^ns Visit* to England in 188& 47 a Criminal Procedure Code which had been drafted by no less an authority than the illustrious Thomas Babingbon Macaulay. It had been looked over very carefully by no less an authority thanSir Barnes Peacook, whose name you may have heard as being the Chief Justice in Bengal for many years, and as now being one of the members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. Several other persons well acquainted with the law had perfected this code. Under this code we were allowed trial by Jury in such Districts where the Local Government con- sidered we were fit to have trial by Jury. (Cheers.) I may mention there is no single District where trial by Jury may not be safely introduced at the present time (cheers,) but that is, by. the way. The verdicts of Juries were final. THE PRISONER HAD THE RIGHT of carrying his case, if convicted, to higher courts if there were any points of law to be urged on his behalf. That remained the law, and worked very well indeed to a very considerable extent. In the year 1870, to our very great misfortune, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen was appointed law member of the Viceroy's Council. He went out to India and the first thing he took in hand was called "The amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code." That Amendment consisted in this that he took away the finality from the verdict of the Juries ; he gave the power which no Judge in India had ever possessed before of enhancing sentences on appeal j and he made the Criminal Procedure Code almost Draconian in its severity. (Loud cries of "shame.") You have, I have, no doubt, heard that the people of India are as law-abiding as any people of the earth — (cheers) — and yet in a country like that the Criminal Procedure Code has been made the severest of any in the civilised world, ("Shame" and sensation.) I will tell you what happened under this law. This is an instance, yon may call it extreme instance, but it took place, and there an others which take place every day, to the great oppression of
