and do not to-day associate, together in public and in private as one people" (p. 200). In another passage in the same work the author says: "Anyone who would deal intelligently with the questions presenting themselves in the South to-day must recognise the existence of a racial prejudice. In some respects it is an increasing prejudice, a prejudice in the extreme sense of the word; but there is also a real and substantial basis for such racial antipathy, and it is a feeling which is not likely to disappear for generations to come. It must be taken into account in the consideration of all remedies proposed for existing evils in the South. It is something that cannot be removed by legislative enactments; neither can it be destroyed by constant crying out against it" (p. 206). These observations apply readily to colonies like Rhodesia and British East Africa, and should be borne in mind by all who value the maintenance of peace, good order, and the proper administration of justice for both races. What, then, does Lord Gladstone mean when he says that we are putting, in South Africa, "a strain on juries which may be intolerable"? We are putting men into the jury-box who are steeped in prejudice in relation to the native races. We administer to them an oath pledging them to try the issues before them "well and truly." We then put one of their class and race into the dock charged with shooting a black man who has stolen his sheep or tried to seduce his daughter. Then comes the strain to which Lord Gladstone refers. Such a juror is the victim of opposing forces. His prejudices are dragging him in one direction, and his oath of public service is dragging him in another. He has to choose between his interests as he understands them, his sympathies as they appeal to him, the approbation of his own class, as he expects it, and the unpopular course which his conscience, acting on the information of cold judicial reason, would lead him to adopt. Can we wonder if such a perplexed man is swayed by his prejudices rather than led by his reason? The Act to which Lord Gladstone made reference, No. 8 of 1908 (Natal), provides that on the direction and indictment of the Attorney-General "any cases of crime in which the accused persons are natives shall be tried in a Special Court' without a jury." This court, which is one of record, is composed of three Special Commissioners, two of whom must be persons "either qualified to be appointed as judges of the Supreme Court or as judges of one of the superior courts of any of his Majesty's Colonies." All the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Natal is transferred to the Special Court without prejudice to the right of the Attorney-General to "remit" a case to the magistrate for trial in accordance with the South African practice to which I have above referred. The

judgments of the Special Court are not subject to appeal to any other court within the Colony. It will thus be seen that trial by jury where the accused person is a native is entirely in the discretion of the Attorney-General. If the charge is not a serious one he will remit the case to the magistrate for trial. If it be a serious one he may indict in the Supreme Court, and have the case tried by a jury in the ordinary way; but he may, if he pleases, indict under the Act in question for trial before a Special Court without a jury. Now this is the new system which Lord Gladstone puts forward for adoption. He clearly suggests that when a European is charged with murder or culpable homicide in relation to a native, provision should be made for his trial before a Special Court without a jury. It is also a fair inference that Lord Gladstone has made some such recommendation to the Colonial Office. In the middle of August last Mr. Lewis Harcourt, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons, stated that he expected a full report on the Sam Lewis case from the High Commissioner, and that on the receipt of that report the matter would be fully considered. Now Lord Gladstone's Salisbury speech was delivered on September 2nd, and it is difficult to suppose that he would have made such pointed and favourable reference to the new Natal system unless he had already decided to recommend its adoption in Rhodesia. I believe that such a change in the system of trial would come as a welcome relief from what Lord Gladstone has aptly called the present "strain." Much, of course, would depend on the personnel of the new court. To command complete public confidence it should, in my opinion, consist of judges of the Supreme Court of the Colony, not, as in the Natal Special Court, men "qualified to be appointed" judges, but men who actually are members of the Bench, fortified by experience and impressed with a full sense of their responsibilities. So far as human selection can effect its object, they would be free from prejudice. As I have before pointed out in relation to the trials under the Diamond Trade Act, the scrutiny to which the Crown case would be subjected would be of the severest description. In relation to the native populations in British East Africa and Rhodesia, the establishment of such a court would be a fresh guarantee of the justice of British rule, that broad base on which the structure of our Empire rests.

H. LARDNER BURKE.

N.S.

G

THE SIKH'S STRUGGLE AGAINST STRANGULATION.

I.

THE Sikh has been Great Britain's best friend ever since the Indian Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. During the dread days of the revolt, when the firmament of Hindostan was overcast with murky clouds threatening the destruction of British power in India, the scions of this soldierly race-the finest in the country and ranking high amongst the noblest martial nations of the world-bravely helped the English to weather the storm and steer the British barque out of troublous waters. Not long before this rebellion, involving the Hindu and Mahomedan forces, broke out, the Khalsa had been fighting Great Britain. But after the Punjab had been annexed, and the disciples of the Gurus had become convinced that their foreign conquerors meant well by them, the bitter foes became fast friends; and when the hour of peril came, the Sikhs saved the situation for their erstwhile enemies a fact which all impartial records unhesitatingly affirm.

