ses of an
authority of which every man might in his turn become a sharer. And with
regard to the natives, it was presumed (perhaps a little too hastily)
that they were not capable of sharing in the functions of jurors. But it
was not foreseen that the judges were also liable to be engaged in the
factions of the settlement,--and if they should ever happen to be so
engaged, that the native people were then without that remedy which
obviously lay in the chance that the court and jury, though both liable
to bias, might not easily unite in the same identical act of injustice.
Your Committee, on full inquiry, are of opinion _that the use of juries
is neither impracticable nor dangerous in Bengal_.

Your Committee refer to their report made in the year 1781, for the
manner in which this court, attempting to extend its jurisdiction, and
falling with extreme severity on the native magistrates, a violent
contest arose between the English judges and the English civil
authority. This authority, calling in the military arm, (by a most
dangerous example,) overpowered, and for a while suspended, the
functions of the court; but at length those functions, which were
suspended by the quarrel of the parties, were destroyed by their
reconciliation, and by the arrangements made in consequence of it. By
these the court was virtually annihilated; or if substantially it
exists, it is to be apprehended it exists only for purposes very
different from those of its institution.

The fourth object of the act of 1773 was the Council-General. This
institution was intended to produce uniformity, consistency, and the
effective cooeperation of all the settlements in their common defence. By
the ancient constitution of the Company's foreign settlements, they were
each of them under the orders of a President or Chief, and a Council,
more or fewer, according to the discretion of the Company. Among those,
Parliament (probably on account of the largeness of the territorial
acquisitions, rather than the conveniency of the situation) chose Bengal
for the residence of the controlling power, and, dissolving the
Presidency, appointed a new establishment, upon a plan somewhat similar
to that which had prevailed before; but the number was smaller. This
establishment was composed of a Governor-General and four Counsellors,
all named in the act of Parliament. They were to hold their offices for
five years, after which term the patronage was to revert to the Court of