e unimportant speaking at a public meeting of the
Council,' (which turned, I may say, principally upon the question of the
policy of allowing native members of the service to sit in judgment upon
Europeans). 'This was possible, because in India there are neither
political parties nor popular constituencies to be considered, and
hardly any reputation is to be got by making speeches. Moreover,
everyone is a man under authority, having others under him.'

A condensed account of the code and the institutions which it regulates
will be found in Fitzjames's 'History of the Criminal Law,' from which I
quote these words: 'If it be asked,' he says, 'how the system works in
practice, I can only say that it enables a handful of unsympathetic
foreigners (I am far from thinking that if they were more sympathetic
they would be more efficient) to rule justly and firmly about
200,000,000 persons of many races, languages, and creeds, and, in many
parts of the country, bold, sturdy, and warlike. In one of his many
curious conversations with native scholars, Mr. Monier Williams was
addressed by one of them as follows: "The Sahibs do not understand us or
like us; but they try to be just and do not fear the face of man." I
believe this to be strictly true.' 'The Penal Code, the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and the institutions which they regulate, are somewhat grim
presents for one people to make to another, and are little calculated
to excite affection; but they are eminently well calculated to protect
peaceable men and to beat down wrongdoers, to extort respect and to
enforce obedience.' The code was re-enacted in 1882 under the care of
Mr. Whitley Stokes. It was then extended to the High Courts, which had
been previously omitted, and alterations were made both in arrangement
and in substance. Of these alterations Fitzjames says that he does not
consider them to be improvements; but upon that point I am not competent
to form any opinion.

Closely connected with the subject of procedure was another which was
treated in his most original and valuable piece of legislation. The
Indian Law Commission had in 1868 sent out the draft of an 'Evidence
Act,' which was circulated among the local governments. It was
unanimously disapproved as unsuitable to the country. It presupposed a
knowledge of English law, and would not relieve Indian officials from
the necessity of consulting the elaborate text-books through which that
law was diffused. Fitzjame