ridiculous, your fears are groundless, the step proposed is in pursuance of a great policy, and when circumstances render it practicable we shall take another, till we have removed every badge of conquest and privilege. It is easy to appreciate the charm which such a doc trine has for those who identify themselves with the wise and muni ficent patrons of most interesting, protégés. They luxuriate in all the finer sentiments, with the ease and self-satisfaction of petit jurymen with their hands in a defendant's pocket in a case of breach of promise. Their disregard for the: rights, the privileges, the senti ments of their non-official country; men, is exhibited with all the hauteur, of a privileged and secure position But justice requires that it should be borne in mind that it is the non-official European community who have won the Indian Empire, who defend it, and develop its resources. The remonstrance against the criminal jurisdiction of natives comes from no single quarter with more vigour than from British officers and soldiers. The "wel fare of Indians" is undoubtedly a sacred object to keep in view; but, we need not, in our enthusiasm for it, lose sight of the safety and welfare of our own countrymen,? and the welfare of all will be more readily and efficiently promoted by, avoiding instead of precipitating: occasions of strife. The bitter resentment which the proposal has called forth, the earnest hostility with which it is received, are circumstances to be taken into con

sideration in estimating whether, this "small measure" is either wise or opportune. A claim on the part of our countrymen to maintain privileges which Parlia ment and the Indian Legislature have uniformly recognised, must be pronounced a reasonable one. It

is for those who invade it to show that the time has come when it is wise and right to call upon the European community to waive them, in deference to the interests of the empire and to secure the triumph of sound policy. Taunts to the effect that such privileges are unnecessary, that they are only valued from unworthy sentiments, because of an unworthy race rivalry, because of an exaggerated sense of their importance, and, worse and worse, because impunity for crime is pleasant, are utterly misplaced. Even if the changes proposed were right and opportune, that cannot be the spirit in which a wise statesman or legislator approaches a thorny, not to say a burning question. There is ample evidence to show that if ever the measure proposed becomes one of State necessity or high political convenience, and is approached in a wise and conciliatory spirit, the good sense of our fellow-countrymen will lead them to acquiesce in the future, as they have done in the past, in changes which sound policy really requires.

But in order to see whether sound policy calls for this measure at the present moment, let us briefly recall the extent to which the privileges of Englishmen have been recognised in the past, and the circumstances under which it is proposed to destroy them. We will not go into any dry detail, for the facts are not at all in controversy, and a very brief statement of them will suffice to show that, as regards the claim of natives to exercise

criminal jurisdiction over Europeans, Lord Salisbury is right in saying that it raises a great and vital question, practically for the first time. So far from its being in accordance with the general tendency of legislation, it raises an entirely new question, different in

principle from former instances of vesting power in natives over Europeans; and it does so in the teeth of explicit legislation upon the subject, maturely considered in 1872, and ratified in 1882. The circumstances are these. The English, for their own safety and because impunity for crime was not pleasant to them, took to India their own law and their own tribunals, and long before any question of empire arose, justice was administered among them in pursuance of charters granted by their own sovereign. The Mogul emperor in his palmiest days never ventured to do what is claimed for the Bengalee Baboo now-exercise criminal jurisdiction over Englishmen. From the earliest charter of Queen Elizabeth down to the Battle of Plassey, which laid Bengal at our feet, a century and a half elapsed. British settlements had grown in the meantime, and British courts were firmly established amongst them, to deal out justice to the English. No native attempted the task. He attempted to do so amongst natives in English settlements, but was bribed to desist. After the victories of Clive the English were compelled, reluctantly and gradually, and after several attempts to shirk it, to undertake the administration of justice amongst the natives. The power was in English hands; they had, in the first place, to supervise native administration, gradually replace it, and assume the whole responsibility. The result has been, that it is admitted on all hands that the natives of India have never, in the whole course • of history, had a more effective and 'impartial administration of justice, civil and criminal, as during the 'last century. We have given them the best in our power; but that is no reason why our own country

men should be robbed of rights which they value.

