not
otherwise provided for were to be decided by justice, equity, and good
conscience. Much latitude of decision was thus left to the Indian judges
upon matters not included in the written law. The practical result of
thus 'throwing the reins on the neck of judges,' the first body of whom
had no professional training, was to produce a vague uncertain feeble
system,' combining the defects of 'a weak grasp of principle with a
great deal of occasional subservience to technicality.' English
professional lawyers occasionally seem to acquire a specially vigorous
grasp of principles, to which they have had to force their way through a
mass of confused precedent and detail. But the 'unprofessional judge
seldom gets beyond a certain number of illustrations and rules, more or
less imperfectly understood.' Hence the special necessity in India of
reducing the laws to the clearest and most explicit shape possible, or,
in other words, for the codifying process in which he had played his
part. Sir W. W. Hunter remarks in a note that the evils indicated here
have been remedied to some extent, 'partly through the influence which
his (Fitzjames's) views have exercised' in India, by a greater
separation between the judicial and the executive branches of the
service.

One of Fitzjames's most remarkable pieces of work is a 'Minute on the
Administration of Justice in British India,' containing his remarks upon
the subject mentioned by Sir W. W. Hunter. It was originally written in
the summer of 1870, as a comment upon a large mass of opinions obtained
from the local governments. It was revised in 1871, and published[117]
just before he left India in 1872. The desirability of separating the
judicial from the executive functions of the civilians had been long
under discussion, and very various opinions had been held. In this
minute Fitzjames summarises these, and gives his own view of the points
on which he considered himself able to form an opinion. Many of the
questions raised could only be answered to any purpose by men who had
had long practical experience of administration. Fitzjames, however,
gives a careful account of the actual systems of the various provinces:
discusses how far it is possible or desirable to separate the functions;
whether a 'special judicial branch of the civil service' should be
created; whether any modification would be desirable in the systems of
civil or criminal procedure; and what practical suggestions should