A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books
The early chorincles of Fort St. George refer to the Mayor's Court which was constituted in 1672. The location of the Court was somewhere in the area known as Sea Gate adjacent to which was the Choultry Court. There are references to the both the Courts and though the exact location of these institutions have not been identified we learn a graeat deal from the availbale historical records. I have access only to the public records as the rest of the archival material is found only in the British Library, London. Streyensham Master, the Governor was eager the have institutions thta could settle disputes and render the emerging settlement a tad governable.
The problem faced by the Company then for which legal precedents did not exist was: What laws can be used to administer Justice and by whose authority. In the Eighteenth Century, the Company was faced with a real dilemma: Did the Company have legal power over its employees and by extension over its "native" subjects living within its terrotorial limits. And how is Crminal Law to be administered. Treat "natives" equally or was a racial difference invented to discriminate between the English/European and the indigenous population. And the Company itself was not sure about the extent of its powers. Did the Charter given by Elizabeth, James I and later Charles II allow the Company to excercise judicial power over serious offences, including ones that called for or deserved the capital punishment. As a prelude to settling this legal concumdrum, a beginning was made by establishing the Mayor's Court in Madras.
Let me just a century in order to give some persepctive. In the nineteenth century when the ideology of Racism and White Supremacy became the established credo, violence by the Britishers against the "natives" was treated very lightly. Te Sahib's boot only ruptured the malaria infected spllen of the native and the killing of an Indian was treated at best as "man slaughter" not murder. Again, it was the much reviled Lord Curzon who insisted on Indians being treated fairly under the law. In the Eighteenth century George Town, Madras, as indeed was the situation i n England too, violent crime was frequent and the Mayor's Court gradually won jurisdiction over grave and serious crimes.
Institutions were still in their infancy and so we cannot expect well developed Juridical doctrines ' The Company bought a set of Law Books which included Coke's Digest to instruct its Mayor and 12 Aldermen who sat with him on the Bench. The Court met twice a week and strangely enough Trial by Jury was introduced as a procedure of administering Justice. In 1686 a Court of Admiralty was also established to adjudicat cases involving Ships, Maritime Commerce and the conduct of Sailors. This Court was ssentially a Company Court and the surviving records show that it tried to fulfill its mandate against great odds. Obviously differences over Jurisdiction between the Mayor's Court and the Admiralty Court did exist and eventually the Admiralty Court began to function, inexplicably, as the Appelate Court.
There are two episodes in the early history of the Mayor's Court in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries both of which involved English defendents and "native" victims. One of these cases in well known. Ascentia Dawes killed her slave girl and was tried by Jury which found her guilty. But the Governor confused over the jurisdiction over the case eferred it to the Directors in London and Ascentia Dawes was set free. In perhaps the first of several"boot and spleen" cases in India, in October 1676 Manuel de Lima killed his servant. Spent 2 years in Jail and as equired by the then existing law, six of the jurors were of Portuguese origin sourced from Sam Thome, a Portuguese settlement close to Fort Saint George. He was found guilty and Strenysham Master ordered the execution of the man.An interesting legal argument was advanced by the condemned man in his appeal and one that bedeviled Colonial Jurisprudence for centuries. Hr claimed that neither he nor his victim, Pero Rangull, wer subjects of "His Majesty" and therefore the Mayor's Court had no Jurisdiction. In the eighteenth century the Mayor's Court tried to act in a fair manner, ostensibly without racial or cultural bias. An English pirate, Roger Bullmore, was executed after a Trial presidd over by the Governor and Council. Here the Governor was excercising Martial law delegated to him by the original charter. It was a different matter if civilians were involved.
In yet another serious incident, two white employees of the Company killed a merchant in a Garden House. They tried to implicate the Dubash of the Merchant in the crime and escape punishment. The Governor and Council established that the men had indeed committed the crime and not the Dubas and though he was sentenced to death, the Governor commuted the punishment on the ground of jurisdiction. Without a positive regulation empowering him to carry out the death sentence, the Governor was reluctant to carry it out.
Throughout the Eighteenth century we have a number of interesting cases. Mostly the litigants who came before the mayor's court were Indian merchants who used the Court to enforce the settlement of debts and legal instruments. Disputes over carrigage of goods emanating even from Burma were settled in the Court. However, all was not well within the Institution itself/ As we have shown in an earlier Blog on Sir Strange, there was a lot of interpersonal problems among the Aldermen which could not be settled. In 1754 four aldermen--Percival, Edwards, Fairfields,and Browning compalined that their colleague, Ephrain Issac had cast serious aspersions on their professional competence and by implication their integrity. In spite of all efforts to bring about order the Governor and his Coucil failed as Ephrain insisted that as an Alderman the Local Government had no jurisdiction to try him even on a minor charge of "misdemenour'. The Report states that Ephrain was mischievous and "turbulent'.
I have given just a glimpse of the legal issues prevailing in 18th Century Madras. Problems among the "native" population were settled by the age old method of arbitration by community leaders acting under the direction of the Peddanayakkar. Breach of contracts, circulation of forged cowles/ intruments, property disputes were settled using the traditional institutions which relied on Customary Law. Towards the end of the Century, however with the establishent of the Sudder Adalat a degree of consistency was introduced.
