for his particular client, which would be mischievous. When India is qualified to appreciate the invaluable blessing of trial by jury, and to use it well and wisely, it ought to be conceded; till then, it is charity as well as wisdom to withhold it. Whenever the period of introducing it may arrive, it should be upon the English principle of requiring unanimity in the verdict. This is a security against corruption, because it is more easy to corrupt a part than the whole; it is a security for full examination, because difference of opinion, if it exist, cannot be removed without discussion; it is, in a certain degree, a security for a just decision, because, in the interchange of opinion imposed by the necessity of discussion, the influence of discrimination and integrity will be considerable. Trial by jury, where unanimity is not required, deserves not the name. In no country is the institution thus deprived of one of its limbs of any value. In India especially, the decision of a mere majority of jurors could command no respect, and the verdict might almost as well be made to depend upon the toss of a rupee.

The language in which a large portion of the proceedings of the courts in India are transacted is the Persian-not the language of the country, but introduced by those who subjugated it. It is a language, however, very generally studied and understood by the educated classes, and on this

account,

account, probably, has hitherto deserved the preference which has been given it. If superseded, as it perhaps ultimately will be by the English, the process must be very gradual. Until the latter language is as well understood as the former, great inconveniences would arise from its introduction, causing, among others, the exclusion of native pleaders from practice. For many reasons we must be desirous of extending the use of our native tongue; but this, like many other good ends, must not be urged with too much precipitancy.

To lay down scientific and just rules of evidence for the guidance of the courts, and to frame a system of conveyancing adapted to the country, will be two important and most useful labours. The former will be a comparatively simple task, as there is little reason for varying the rules of evidence in any country. In criminal proceedings, the interrogation of accused persons, and other odious practices, sanctioned by the codes of some countries, though happily not by the law of England, should be carefully avoided, and the wise and humane maxims which among us have passed into axioms, that " every man should be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty," and that "it is better that ten guilty persons should escape than that one innocent man should suffer," should be steadily kept in view. In civil cases, although

the

the disqualifications of witnesses should not be unnecessarily multiplied, the parties to the suits should be rigorously excluded. Their examination would be productive of nothing but abundance of perjury; and in the courts of India it will be unnecessary to offer a bounty on the fabrication of false testimony. The supply will be quite suffi

cient without it.

To frame a judicious system of conveyancing will be a work of greater difficulty, and will require a most intimate and minute acquaintance with the nature of Indian tenures, so widely differing from those of Europe, and of our own country espcially. In matters of evidence, an English lawyer of enlarged mind and knowledge would be the best guide; in conveyancing, he would probably be the worst. The subject must be approached with extreme caution, and information must be sought with the most sedulous care; for it is a fact, that notwithstanding a large part of India has been so long subject to our rule, we are yet but imperfectly acquainted with the nature and conditions of landed tenures in that country. A system of registration will, in all probability, form part of the new law. In some countries-in our own, for instance the advantages of such a plan are very doubtful, and a large portion of the community regard its evils as greater than its benefits. But where fraud is of such constant occur

rence

rence as in India, there will be little security for property without it. The attendant evil will not be so great as in a nation of higher feeling and greater refinement; but whether great or small, it is one which, under the present circumstances, must be submitted to, in order to avoid something

worse.

CHAPTER XI.

REVENUE.

In India, the great source from which the financial wants of the state are supplied is the land revenue. The modes of its collection and administration are various. One of these modes is distinguished by the name of the zemindary system. Under this system may be classed all those cases in which any portion of land beyond that of a village is rated at a certain sum in the gross, and the payment of that sum undertaken by an individual, usually called a zemindar. He, of course, collects from the actual cultivators the sums necessary to make up the amount for which he is accountable. Occasionally the office of zemindar is exercised, not by an individual, but by a small number of persons. In some cases,

parties claim the office by hereditary right; in others, it is held only for a term, sometimes a very short one. In extent the variations are not less considerable, ascending from two villages to an entire district, and even a whole province. In the lower provinces of Bengal the zemindary system is universal; all the zemindars are recognized