foul disease then prevalent in Bombay? Sir Peter Grant issued a Writ of habeas corpus against a person in the Mofussil. Sir John Malcolm questioned the authority of the Supreme Court to issue the Writ and declared that he would not let it be executed. This enraged Sir Peter Grant who closed the Court for some days and wrote his protest in these memorable words:"Within these walls we own no equal and no superior but God and the King." His magnificent portrait hangs in the Sessions Court of the High Court of Bombay—a gift of the people, bearing the inscription "That all the Natives who see it may have before them the image of their friend and benefactor." am not prepared to say whether Sir Peter Grant acted discreetly or indiscreetly in the matter, but I do pray that his words may find for ever an echo in the Court rooms of all the High Courts in India.

I

I may be permitted to point out the undesirability of a High Court Judge looking forward to a promotion as a member of an Executive Council of Government. Mr. Bagehot, in his English Constitution, has said: "It is of very grave moment that the administration of justice should be kept clear of any sinister temptations." I have very great respect for civilian Judges, but they had better not be exposed to any temptation. Mr. Justice Jardine, I have heard people say, was not

promoted to the Executive Council of the Government of Bombay, on account of his fearless criticism of Government from the Bench.

The powers of the High Court should be wide and elastic. Every grievance must have a remedy, but the Doctor must be a Judge and not a revenue officer of Government. The tendency of recent legislation, however, is in the contrary direction. The High Court is a very great check on the idiosyncracies and snobbishness of the Mofussil Judiciary. As long as there continues to exist the unnatural combination of the judicial and executive functions in India, the wheel of Criminal Justice will not revolve freely and a great deal of hardship will continue to be felt by the Mofussil people. As a rule revenue officers give much greater attention to revenue work than to criminal work, and very often do the latter in a hurried and perfunctory manner. Rightly or wrongly they imagine that their promotion depends upon the efficiency of their revenue work. Moreover, the Mofussil Magistrates as a class are incompetent. Any one who has the least experience of them will testify to this. Their shortcomings and ignorance are amazing. The Subordinate Magistracy is in a still more deplorable condition. It is nothing but a conglomeration of ex-talatis, and quondam clerks of Collectors and Assist

ant Collectors whose knowledge of law is of a most superficial character. Their metamorphosis is wonderful, but it is not conducive to efficient administration of justice. Fancy a person drawing a salary of about Rs. 80 a month, invested with the powers of sending a King's subject to jail for six months and fining him Rs. 200. Well may people shudder at this. Unfortunately, the High Court is generally reluctant to interfere with the orders of Magistrates subordinate to it in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Otherwise a great many things would come to light. Legal practitioners in the districts know a great deal about their Magistrates, but they dare not speak about them for fear of ruining their practice and creating a hornet's nest about them. They can, however, tell tales of lamentable miscarriage of justice. However vigilant the High Court may be, which I am afraid it is not, it cannot efficiently cope with, much less eradicate the evil. The combined system of judicial and executive functions is mischievous, and very often makes the same person a Judge and a prosecutor not in name only but in all reality. Both Anglo-Indians and Indians of eminence have condemned the system. The Government, I believe, shelved the question of the separation of the Executive and Judicial functions on the ostensible ground of increased expenditure,

but that objection has long since lost its force, there having been large surpluses for the last few years in succession. I am afraid the separation is avoided lest the so-called prestige of the Government Officials should suffer. Here again the fetish of prestige has come in the way of the people. Can none of our English knight-errants slay it? There are appended to this essay two letters which I had contributed to the Bombay Gazette in January and February 1904, over the nom-de-plume of "A Lawyer." They give but a faint outline of the grievances. I wish they had been more full.

Exclusion of Indians from High Offices,

The fifth grievance is the exclusion of Indians from the high offices in the State. A few Indian politicians have made speeches by the yard, denouncing Government in the most scathing terms. The bulk of the people do not share their extreme views. As things exist, a considerable English element is indispensable in the service of the State. No right-thinking Indian grudges it. But there should be some semblance of justice in the dispensation of State patronage. Lord Curzon, in the Government of India Resolution of 24th May 1904, said: "There has been a progressive increase in the employment of Natives and a progressive decline in the employment of Europeans, showing how honestly and faithfully the British Government had fulfilled its pledges and how untrue is the charge which is so often heard of a ban of exclusion against the Natives of the country." His Lordship further said: "It is not the fact that the Government of the country has abused its patronage to the benefit of any class or community of persons. On the contrary, as the development of administrative organization has entailed the creation