« EelmineJätka »
CARNATIC AND TANJORE COMMIS
CARNATIC. In Part I. of the Analysis, pages 129 and 708, the origin of the Carnatic and Tanjore Commissions is given in detail. The former was appointed under an agreement between the EastIndia Company and the private creditors, on the 10th July 1805: the latter under an agreement dated the 11th February 1824.
The aggregate amount of Carnatic claims which had been preferred in 1825, was £30,216,707, of which £27,163,979 had been rejected, and £2,485,630 admitted ; since that period the further sum of £483,516 has been investigated, of which £362,403 has been rejected, and £121,113 admitted.
The following is an abstract of the amount of adjudications to the date of the last report from the Carnatic commission, dated 15th February 1828, and also the close of the Commissioners' Report.
£. “ Aggregate of absolute adjudications in
2,585,821 4 101 “ favour of parties ............. “ Aggregate of provisional adjudications
20,923 2. 01 “ in favour of parties.......
Brought forward... £30,133,126 9 74 Estimated balance of the amount of “ claims already reported to this Ho66 nourable House, which remain to be “ adjudicated, exclusive of the amount
268,824 17 85 “ of a further number of small claims “ (between five and six thousand) form6 ing the subject of the arrangements 6 noticed in the following paragraphs.
“ £30,401,950 17 45
“ Since the date of the last Report which we had the honour " to lay before this Honourable House, we have received from “ the Commissioners at Madras the whole of the Reports from “ Mr. Lacon, who was, in the first instance, employed on the
part of the East-India Company, to settle, upon certain terms, " at that time offered by their Government of Fort St. George, a " portion of the small claims on the fund provided by the deed “ of the 10th July 1805, by which the Carnatic Commission was
appointed. The several parties who accepted those terms “ withdrew, in consequence, their claims from our jurisdiction, “ and we have thereby been enabled to adjudicate against them “ absolutely, as having accordingly nothing due to them from 66 the said fund.
66 We have the satisfaction to report to this Honourable 6. House, that we have recently received a communication “ from the Honourable Court of Directors of the East-India
Company, informing us of the complete success of the further arrangement, so far as it has hitherto been carried 66 into effect, which they had directed with a view to the 66 release of the said fund from the whole of the said class 66 of small claims. None of the particulars have yet reached
us from the Commissioners at Madras: but we expect to 66 receive from them, in succession, the Reports necessary to
empower us finally to liberate the said fund from all the 6 said claims which have been withdrawn under the said “ further arrangement, so soon as the Commissioners shall
CARNATIC AND TANJORE COMMISSIONERS.
“ have completed the details relative to the identity and the 66 title of this numerous class of claimants.
66 We have further the honour to state to this Honourable “ House, that we have passed awards (one, provisionally; the “ others, absolutely ;) on all the claims (including those under 66 the Relief Act, 59 Geo. III., No. 294), which the Returns “ made by the Commissioners in India have, since the date of “ our last Report, enabled us to adjudicate; and the Commis“ sioners at Madras have given assurances of their intention to 6 transmit, with as little delay as the nature of the inquiries will “ admit, their further Reports on the remaining claims which 66 have been referred by us for their investigation.
" We have further the honour to report to this Honourable " House that, in consequence of the reference to the Bengal “ Government, noticed in our last Report, the Governor-Gene“ ral in Council has adopted measures to secure, in future, “ due regularity in the execution of the duties of the Carnatic « and Tanjore Commissioners at Madras.
6 BENJAMIN HOBHOUSE,
66 THOMAS COCKBURN, 66 Carnatic Office, 66 ROBERT HARRY INGLIS." " Manchester Buildings, Westminster,
“ 15th February 1828."
TANJORE. The Tanjore Commissioners have made four Reports of their proceedings :
The 1st dated 21st February 1825.
2d ......... 22d February 1826.
4th and last, 15th February 1828. by which it appears that the aggregate amount of claims is Star Pagodas 3,578,345, or £1,431,338. The conclusion of the fourth and last Report is as follows:
“ In our second Report to Parliament, under date the 22d of • February 1826, we had the honour to present to this Honour“able House a list of claims preferred to us, and to state, " that in regard to them, we had obtained all the evidence “ recoverable in this country, and had transmitted copies of “ that evidence, with detailed instructions, to the Commis“ sioners in India, directing them to lose no time in completing “ the investigation of the said claims, and in forwarding to us “ their reports thereon respectively.
. “ In our Third Report, presented to this Honourable House
on the 6th of December 1826, we had the honour to present a “ list of claims preferred to the Commissioners in India, which “ they had transmitted to us, unaccompanied by evidence, and “ the examination of which, in the first instance, must be cono ducted in India; and further to state, that we had not received “ the result of the inquiries, which, in reference to that and the s former list of claims, we had directed to be made by the Com6 missioners in India. We are in the same actual state at pre“ sent, owing to the delay which the said Commissioners expe“ rienced in obtaining the Mahratta records of the late Rajah “ Ameer Sing, and to their difficulty in finding an efficient Mah“ ratta translator; but in consequence of a despatch recently “ forwarded to us by them, we have reason to believe that these “ obstacles having been removed, we shall soon receive the “ Reports which they may have completed on the claims sub6 mitted to their investigation.
“ BENJAMIN HOBHOUSE, " Office of the Tanjore “ THOMAS COCKBURN, 6 Commissioners,
“ ROBERT HARRY INGLIS." “ Manchester Buildings, Westminster,
6 15th February 1828.”
In the month of March 1826 Mr. Secretary Peel drew the attention of the House of Commons to the state of the criminal law generally in this country. The subject had engaged the time and talents of the late Sir Samuel Romilly, and subsequently of Sir James Mackintosh, both of whom, at various periods, brought different propositions connected with it under the consideration of Parliament.
Mr. Peel's object was more extended: it embraced the consolidation of the various acts which related to offences against property, and which, in their then state, were considered to encumber the statute book, and to confuse each other. The multiplicity of provisions and the minute nature of the details, rendered it utterly impossible to carry the bill through that session; another bill was, however, introduced and passed, which had reference to the general subject of the criminal justice of England, but more particularly to amending the regulations relative to the admittance to bail in cases of felony. The clause making accessories before the fact liable to the same punishment as the principal felon, was opposed, but ultimately carried. A proposal for allowing the counsel of prisoners, upon their trial for felony, to address the jury on the evidence, though strongly supported, was rejected, and the bill was finally passed into a law.
In the following session Mr. Peel introduced four other bills, which, with the bill brought in the preceding session were passed into acts, viz., 7th and 8th Geo. IV., cap. 27, for repealing various statutes in England relative to the benefit of clergy, and to larceny and other offences connected therewith, and to malicious injuries to property, and to remedies against the hundred. By this act one hundred and thirty-seven different statutes, commencing with the Charta de Foresta, 9th Henry III. cap. 10, were repealed.