then a barrister, had strongly pleaded in favour of Mr. Tilak before the late Mr. Justice Tyabji on this very point. Mr. Davar the Barrister had argued that " the 'Only ground on which this application could be opposed would be an apprehension that the accused might not be forthcoming for his trial." Mr. Davar, the Judge, however declared " I am not in accord with the statement, broadly made that the only consideration which ought to guide the Court in deciding whether bail should or should not be granted, was the consideration that the accused would appear to take his trial."
Mr. Tilak's next misfortune was the successful application of the Crown to the Court for directing that a Special Jury should be empanelled to try him. Mr. Baptista, appearing for Mr. Tilak conclusively proved how, if a Special Jury was empanelled it would consist of a majority of Europeans, who, besides being ignorant of Marathi would not be the best Judges of articles "exciting disaffection against the Government." Mr. Tilak was moreover charged with exciting the feelings of Indians against Europeans. The result would be, said Mr. Baptista, that on the charge under 124 A, the rulers would sit in judgment upon a subject for his alleged rebellious spirit and under Section 153 A, the accusers would sit in judgment upon the accused for exciting hostility against themselves. A Common Jury would, on the other hand, cons st of a majority of Non-Europeans. Mr. Baptista's prayer, however, was not granted and a Special Jury was ordered to be empanelled.
On Monday, July 13th, when the hearing of the cases commenced, the Advocate General proposed (Sec. 234
