« PreviousContinue »
IV. They shall have ground for a house, ware-house, and other conveniencies, and liberty at their departure to make the most of them. V. In case of mortality, the goods of the deceased shall be at the disposal of the chief of the factory. VI. The laws of the kingdom shall have no power over an English offender, but he shall be tried and punished at the discretion of the chief : and in case any subject or native whatsoever abuse the English, present justice shall be inflicted on him as he deserves. VII. That their goods shall not be forced from them; nor returned on their hands after they are sold; but present payment shall be made, and they shall be assisted in recovering debts, by such powers as shall be requisite. VIII. That no seizure be made in the King's or Queen's name; but current money afforded for what goods shall be bought for his or her use. IX. That they exercise the christian religion without molestation, and if a subject scoff thereat, he shall be punished for the sanne. X. No English run-away to be protected but returned by the ministers to them, and the like to be done with their subjects. XI. That according to custom, they bring their presents once a year. XII. That as formerly, they shall have all the sappen wood in these dominions, at tale 1.4ms. per bahar. XIII. That such merchants as bring goods on any of their ships, be free from paying savoy, or the 5th part of the custom, provided the number of ships exceed not three every In Onsoon. XIV. That all ships bring a letter, from the chief of the place from whence they came, to the Governor of the town: certifying they belong to the Company, &c. The Malayans are such admirers of opium, that they would mortgage all they hold most valuable to procure it. Those that use it to excess are seldom long lived, which themselves are very sensible of ; yet they are no longer satisfied than their cares are diverted by the pleasing effects of it. I have been told by an Englishman, who accustomed himself to it at Bencoolen ; it is a difficult matter to leave it, after once experiencing the exquisite harmony, where with it affects every part of the body. On taking a larger quantity than ordinary, he found such a tickling in his blood, such a languishing delight in every thing he did, that it justly might be termed a pleasure too great for human nature to support. Bang has likewise its virtues attributed to it: for being used as tea, it inebriates, or exhilarates, them according to the quantity they take. I have seen a great deal of it at Madras, brought from Bengal : which was like hemp in growth, leaves, seed, and every thing else; so that, I think, it could be no other. Tobacoo is much used among them; but they have little or none of their own raising, wherefore they are supplied with it from other parts at a dear rate ; for want of pipes they
smoke in buncos, as on the Coromandel coast. A bunco is a litlle tobacoo wrapt up in the leaf of a tree, about the bigness of one's little finger, they light one end, and draw the smoke through the other, till it is burnt quite up. They are sold twenty or thirty in a bundle at several stands in the market. The king's palace is a very ordinary piece of building, which I was once near, but never within. The most remarkable things about it are two or three elephants kept for state | these they get from Pegu or Quedah, where are abundance of them. I have seen fifty in one garden at Madras, brought thence in a season, valued from 200 to 800 pagodas each. Goods brought from England to this port are all the sorts that turn to account in Madras in small parcels. A few sword-blades may likewise sell well. Charles Lockyer, from whose book we have so often quoted, is referred to by Marsden, the historian of Sumatra, as having given a particular description of Acheen when he visited that place in 1704. Mr. Lockyer, as will be observed by our readers, did not voyage in the East from a mere love of enterprise, or a desire of gaining information respecting the countries he visited, but had in view the more substantial objects of trade, and seems to have published his narrative for the sole purpose of affording a guide to those who might afterwards visit the same countries on a like errand with himself: and the work has no doubt had its day, and served its purpose. But we think it will interest the curious among our readers to contrast what they have themselves seen, heard, or learned, of the present state of some of the neighbouring places, with which we still maintain a constant intercourse with the account given of the same places by an eye-witness who wrote more than 130 years ago. Mr. Lockyer does not indulge in many very philosophical reflections, and the fate of empires and revolution of events, seem to affect him mighty little, and never to disturb or interfere with his matter-of-fact method of describing and viewing things as they are. Had he been a writer of another turn, he might have struck off a forcible and instructive contrast between the earlier glories of the Acheen monarchy, and the declining state in which he found it; but if he had compared the condition under which he saw that country, with that under which it existed more than 100 years before he visited it, the contrast, great as it must have been, would not, in all probability, have been stronger than if a traveller of these days were to campare Mr. Lockyer's description with its present prostrate condition. About 20 years ago, the son of a Penang shop-keeper, whose spurious claims were supported by the government of that place, was elevated to the throne of a monarchy which, 300 years before, was one of the most powerful of the East !— he was, however, afterwards compelled to resign his seat in favour of the rightful prince, whom he had himself superseded,
and who was restored to his dignity, mainly
