect a

common approach to the problems of the time but the difference in

personalities made it impossible. Despite attempts at reconciliation

between the two and temporary cessation of conflict, no permanent

understanding or reconciliation was possible and in 1780 the personal

differences reached such a point of mutual vendetta that both met in a duel

under the pipul tree outside the gates of Fort William in which Francis

received a pistol shot and he left for home.