The Sikh to-day continues to be as much Britain's friend as he was during the crisis of 1857. He believes that the Englishman was sent to India by God, at the solicitation of the Founders of his faith, and naturally he would spill his last drop of blood to help him. A pretty tradition, related to children at the twilight hour, has it that one evening the last but one Teacher, Guru Tegh Bahadur, held captive by the Moghul Emperor Aurangzeb, who neither could coerce nor bribe him to become a Mahomedan, was noticed to be intently gazing toward the West, the direction in which the Imperial harem was located: Upon being questioned as to his motive in thus watching the apartments of the wives of the ruler, the Guru scornfully answered that he was not seeking to spy upon the beauties of the seraglio, but was witnessing the coming of "helmet-wearing men," who were on their way to blast the Moslem power. Many decades later the "helmet-wearing men" appeared upon the scene in the guise of the Britons, who, after much manovring and fighting, finally succeeded in disestablishing the Mussulmans, which, after their own defeat at the hands of the English, the Sikhs took to be the fulfilment of the prophecy of their revered leader. Consequently, they cast in their lot with the British at the time of the Mutiny, and continue to do so to this day.

The real import of this tradition, which, especially amongst the sections from which soldiers are recruited, even at present is a living and powerful force, has not been properly interpreted to the average Englishman; and despite the fact that, in several crucial campaigns in and out of India during the last half-century, the swarthy man from the Punjab has fought faithfully and valiantly for the British, earning the highest plaudits of the military authorities, he is not well known to the English public, or widely appreciated in the British Isles, even though he has not contributed a mite to create the political "unrest" which has scourged India in recent years. Indeed, at a time when Hindostan has been in the public eye, and the various aspects of the existing conditions have been analysed, very little has been printed about this military race. Hence it happens that most English people are not aware of the fact that, for the last quarter of a century, their firmest friend in India-the Sikhhas been engaged in a sturdy struggle to avoid being strangled.

II.

Almost ever since the time when the community was carved out of the Punjab polity by the hard work of the unbroken line of ten Gurus, extinction has stared it in the face, stunting its growth and menacing its corporate life. Despite the fact that the last four of the Teachers almost exclusively gave themselves up to the task of consolidating their disciples into a distinct, coherent, self-contained group, endowed with beliefs, ideas, and ideals vastly different from those prevalent in the minds of the other men and women amongst whom they dwelt, and even gave the members of their sect a distinguishing outward appearance-the double turban covering a head of unshorn hair, the untrimmed beard and moustache, the knee breeches, steel sword, and other symbols, more or less prominently displayed about the person the Hindus have absolutely refused to recognise the separate entity of the Khalsa. To use the Indian hyperbolic language, the Hindus have persistently declared that the Sikhs rose on the bosom of the Hindu ocean just as a bubble rises on the surface of the sea. They expected that the bubble would subside with the rapidity that is the distinguishing feature of its kind, but so far it has not burst and merged itself with the parent waters, although its growth has been stopped-its proportions rendered smaller. But the ocean is ever hopeful, and active beneath the surface, seeking to suck in the bubble which, on its own part, is struggling to spread its dimensions-at least to maintain its separate existence.

Since the fair-skinned Aryans vanquished the dark-hued aborigines of Hindostan, and established their supremacy over the country, the Hindu never has taken up offensive weapons. His policy always has been to keep himself vigilantly, ceaselessly, on the defensive. A very exclusive being, hypersensitive about his personal dignity, proud of his systems of philosophy and religion, and of his civilisation, he everlastingly has preserved an attitude of glum satisfaction which veritably has acted as an impervious wall built around his mentality, successfully warding off all foreign encroachments. Sometimes he has found it necessary to relax and apparently surrender in favour of the enemy who was a bit too aggressive and persistent, and was steadily gaining advantage over him; but this has been an integral part of his defensive tactics, and the concession made to the advancing force has proved deceptive, and oft-times has resulted in the ultimate submergence of the victors. Early in human history the Hindus honoured the aborigines of the Peninsula by making them a substratum of their society, but up till to-day they have remained "untouchable" and degraded in mental, material, and moral life. Concessions such as this saved the Hindus from dwindling in numbers. Buddhism, at the height of its glory, was dealt with in the same manner. Buddha was admitted into the Hindu pantheon. At the time this "favour was bestowed upon Buddhism it was the royal religion, claiming the larger portion of India's millions. Within two or three centuries this mighty church shrivelled up and disappeared, merged into Hinduism. The same tactics were applied to Jainism-with identical results. The Mahomedans were much too aggressive to be annexed, though some effort appears to have been made in this direction, many Moslem Pirs being worshipped by Hindus to this day. Possibly Akbar's effort to establish Din-i-Ilahi may have received most of its impetus from this source. Be this as it may, the effort to absorb Islam did not succeed as well as the endeavours to assimilate Buddhism and Jainism. On the other hand, the community found itself seriously menaced by Mahomedanism. To protect itself from the proselytising of the followers of the Prophet, it barred all entrances and exits, and thus, by shutting itself within its shell, rendered itself impermeable, as far as lay in its power, to Moslem influence. By sword and persuasion several millions were converted to Mahomedanism, but, taken as a whole, the Hindus! were saved from becoming altogether Islamised. Indeed, their conservatism has kept their descendants, who, for generations, have been Moslems, from being thoroughly Mahomedanised, and to-day millions of Mussulmans observe Hindu customs, follow