We have not been able to determine the location of the Mayor's Court. But it was certainly within Fort St George, near the Sea Gate and hence I have included two contemporary paintings of that are.
 |
| An arial view of Fort St George |
 |
| A Street view of Fort St George 1785 Dr Hawes on twitter |
 |
| Urban scape, Madras White Town twitter Dr Hawes |
The problem faced by the Company then for which legal precedents did not exist was: What laws can be used to administer Justice and by whose authority. In the Eighteenth Century, the Company was faced with a real dilemma: Did the Company have legal power over its employees and by extension over its "native" subjects living within its terrotorial limits. And how is Crminal Law to be administered. Treat "natives" equally or was a racial difference invented to discriminate between the English/European and the indigenous population. And the Company itself was not sure about the extent of its powers. Did the Charter given by Elizabeth, James I and later Charles II allow the Company to excercise judicial power over serious offences, including ones that called for or deserved the capital punishment. As a prelude to settling this legal concumdrum, a beginning was made by establishing the Mayor's Court in Madras.
Let me just a century in order to give some persepctive. In the nineteenth century when the ideology of Racism and White Supremacy became the established credo, violence by the Britishers against the "natives" was treated very lightly. Te Sahib's boot only ruptured the malaria infected spllen of the native and the killing of an Indian was treated at best as "man slaughter" not murder. Again, it was the much reviled Lord Curzon who insisted on Indians being treated fairly under the law. In the Eighteenth century George Town, Madras, as indeed was the situation i n England too, violent crime was frequent and the Mayor's Court gradually won jurisdiction over grave and serious crimes.
Institutions were still in their infancy and so we cannot expect well developed Juridical doctrines ' The Company bought a set of Law Books which included Coke's Digest to instruct its Mayor and 12 Aldermen who sat with him on the Bench. The Court met twice a week and strangely enough Trial by Jury was introduced as a procedure of administering Justice. In 1686 a Court of Admiralty was also established to adjudicat cases involving Ships, Maritime Commerce and the conduct of Sailors. This Court was ssentially a Company Court and the surviving records show that it tried to fulfill its mandate against great odds. Obviously differences over Jurisdiction between the Mayor's Court and the Admiralty Court did exist and eventually the Admiralty Court began to function, inexplicably, as the Appelate Court.
There are two episodes in the early history of the Mayor's Court in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries both of which involved English defendents and "native" victims. One of these cases in well known. Ascentia Dawes killed her slave girl and was tried by Jury which found her guilty. But the Governor confused over the jurisdiction over the case eferred it to the Directors in London and Ascentia Dawes was set free. In perhaps the first of several"boot and spleen" cases in India, in October 1676 Manuel de Lima killed his servant. Spent 2 years in Jail and as equired by the then existing law, six of the jurors were of Portuguese origin sourced from Sam Thome, a Portuguese settlement close to Fort Saint George. He was found guilty and Strenysham Master ordered the execution of the man.An interesting legal argument was advanced by the condemned man in his appeal and one that bedeviled Colonial Jurisprudence for centuries. Hr claimed that neither he nor his victim, Pero Rangull, wer subjects of "His Majesty" and therefore the Mayor's Court had no Jurisdiction. In the eighteenth century the Mayor's Court tried to act in a fair manner, ostensibly without racial or cultural bias. An English pirate, Roger Bullmore, was executed after a Trial presidd over by the Governor and Council. Here the Governor was excercising Martial law delegated to him by the original charter. It was a different matter if civilians were involved.
In yet another serious incident, two white employees of the Company killed a merchant in a Garden House. They tried to implicate the Dubash of the Merchant in the crime and escape punishment. The Governor and Council established that the men had indeed committed the crime and not the Dubas and though he was sentenced to death, the Governor commuted the punishment on the ground of jurisdiction. Without a positive regulation empowering him to carry out the death sentence, the Governor was reluctant to carry it out.
Throughout the Eighteenth century we have a number of interesting cases. Mostly the litigants who came before the mayor's court were Indian merchants who used the Court to enforce the settlement of debts and legal instruments. Disputes over carrigage of goods emanating even from Burma were settled in the Court. However, all was not well within the Institution itself/ As we have shown in an earlier Blog on Sir Strange, there was a lot of interpersonal problems among the Aldermen which could not be settled. In 1754 four aldermen--Percival, Edwards, Fairfields,and Browning compalined that their colleague, Ephrain Issac had cast serious aspersions on their professional competence and by implication their integrity. In spite of all efforts to bring about order the Governor and his Coucil failed as Ephrain insisted that as an Alderman the Local Government had no jurisdiction to try him even on a minor charge of "misdemenour'. The Report states that Ephrain was mischievous and "turbulent'.
I have given just a glimpse of the legal issues prevailing in 18th Century Madras. Problems among the "native" population were settled by the age old method of arbitration by community leaders acting under the direction of the Peddanayakkar. Breach of contracts, circulation of forged cowles/ intruments, property disputes were settled using the traditional institutions which relied on Customary Law. Towards the end of the Century, however with the establishent of the Sudder Adalat a degree of consistency was introduced.
We have not been able to determine the location of the Mayor's Court. But it was certainly within Fort St George, near the Sea Gate and hence I have included two contemporary paintings of that are.