through the representations and exertions of achievements of one of his admirals in his Sir Stamford Raffles, who saw him again contests with the Portuguese—from the time seated on the musnud in 1819. But his king- || when a king of Acheen wrote to king James
dom, which had long been narrowing its limits, was now in a state of complete distraction, a prey to petty chiefs, whom a long era of anarchy had emancipated from feudal vassalage, and his power had become a nullity. How different from those days in which the Kings of Acheen were receiving ambassadors from the most powerful states of Europe, who courted their friendship and solicited their aid—when our own Elizabeth despatched Sir
James Lancaster in 1602, on a special embassy to the reigning monarch of the country, and wrote in commendation of the valour and
I, imploring him to send out one of his fair country-women for a wife, and promising to make her son a powerful prince—when one of its kings was “infinitely rich—and constantly employed three hundred gold-smiths— who was possessed of two thousand brass-guns, and small arms in proportion—who had a fleet of three hundred sails—had his palace grounds nightly patrolled by two hondred horsemen— while the interior was guarded by three thousand women—and who had five hundred eunuchs in charge of his seraglio!”—Singapore Free Press.
To Captain Sir CHARLes MALcol M, Knight, Superintendent of the Indian Navy. Sir, The recent regulation for the more efficient control of the dock-yards and establishment there with connected, having been now one year in operation, I deem it right to submit a few observations, for the information of yourself and Government, but principally with the view that publicity may be given to the great reduction that has taken place in constructing or repairing vessels in the Government dock-yards; and which I have no doubt, when generally known, will be the means of the establishment bringing in a considerable revenue to Government, instead, as hitherto, an expense to the state. The principal cause of the reduction in building, has been through giving full effect to the system of contract labour (which was a matter of serious discussion and consideration by you four years back), instead of the former system of daily mustered labour, under an inefficient control, who had no interest or responsibility in the speedy completion or cheapness of the work performed ; and it was only the late increase to the controlling deartment in the dock-yard, and by the superintendence of which, each separate part of a ship's frame can be put together at the real value of the labour required for so doing by contract. It is right to observe, that the present cost of timber and other materials required in ship-building is about fifty per cent, less than in 1826, which was the latest period that vessels of importance were built for His Majesty's or the Honorable Company's government. In this year the hull of his Majesty's 84-gun ship Calcutta, of 2,298 tons, was completed (on the old system) at a cost of about
attention to the subject) prepared me an estimate of the probable cost of building a similar vessel to the Calcutta, which would only amount to 4,42,530 rupees; and instead of being, as formerly, 24,000 rupees more than the cost of such a ship in England,” it exhibits a reduction on the English cost of 2,10,260; and as it is universally admitted that a Bombay teak-built ship is fifty per cent. superior to vessels built in Europe, I am therefore of opinion, that when these facts are generally known, the Bombay dock-yards will have more employment than they can perform, particularly as the reduction in building for the royal navy must be a matter of real national importance. As regards merchant-vessels, I do not hesitate to say, that the best description of vessels can be built for £12 per ton, which is much less than substantial vessels can be built for in Europe; for the hull, spars, and boats, of a beautiful copper-fastened schooner of 200 tons, was launched in October last, for his Highness the Imaum of Muscat, at a much less cost than I have here stated. The superintending establishment (as per margin)t for working the steam engine, (seldom oftener than a few hours once a fortnight) costs the government 300 rupees per mensem ; and the individuals employed are also attached to the mint, with separate salaries for each department; and although Mr. Ingles, the superintendent (who is a highly deserving individual,) considers it necessary to have an assistant, yet I am of opinion that the superintendence of one person is quite sufficient for a simple engine on shore, that is so seldom worked. One great defect in our dock-yard, is the inferior quality of our iron-work, which re
6,03,606 rupees, which is about 24,000 rupees more than a ship of the same class could be built for the royal navy in Great Britain. With a view to ascertain the advantage that would arise to His Majesty's Government by constructing ships of a large class in these dock-yards, the builders have (after much
quires remedy; and to effect which, I would suggest that a respectable blacksmith foreman
be appointed exclusively to the yard, instead over the different classes of artificers; and it
of the assistant-engineer; and who, in case of necessity, could also attend the engine when working. In conclusion, I take this opportunity of bringing to your notice the indefatigable zeal and exertion of the builders in introducing the new system of contract work, as it would have been quite impossible to have effected it without the whole exertion of individuals possessing the powerful influence they do
can only be through the agency of persons possessing such influence, that can render efficient an establishment where the quantity of labour fluctuates so much, and where no fixed establishment is maintained to meet contingencies. I have the honour to be, &c.
