transportation for life, surely the Court of Appeal will commute the sentence to the punishment prescribed by law, though the Judge be not responsible.

Why did not Governor Wall of Goree hit on the expedient of declaring himself, or rather the judicial power subordinate to him, irresponsible for any acts performed in the administration of justice, on the supposition, that it acted in good faith? Would he have escaped the gallows? No; her Majesty's Governors could not thus offend against the principles of English institutions, without exposing themselves to vital danger. But, alas! these Company's Judges, though administering justice in a dependency of England to Englishmen, enjoy exemption from the salutary control of Parliament. They may run a career of infamy, oppression, and inhumanity, checked may be occasionally, but unpunished. The necessity for the subversion of the common rules of jurisprudence does not suggest itself to us. Tell us what necessity there was for giving this extra protection to the Judges. The old law, as it stood, sufficed to enable the Judges to exercise influence and to command respect in the country. It ran thus-"Whereas it is reasonable to render the Provincial Magistrates, as well natives as British subjects, more safe in the execution of their office, be it enacted, that no action for wrong and injury shall lie in the Supreme Court against any person whatsoever, exercising the judicial office in

the country Courts for any judgment, decree, or order of the said Court, nor against any person for. any act done by or in virtue of the order of the said Court." Appeals, otherwise, would have been so numerous, that the Supreme Court could not have got through the work. Besides, the two systems of law, the English and Mahomedan, would have clashed there, when nothing but chaotic confusion must have ensued. Nothing could have worked better than this enactment: Supreme Court Justices were confined to their own proper limits, and the Company's servants, free from all molestation, dispensed the law according to the custom of the country.

Occasionally cases have been referred from the Company's Courts to her Majesty's Justices; but the latter are generally guided by the wishes of the Government in their decisions. As a proof how cautious these Justices are, when weighing questions of appeal, even those affecting their own jurisdiction, we may state that they could not bring themselves to afford any pecuniary or other satisfaction to Mr. Cruise, whose case we have related. Apprehensions of incurring the displeasure of Government and suspension from office troubled them. Whilst these Justices are subject to dismissal by the Indian Government, it is not to be expected, that they will offer much resistance to its oppressive Acts.

Once upon a time the Chief Justice could cite the Governor and Council before him to answer

for any misdemeanour. This high functionary acknowledged no other authority than that of the King. But, in process of time, as this inordinate power, resident in the Chief Justice, was the source of much contention, and impeded the administration of the law, it became necessary to declare the Government of India paramount.

Now, under the operation of these new laws, the Chief Justice himself may be arrested by any Mahomedan constable, and dragged before a native tribunal, to answer any accusation that may be preferred against him. It is now almost time for the Supreme Court to collect its goods and chattels, and embark for England. The next proceeding of these Calcutta legislators may be the utter annihilation of the establishment. We, however, encourage sanguine hopes of a violent re-action. The consequences of this attempt to curtail the power of her Majesty's Courts may be, that the House of Commons may make their jurisdiction more extensive than ever.

We have asserted that the Justices at present in Calcutta possess no independence. This is so manifest, that Mr. Theodore Dickens, an old practitioner of the Calcutta bar, eminent both for his talent and public spirit, declared at a meeting in the Town Hall at Calcutta, that Her Majesty's Justices, Peel, Buller, and Colville, wanted that firmness of character and manliness of spirit, so inseparable from the independent Judges of Eng

land.

Where could the Indian Government have found a more subservient tool, than that old wight, Sir F. McNaughten, who, as Dickens says, gave it as his opinion, that the Government could gag, or rather license, the Press, because the laws of England tolerated a license to sell beer!!

The Friend of India has stated that Sir Lawrence Peel, the Chief Justice of Calcutta, recommended the enactment of the law for the protection of judicial officers, having an eye to his own emancipation from the thraldom of the Privy Council of London. That he is, in fact, desirous of hanging, imprisoning, and fining, without the legality of his measures being called in question. What an important personage, forsooth, his lordship would become! No appeal-no Parliament -full liberty to murder and rob as he chose! But, Friend, such a result will not be achieved by this Act. You cannot really think it possible that the Privy Council will thus allow some of its most important privileges to slip from its fingers. What power can supersede its right of hearing appeals from India? And who will dare to prohibit plaintiffs making their appeal to the Privy Council? Whether such advice emanated from Sir Lawrence Peel we know not; but it exceeds the bounds of credibility, that he could have contemplated making himself independent of the Queen. Is there a Board of Control? Is there a House of Commons? Is the Queen of England paramount, or is

she not? The Friend of India or Sir Lawrence Peel must be in his dotage. The laws of England do not take for granted that Judges acted on good faith when they have perverted the meaning and spirit of justice. They do not throw around judicial officers the ægis of infallibility. They do not insure them against the consequences of any corruption or tyranny of which they may have been guilty. Yet the Judges of England are men of vast experience, who have turned and well examined every stone in the fabric of legislation, uninfluenced by any local prejudices. How much more necessary is it, then, to keep a wholesome fear before the eyes of men, educated in an arbitrary school-of narrow views, swayed by momentary impulsesand dispensing laws, which may be twisted into any and every meaning.

However, there is one reason why such men should be protected from the consequences of their actions their ignorance of all law. No man would inflict death on a lunatic because he committed murder. He is irresponsible in the eye of the law. On this principle only can impunity be given to the Company's judicial officers. You put a sword into a lunatic's hands-he kills you-who would punish the lunatic? If you assign the functions of interpreting and dispensing justice to infants, it is only right that you should insure them against the consequences of any wild freak they may commit.

The introduction of these obnoxious measures at