the preamble to several of the Regulations or Laws of 1793, shows that there must have been much confusion, diversity of practice, and uncertainty of jurisdiction in the civil and criminal courts. Indeed, the language of the preamble of one of these laws is so significant and illustrative of the incompetence of the native officers, and of the inability of the English Collector to interfere to any good purpose, that it must be here quoted in extenso. In Reg. IX of 1793 the Governor-General sums up the case for a complete change in the following terms: —
'I. Pursuant to the Regulations passed by the President and Council on 21st August, 1772, Criminal Courts, denominated Faujdári Adálats, were established in the interior parts of the Provinces for the trial of persons charged with crimes or misdemeanors: and the Collectors of the revenue, who were covenanted servants of the Company, were directed to superintend the proceedings of the officers of those Courts, and on trials to see that the necessary witnesses were summoned and examined, that due weight was allowed to their testimony, and that the decisions passed were fair and impartial. By the same Regulations, a separate and superior Criminal Court was established at Murshidábád, under the denomination of the Nizámat Adálat, for revising the proceedings of the Provincial Criminal Courts in capital cases, and the Committee of Revenue at Murshidábád was vested with a control over this court, similar to that which the Collectors of the revenue were empowered to exercise over the Provincial Courts. Upon the abolition of the Committee of Revenue at Murshidábád, the Nizámat Adálat was removed to Calcutta, and placed under the charge