(Signed) R. Cog AN, Controller of the Dock-yards.
Bombay, Controller's Office, 26th Dec. 1834. [Bombay Courier.
THE APPEAL-RESCENDING ACT.
To T. E. M. TURTon, Esq., and such other Barristers at Law as have signed the Memorial against the Repeal Act.”
“Seeing the Laws are excerpted out of the middle of moral and natural Philosophy, how should these fools have understood it, that have by G–, studied less in philosophy than my mule 2 In respect of human learning, and the knowledge of antiquities and histories, they are truly laden with those faculties as a toad is with feathers, and yet of all this the laws are so full, that without it they cannot be understood.”
The above are the opinions of the celebrated Pantagruel, about certain Lawyers of his day, more famous for a love of the jargon of their trade, than for a knowledge of the principles of Law. I beg you not to suppose that I would address you so impolitely, but I cannot shew what sort of learning is expected of Lawyers when they venture, as such, to take part in a political discussion, more clearly than in the sentence which I have placed at the top of this letter. Without venturing to say which is the most useful turn of mind, we have a right to look for qualifications in Lawyers, who take upon themselves the lead in questions of state, very different from those which we acknowledge with applause in the leaders of a horse cause. In the Memorial of the 2d May, published in the Hurkaru, to which Mr. Turton's name is the first attached, you have made two assertions of constitutional law, which are discreditably erroneous. The first is the right and privilege of British subjects in a conquered colony, or province, to carry with them their own laws till duly altered by “competent authority.” This is a wrong statement of the constitutional law of England, which a gentleman of ordinary reading in the history of his own country, would have been ashamed to make, and which it is unpardonable in an English Lawyer to have made. To disprove your assertion as regards a conquered province, as India is, I will quote from a very recondite authority, a book I recommend to be looked over by gentlemen who wish to take a leading part in questions relative to the rights of Englishmen. You will find it, I can assure you, to the full as entertaining as your favourite authors, such
* Wide page 209 Asiatic News.
as Tidd and Archbold, and more to the purpose in these matters—I sincerely beg you, before your next memorials, in the words of Mr. Warren, only to try it, a little of it goes a great way, and will conceal, where it does not remove, profound ignorance. The work I mean is entituled “Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone, Esq.,” in the introduction to which you will find these words,--I cite them, as I presume you have none of you got the book. “Plantations, or colonies in distant countries, are either such where the lands are claimed by right of occupancy only, by finding them desart and uncultivated, and peopling them from the mother country ; or where, when already cultivated,
they have been either gained by conquests, or ceded to us by treaties. But there is a difference between these two species of colonies with respect to the laws by which they are bound. If an uninhabited country and planted by English subjects, all the English laws then in being which are the birth-right of every subject, are immediately there in force, but with many, and great restrictions. But in conquered, or ceded countries, that have already laws of their own, the King may indeed alter and change those laws; but till he does actually change them, the ancient laws of the country remain.
English Lawyers to whom I have been obliged to quote Blackstone, cannot take it amiss if I remind them of a few passages of the history of England. I should be glad to know from you what law was current at Calais, when it was a conquered city belonging to the Crown of England. If the French Law, I beg you to point out the Proclamation of the King of England establishing it. Guernsey and Jersey are at this moment under Norman French Law, but there is no Proclamation introducing it. To come nearer to where you now are, the Isle of Frange is under French Law, the Cape and the Maritime Provinces of Ceylon are under Roman Dutch Law, and the Candian Provinces of Ceylon are under the Law of Buddh, being all places conquered by the King of England, in all of which the laws existing in each at the time of conquest, respectively, have
remained in force, generally, and in none of which was there ever any proclamation issued, re-establishing that law which had never for a moment ceased to be, or abolishing that law which had never for a moment existed.
In all these places British-born subjects are liable to the lear loci, whilst within its local limits, in precisely the same manner as all other persons. So yourselves, gentlemen, at this moment of my addressing you, where not ercepted by Act of Parliament, which may make you subject to any law it pleases, or by the King's Prerogative, which may make you subject to English Law, are subject to Manomedan Law, so far as may be consistent with a Judge's idea of the law of God.
