§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHpresented a Petition from members of the Anglo-India Protective Association, and others, resident in the North Western Provinces of India, the Punjab, Scinde, Rajpootana, and Central India, praying for Amendment of the East India (High Court of Judicature) Bill. The noble Earl said that the object the petitioners sought to secure was, in short, that in all criminal cases Europeans should be tried only by European Judges; and he begged to add his opinion that, in order to secure substantial justice, it would be better that their prayer should be acceded to. The late Duke of Wellington was in favour of such an arrangement, not that he apprehended that Europeans were more likely to be convicted before Native Judges; quite the contrary—he thought that they were more likely to be acquitted, for he thought that a Native would never have the courage to sentence an European to death. That might be the case formerly, but he was much inclined to think that since the mutiny, whether from a feeling of malice, or from some other reason operating upon the mind of a Native Judge, Europeans were not likely to receive a fair trial at his hands. But he was not equally favourable to their next demand—the Europeans should be tried before a single European Judge. He thought it highly desirable that in criminal cases there should be always two Judges, and that if legal gentlemen were to be sent out from this country to India as Judges, each of them should have sitting beside him an educated civil servant who understood the people, who was acquainted with their language, and who knew the law; for he was disposed to think that in most cases the English Judge would not know any one of the three. The petitioners further prayed that in all criminal cases, if the accused desired it, there should be a jury composed altogether of Europeans. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) thought there would be a practical difficulty in effecting 845 this arrangement, for there were very few places indeed in India where it would be possible to obtain a jury composed altogether of Europeans. At any rate they should have the right to be tried by as many of their own countrymen as could be procured. It was, however, his opinion, that if there were good Judges appointed, the parties concerned would be more likely to secure evenhanded justice at their hands than by the intervention of a jury. Further, the Petitioners prayed that in all cases those legal proceedings should be conducted in the English language. There was an axiom in this country which it would be desirable to have affirmed in India—namely, that both sides should be heard before a decision was pronounced. It was, therefore, desirable, before they determined that in all criminal cases of this kind the English language should be used, to ascertain how far the Natives, those for whom these establishments were principally created, were likely to assent to such an arrangement—how far they would be satisfied that the proceedings should be carried on in a language of which they did not understand one word. He could not see how the administration of justice could be respected if it were not made intelligible. The noble Earl then presented a second Petition form the Central Committee of the Anglo-Indian Protection Society. Those Gentlemen, in the first instance, objected to an arrangement made by the Secretary of State for India with the Mysore Princes, by which they had given to them a quantity of stock in lieu of annuities secured to them by treaties, alleging that by such an arrangement the Secretary of State overruled the decision come to by the Governor General and the late Mr. Wilson, and that they (the petitioners) had not been furnished with the necessary information on the subject. What had surprised him in this transaction was that the Princes should have been induced to enter into an arrangement that was so extremely prejudicial to themselves. He could only account for it from the supposition that the Mysore Princes were under the impression, as he himself was, that the transaction was not a valid one—that they had no power to bind their successors, that they themselves might take the stock, but that their successors would be entitled to the annuity. The petitioners also objected to the many charges thrown upon India without due investigation, or without any power on 846 the part of the people or India to make representations on the subject, especially as regarded certain military charges, to which they might think India should not be made liable. He did not possess the knowledge requisite to enable him to enter into this question; but he must say it was the most solemn duty of the Secretary of State for India and his Council to see carried out in their strictest terms the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and that no charge should be placed on the Indian revenues which ought to be placed on those of England. The petitioners stated it was but absolute justice they desired when they asked that India should be placed in the position of a colony; that no charge should be thrown upon it without its consent; they also prayed that the Members of the Council of India should be permitted to sit in Parliament; that there should be a portion of the Indian Council consist of unofficial members. In short, as it appeared to him, it was insisted that in all financial matters the quasi independence of India should be established.