what is now administered as " Hindoo Law" to the various tribes and castes constituting the population of the Madras Province, most if not all of whom are not " Hindoo " is an aggregate of discrepant and inconsistent guesses, made by unsympathetic persons wholly ignorant of Sanskrit, at the meaning of generally imperfect and sometimes ques tionable translations of mutilated Sanskrit
texts, themselves of doubtful authenticity, taken at random from purely speculative and religious treatises on what ought to be the rule of conduct for an ideal Arya community. This description of the Sanskrit law at present administered in the Indian courts to the (so-called) Hindoos of Madras is not overcolored as may be proved by an over whelming mass of evidence.
ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF RIGHTS OF ACCUSED. BY E. RAY STEVENS, OF THE WISCONSIN BAR. IN the' year 1670 in the prisoner's dock in the old Lord Mayor's Court of London were two persons who, by keeping their heads covered in the presence of court, as well as by other peculiarities of dress and manner, proclaimed themselves Quakers. They were charged with preaching to a concourse of people in Greenchapel Street to the terror of the people and against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth. No counsel repre sented them, no witnesses had been called in their behalf, the only right accorded them was that of telling their own story to the jury. It appeared that their church had been closed by the officers of the Puritan government and that they had talked to the people in the street for want of other meet ing place. Eight of the jurymen have just returned to the court room to announce that the other four will not agree with them. The offend ing four are brought in and abused roundly by the court. One juror, Bushell, is singled out for special abuse; he is told that he is a disgrace to any jury, and he retorts : " I would not be on the jury if I had not been compelled to come." The jurors are sent out again, and finally come to announce that they find the defendants guilty of speaking in the street. Again Bushell and the rest are berated and sent back. Again they re
turn with a verdict of guilty of preaching to an assembly. This is too much for the court. The verdict is greeted with : "Gentlemen you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the court will ac cept; and you will be locked up without meat, drink, fire or tobacco; you shall not think thus to abuse the court. We will have a verdict by the help of God, or you shall starve for it." Upon this one of the Quakers, who is none other than William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, objects to this treatment of the jury. The only reply of the court is the command to the bailiff : " Stop that prating fellow's mouth, or put him out of court." The jury do not return again until a night has passed, and then with the same verdict. Again the same abuse by the Lord Mayor, in which poor Bushell is threatened with having his nose slit if the defendants are not convicted. Again Penn's objections are met with the command : " Stop his mouth; jailor, bring fetters and stake him to the ground." Despite their protests that they had given their verdict, the half famished jurors are sent out again, and finally on the next day return a point blank verdict of not guilty. The court is forced to accept the verdict, but fines the jury forty marks and commits the jurymen to prison until these fines are paid.