I make no apology for explaining the law to you, in a matter of constitutional aspect. No one need do that henceforth.
Having set you right as to what the Law of England is, I proceed to inform you that your assertion of the state of the law of conquest is not true with regard to any European country, nor any other country, except where the law and the religion of the people are one and the same, and consequently where the laws are immutable, under any circumstances, either by King or people. I quote from another author, again, in preference to refering you to him, as I believe he is read by no class of gentlemen so little as by English Lawyers. Montesquieu (Liv. X. C. III.) thus describes the only four possible ways of treating a conquered country : “Un état quien a conquis un autre, le traite d'une des quatre maniéres suivantes. Il continue à le gouverner selon ses loix, et ne prend pour lui que'l exercise du gouvernement politique et civil ; ou il lui donne un nouveau gouvernment politique et civil; ou il de truit la Société et la disperse dans d' autres; ou, enfin, il extermine tous les citoyens.” So you see that your law is not only bad law, but unheard of law, impossible law; for what civilized nation ever did, or ever could allow its ancient subjects to carry each his own little atmosphere of his own law into another part of its dominions subject to a different law What English defendant residing in Scotland ever dreamed that his brith-right was taken from him, because compelled to answer a suit according to Scotch Law Laying aside English Law, what Civilian, or what writer on international law, can you ever have glanced into, to have taken up so preposterous a notion, a notion which never entered the heads even of the Barbarian conquerors of the Roman Empire 2 I do not admire a Legislature interpreting a doubtful law, but most assuredly there never was a less doubtful assertion than that of Mr. Macnaghten's the other day, when he was bid to say that a change of Courts changes no Laws: none but those who don’t know the difference between a wig and a principle can doubt it.
Your second assertion which I allude to, is your saying that a proclamation by the King can take away the birth-right of a Bri
tish subject. Now, for this, I have a worse quarrel with you than that you are ignorant of the law which you profess to have studied -I say that you are unworthy of enjoying the blessing of being the subjects of a free country, for holding so slavish, so execrable a doctrine. . As law it is ridiculous, as a public principle it is detestable. There is no such doctrine acknowledged in Turkey. It is indeed a solicism, for how can that be a man's birth-right, which another man may take from him at his will 2 I will not argue it. It makes me sick to hear Englishinen, in such woeful Ignorance of all that an Englishman ought to know and prize, presume to speak of constitutional rights and public wrongs, or any thing but the mechanical trades whereby they earn their bread.
And now, Gentlemen, let me entreat you to consider whether you be competent for the task you have undertaken, of leading your fellow countrymen in matters of legislative or constitutional policy. If you are too much occupied in the technicalities and daily wrangling of a Court, to acquire the ordinary information about the great principles of the law of England, which no layman, who knows any thing about his own country, wants, can you be the fittest persons to show the rest of us the way in important political matters ?
You, Mr. Turton, if you detect an illogical phrase in the proceedings of a Mofussil Magistrate, hastily dictated after he has carefully satisfied himself of the justice of his order, are used to dilate upon it with a happy fluency, to say that it would disgrace a fourth form boy, and to wind up your oration, by saying that such is invariably the manner in which justice is administered by the gentlemen of the Civil Service. Now, you yourself, who have spent your life in your profession, have committed two errors in law more gross than could have been excused from an unlearned man, in an off-hand letter. The point about which you have gone wrong is an elementary one, and besides one of extreme interest to a student of law. It is the first head of an interesting topic, with which an Indian Lawyer of all others ought to have been thoroughly conversant. You have made this mistake not in a hasty speech at a Townhall meeting, but in a grave memorial to the Legislative body to which you are immediately subject, on a question which you have treated as one of vital importance. Yet you are the acknowledged leader of the Calcutta Bar; in talent, with the exception of one gentleman who is not a frequenter of the Town-hall, there are none who approach near to you, -and yet you have done this thing; When next you meet with an oversight of a Mofussil magistrate, will you not be more charitable Will not all Calcutta lawyers henceforth be less presumptuous ! Indeed, they are not what they think themselves.