The natives have, so to speak, assimilated our system, developed great aptitude for it, and, whether as judges, pleaders, or attorneys, take an active part in its administration. But during the greater part of that time, and down to 1836, English tribunals, planted in the country by the Crown and Parliament, and presided over by Englishmen, exclusively administered justice, civil and criminal, amongst the English. Meanwhile the English community in India had rapidly increased; and with increasing transactions, uniformity of law and of the method of administering it became an urgent political necessity.

An Indian Law Commission and a general Indian Legislature were established, and Macaulay sailed for Calcutta as the first law member of the Governor-General's council. It soon became apparent that the Royal courts were too few in number to carry on the whole civil litigious business of the country as regards the English. They only existed in the Presidency towns, and the English were scattered all over the country. It was necessary therefore that the courts of the country—that is, those established by the East India Company -should have their jurisdiction extended, so as to include civil cases in which the English were concerned. The only other alternative was to plant special courts all through the country, wherever Englishmen had settled, for their convenience; or to continue to bring all their cases, however trumpery, to the Presidency towns. The change effected was a great one. We had arrived at an epoch in the history of administering civil justice. The wants of the country had outgrown the old system, and the alternative

on.

had arisen, that either the English must submit to the existing tribunals, or a new set of tribunals must be established at enormous expense, side by side with the old set, for their exclusive convenience. No 'doubt a great outcry and clamour were raised. Sir Arthur Hobhouse - is quite right in that respect. He is right also in saying that they were overruled. And why? Because a case of urgent political necessity was satisfactorily made out; and if the same could be predicated of the present crisis, the same result would necessarily follow, that the good sense of the English community would teach them to yield-reluctantly it might be, but still with the sense and dis cretion of men accustomed to selfgovernment. But no case of necessity has even been attempted to be made out, as we shall show further It is important to note that in 1836, when the transference of English civil cases to the provincial or Company courts was made, it was never suggested that their criminal cases should also be transferred. It was recognised that they stood on a different footing, and the Englishmen continued to be amenable only to the criminal jurisdiction of the exclusively English courts—that is, the Crown courts of the Presidency towns-except in petty cases, which are dealt with by English justices of the peace. Then, again, it would have been very inconvenient so to transfer them, for the Company's courts did not administer English criminal law, and were not acquainted with it. They administered a sort of modified Mohammedan criminal law, and Englishmen could hardly be subjected to a law of that nature. No doubt great inconvenience resulted from the criminal courts being located so far from the English community dispersed over the empire.

It gave to one class practical im-) punity for crime. Sir Arthur Hobhouse says that this impunity was pleasant to them. The impu tation certainly is not pleasant to them, nor is the further imputation an agreeable one, that they resisted all attempts to deprive them of it. They resisted a remedy which was worse than the evil. If we only think of it, a state of civilised society in which impunity for crime is pleasant, or a single criminal welcome, is an impossible anomaly. The taunt ceases to be a libel, and becomes an absurdity. In 1872 at very great step was taken, which practically provided security against crime, by giving English judges on the spot power to punish with a year's imprisonment (a heavy penalty in an Indian climate), with fine, and with whipping; and to English magistrates power up to three months' imprisonment. The universal testimony is, that the whole English community "behaved very well," and at once ac-," quiesced. They were, in fact, glad of it, and satisfied with the wise, conciliatory, and prudent manner in which Sir James Stephen proposed it. His words have been household words ever since. Α general imputation of proneness to crime and desire of impunity would be a blunder in the heat of advocacy; calmly to write and print it of one's fellow countrymen en masse is to reveal a tone of senti ment and opinion which is clearly not derived from contact with the non-official community in India, but is generated in the India Office or at Simla, and accounts for the anger and indignation with which proposals animated by that? spirit have been received. The. grounds upon which possible imputation is made are, that before either criminal law or criminal procedure had been

this im