the Prosecuting Counsel shrank into insignificance be- fore the towering personahty of Mr. Tilak." It was a nice discourse on the law of sedition both Indian and English ; and though Mr. Tilak did not succeed in convincing the Judge and the majority of the Jurors, still " on his countrymen at large, the speech produced an elevating effect.'* After reading out Section 124 A, under which two charges were framed against him, Mr. Tilak said, " This Section is divided into two parts. The first part refers to actually bringing into hatred or contempt His Majesty etc. But as there is no evidence before the Court that any excitement has been caused by the articles in question, so it seems to me that the Prosecution does not mean to proceed under that part of the section. The second part of the Section deals with ' attempts to excite disaffection '. The Section does not simply refer to the publication of anything likely to create disaffection. * An attempt is an inten- tional premeditated action, which if it fails in its objects, fails through circumstances independent of the person, who seeks its accomplishment.' Attempt is actually an offence, minus the final act of crime. The mere fact that a certain article is published will not make it an attempt. There must be a criminal mind, a culpable indifference to consequences. In the present case, there has been no evidence to prove that the attempt failed because, the Government interfered or because the people refused to listen. Attempt includes both mo- tives and intention. To take a common illustration, I intend to go the Bori Bunder Station and my end in view is to go to Poona. In deciding intention, it is not safe to follow the maxim of the Civil Law * every