I have addressed you, Gentlemen, that you might yourselves benefit by a little reflection and self-examination : and I have published With every feeling of admiration that may be due to your talents, and of regard for your private characters, but with no respect for your attainments in constitutional law, or for your public conduct in political affairs, I have the honour to subscribe myself, yout most obedient humble servant,
this address that the other memorialists, and the rest of the two hundred Europeans in Calcutta, who yield themselves up to be guided implicitly by you, and your brethren, may know how unsafe it is to trust you in these matters—for you are the gods of this our Israel.
Calcutta, 11th May, 1836. AMicus CURI.E.
TO AMICUS CURI.E.
The Grove, Comarhattee, May 15, 1836.
SIR,-Since you first came forward in the present contest, I have deeply regretted that six months' illness should have left me so wholly debilitated, that to hold my pen for half an hour is almost more bodily exertion than I am capable of sustaining. At any other time your gross misrepresentations of the Supreme Court, should not have gone so long unexposed. But you have now accused me, in no very courteous terms, of misstatements of constitutional law in my letter to Government, for such you term it, (and I am perfectly willing to take the whole odium of it) so as to drive me to some exertion ; though I regret that the cause to which I have adverted., and my present residence ten miles from Calcutta, where I have not a single book to which I can refer without sending there, must delay the appearance of my answer longer than I could wish.
Before I proceed further, let me state some facts, which I do with the desire, that both you and the public may know (not merely conjecture) that I alone am really responsible for the statements or mis-statements, if there are any, of that letter. I had consulted with several of the memorialists before leaving Calcutta on the subject of a reply to Mr. McNaghten’s letter to us, and was authorized to prepare it. For long after removing to this place, I did not in the slightest degree recover from the exhaustion I had experienced from my attending Aushootosh Day's trial, but when the time drew within a week of the day fixed for the re-consideration of the intended Act, further delay was impossible, and the letter which has excited your spleen was written by me without one book to refer to, or a paper before me except Mr. McNaghten's. I never read over even my draft which I got copied,—I never even saw the copy except to sign it. but was obliged to send it to a friend, quite competent to detect any errors, if there had been such, for correction, and then with the signature of the other gentleman addressed with me by Mr. McNaghten, it was forwarded to the Government. The rough draft was again re-copied for publication, and for that
I was obliged to have recourse to the same friend. I confess I do not see the great difference between this, which you yourself term an “ off-hand letter,” and what you call “a hasty speech” at the Town Hall; and even if there had been some inaccuracy of expression, I think under the circumstances it would not have been remarkable. But I contend that there is no inaccuracy of expression even, much less of principle. There is not one word stated in it, which is not strictly true according to the English constitution. I admit that addressed to a nobleman, who has only just left the Cabinet of England, who is Supposed (but I believe erroneously) to have been himself a barrister, it is not written in that elementary style which may make every sentence in it perfectly intelligible to the would-be wits and anonymous critics whom one may encounter in an Indian newspaper; but I maintain that every word is correct and true in constitutional principle according to the law of England; and, morever, that it is intelligibly so to any man who does not wish to pervert its meaning, and is of ordinary understanding. I regret much, that on this oceasion you should have allowed yourself to be guilty of that want of ordinary courtesy that a gentleman generally wishes to preserve in his most violent controversies. You have forfeited all claim to being treated with the slightest consideration, or ceremony—all claim to the courtesies of life, for which there is always room, let the quarrel be ever so deadly. Do not imagine, however, that I mean to make this any excuse for degenerating into like abuse. I owe too much, not to you, for I owe you nothing ; but I owe too much to myself to adopt a style and manner which, however you may have set me the example, I may hereafter regret to have fol. lowed. If my opponent was even Mr. Macaulay (and I am sure no man in India owes him any thing) I would still preserve, as far as possible, the tone of gentlemanly discussion.
Let me, however, say, that this explanation, though addressed to you, in answer to your letter, is really meant for the public who are opposed to that execrable act which UNconSri turios Ally and illog Ally, as I contend, hands over, us, our laws, our contracts, our inheritances, to the tender mercies and legal knowledge of Aumeens. For the memorialists I acted. They have a right to see that I have not placed them in a false position. But you being a friend to the measure, hugring your own insidel chains in slavish satisfaction, have no right to any explanation,-I only wish to see that they are not misled or deceived.
Now, Sir, this is what I said, and what I will maintain, notwithstanding your objecions. “It is the right and privilege of British su'jects in a conquered colony or province, to carry with them their own laws till duly altered by competent authority. Nothing less than a proclamation of the Crown can deprive them of this their birth-right. That right and