aside a juryman objected to: if on such appeal the objection is sustained, the Court may order a new trial.

XV. The Governor-General of India in Council may from time to time suspend the operation of the previous Sections of this Act, in those districts in which there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants qualified to furnish a jury.

XVI. After the passing of this Act no Futwah shall be required, in any case, from the law-officer of any any Court. Ordered, that the draft now read be published for general information.

ACT, No.

1849.

An Act for the Protection of Judicial Officers.

For the greater protection of Magistrates and others acting judicially, it is enacted as follows:

I. No Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector, or other person acting judicially, shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court, for any act done or ordered to be done by him, in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction; provided that he at the time in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of; and no officer of any Court, or other person bound to execute the lawful warrants or orders of any such Judge, Magis

trate, Justice of the Peace, Collector, or other person acting judicially, shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for the execution of any warrant or order, which he would be bound to execute, if within the jurisdiction of the person issuing the same.

Ordered, that the draft now read, be published for general information.

FREDERIC JAMES HALLIDAY,

Secretary to the Government of India.

THE generosity of the British nation is proverbial. Has any one appealed to the sympathy of the British people in vain? Their compassion, so extensive, so universal, does it not comprehend the whole world? Where are words to describe that noble generosity so conspicuously displayed towards the Polish and French refugees? Who can withhold admiration of that generous outburst of feeling in behalf of the gallant, but unfortunate Hungarians? In short, the susceptibility of John Bull is perhaps too great. We now call on the English people to suspend their sympathies in behalf of foreigners, and to bestow all the compassion they can spare upon their hapless fellow countrymen in India, whose rights have been trampled under foot by that most despotic of all governments-the government of India. That an Englishman should be deprived of trial by his peers, is bad; but that a Christian should be degraded to the level of Mahomedans and Hindoos, is beyond all toleration. It is intended to convey some idea of the dangerous tendency of these Acts, which endanger all personal liberty. There never was

greater occasion for the openly-expressed sympathyof the English nation. And we entreat it, in the name of the exiled English in India, to render its prompt assistance. Let it but once express its disapprobation of these proceedings, and our object will be accomplished.

How artfully worded, what a specious representation, is this first enactment ! It says, the Indian government finds it expedient to abolish the exemption of Englishmen from the jurisdiction of native courts. The meaning of this is nothing less than to impose the Mahomedan law, as modified by the Company's regulations, upon all Englishmen in India, and to confer upon the magistrates of the Company power to transport them across the seas for the term of their lives. In other language, it is an abolition of the jurisdiction of her Majesty's Courts in India over British-born subjects, and the murder of all those safeguards of liberty, which form the essence and glory of the British Constitution. The Supreme Courts of Law, or her Majesty's Courts, were established in India at a very early period; and the name of a Chief Justice of Calcutta, Sir Elijah Impey, as far back as the time of Warren Hastings, must be familiar to the English reader. For them was reserved the trial of all Englishmen offending against criminal law.

It may be expedient here to dilate a little on the constitution of these Courts. The Supreme Court was originally a distinct establishment, which, together

with all the privileges attached to it, derived its authority from that sacred source of all legislation— the House of Commons-and placed above any interference of the local government. Thus a powerful tribunal was created, which, being exempted from the dictation of the local governments, was competent to afford protection to all Englishmen, both against any oppressive acts of the Company's officers, and against the diabolical machinations of the natives. The Supreme Court was then the highest judicial establishment in India, and its powers extended to all natives as well as Europeans in Bengal. It administered the laws of England to all alike, and every one, whether Governor or Rajah, bowed to its decision. When there were two opposition-governors in Calcutta, Clavering and Warren Hastings, the Supreme Court adjusted the difference by declaring the latter to be the legal Governor. Its power was boundless. That the technicalities of the English law should have created. much confusion, and been the source of much apprehension and distress among the ignorant natives, may be easily imagined. They lived in daily fear of their lives, and knew not how soon, or for what offence, their goods, even their lives, might be forfeited. There was a great discrepancy between the penalties awarded to offences by the English and Mahometan systems. The case of Nuncomar, an opulent native of high rank, who was convicted of forgery, said to have been com