ment had marked out for the Law Commission, with a view to devise a regular plan_for its proceedings, I felt strongly impressed with the expediency of beginning with the Presidency towns. I thought that by abolishing all those technicalities of English law and procedure which are not the technical form of any really useful principle, and by uniting in one Court of original jurisdiction all those powers which experience has shown to be beneficial in that variety of Courts and systems which has sprung up without any general design in England, we should be able to produce a scheme of judicature which, being framed by selection from the greatest variety of long-tried materials, would probably be the best that has ever existed, and would, of course, afford the best model for imitation in reforming the Courts of the Mofussil. But having been foiled in every attempt to make progress in this direction, I am now disposed to recommend that every improvement which we may desire to introduce into India should be introduced into the Mofussil. It is true that Bombay has been a partial exception to the general resistance which the judges of the Supreme Court have felt it their duty to offer to the innovations of the Law Commission. Sir John Awdry declared himself ready to administer the Penal Code; and Sir Erskine Perry is prepared to do that, and also to preside in a Civil Court, framed upon the plan suggested by the Law Commission; but the chief justices at Bombay have hitherto taken a different line; and Sir David Pollock has so recently arrived, that it would scarcely be fair to address to him a question which he could not answer without a careful perusal of so long and elaborate a document as the Penal Code. Under all the circumstances of the case, the practical measure I recommend is, that we should accede to the request of the Government of Bombay, so far as to prepare an Act embodying those sections of the Penal Code which form the subject of the Law Commission's Report, and enacting them for the Presidency of Bombay, except the local limits of the judicature of the Supreme Court; and I would at the same time suggest that the Law Commission be directed to prepare a scheme of pleading and procedure, and a set of forms of indictment adapted to the definitions of crimes contained in these sections of the code. We might fix the second reading of the Act at so distant a date as to admit of this scheme of pleading and procedure being prepared, embodied in an Act, and read a first time, so as to be ready for the second reading at the same time with the portion of the code to which they relate.

Calcutta, 13 November 1846.

C. H. CAMERON.

1983. You are very well acquainted with the condition of the people in Ceylon ?

Yes.

1984. Have you ever been at Bombay?

I went out lately to Ceylon to look at some property which I have there, and in my way back I touched at Bombay.

1985. You had no opportunity, while there, of forming any opinion as to the condition of the people?

No; I was only there a week.

1986. Were you ever at Madras?

I have been at Madras three times; a few days each time.

1987. Are you of opinion that the penal code is so general in its application as to be capable of being safely applied to nations so totally distinct as the people of the Upper and Lower Provinces, and the people of the Madras and of the Bombay Presidencies, and that it is equally applicable to all?

I should not venture to say it of my own authority; but I will venture to say it, when we have the opinions of civil servants who have lived in all the different parts of India. My own opinion was that the Law Commission ought to have travelled; and I always thought that was the intention of Parliament.

1988. Is that course of proceeding alluded to in the last Charter Act? Yes, it is alluded to, as I think your Lordships will see in the Act.

1989. Will you read the section?

It is section 53, which enacts that a Commission shall be established: "Be it therefore enacted, that the Governor-general of India in Council shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act, issue a Commission, and from

time

*Note.-I need hardly say that I am not presuming to impute blame to the judges of the Supreme Courts. I, of course, think them in error, as I think the Law Commission in the right; but as I am sure their resistance is conscientious, it would be the highest arrogance in me to expect that they should waive their objections. I may mention, that Sir E. Ryan and Sir B. Malkin used to think favourably of the Penal Code while it was in progress, and also that they thought a fair trial should be given to the subordinate Criminal Court proposed by the Law Commission.

C. H. Cameron,
Esq.

7th June 1852.

C. H. Cameron,
Esq.

7th June 1852.

time to time Commissions to such persons as the said Court of Directors, with the approbation of the said Board of Commissioners, shall recommend for that purpose, and to such other persons, if necessary, as the said Governor-general in • Council shall think fit; all such persons not exceeding in the whole, at any one time, five in number, and to be styled 'The Indian Law Commissioners,' with all such powers as shall be necessary for the purposes hereinafter mentioned; and the said Commissioners shall fully inquire into the jurisdiction, powers and rules of the existing courts of justice and police establishments in the said territories, and all existing forms of judicial procedure, and into the nature and operation of all laws, whether civil or criminal, written or customary, prevailing and in force in any part of the said territories, and whereto any inhabitants of the said territories, whether Europeans or others, are now subject; the said Commissioners shall from time to time make reports, in which they shall fully set forth the result of their said inquiries, and shall from time to time suggest such alterations as may, in their opinion, be beneficially made in the said courts of justice and police establishments, forms of judicial procedure and laws, due regard being had to the distinction of castes, difference of religion, and the manners and opinions prevailing among different races, and in different parts of the said territories." Then section 54 goes on to say, "That the said Commissioners shall follow such instructions with regard to the researches and inquiries to be made, and the places to be visited by them, and all their transactions with reference to the objects of their commission, as they shall from time to time receive from the Governor-general of India in Council."

1990. Have any cases occurred within your knowledge, in which you think the power of visiting various parts of India in relation to their peculiar custoins and laws would have been advantageous?

Yes, I think it would have been generally advantageous with regard to all their recommendations; but I remember two instances in particular, in which I remonstrated against the orders of the Supreme Council, which amounted to a prohibition to travel and take evidence. The first was a matter which was referred to us in the early days of the Law Commission, relating to disputes between the indigo planters and the ryots, from whom they take the land upon which they plant the indigo; and respecting which they enter into contracts with the ryots, which frequently end in a battle with club-men for the possession of the land. This had grown into a great grievance, and the Government referred the question to us; I said that it appeared to me to be one of those cases requiring that the section of the statute I have quoted should be attended to, and that the Law Commission should be sent into the district (Tirhoot, I think, was the principal district in which those disorders used to prevail), and that they should make inquiries upon the spot to qualify themselves for recommending what might be an appropriate remedy: I think there was no answer to that representation; we were not permitted to go.

1991. From whom was the permission to travel to be obtained?

From the Government of India. I conceived that it was the duty of the Government of India to have directed the Commission to go into those districts, and to make inquiries upon the spot. They did not do so, nor did they attend to my remonstrance. The second case was the case of slavery, which is a special case, in which the statute enacts that inquiries shall be made; and the Court itself had in various despatches often recommended that inquiries should be made in the places where slavery principally prevailed, in Assam and Malabar, for example. The Law Commission made a solemn protest, which they intended to attract the notice of the home authorities, and also of Parliament, as those reports were to be laid before Parliament.

1992. What is the date of that?

The 15th of January 1841. We recapitulated the preliminary correspondence which had taken place between the Government and the Commission, among which was a letter from our Secretary, dated 16th November 1838: "Our Secretary, therefore", we said, " wrote as follows: With reference to an extract from a despatch from the Honourable Court of Directors on the subject of slavery, the Law Commissioners direct me to say, that if it is the wish of Government that they should now enter upon the general question of the abolition of slavery throughout India in execution of the intentions of Parliament, they would

suggest

suggest that some of their members should be detached for the purpose of local inquiry. They feel that without such inquiry it would be impossible for them to pronounce with confidence upon the time at which, or the means by which, the abolition of slavery can be effected with a due regard to those interests which, however iniquitous as regards the slave, appear nevertheless to have the sanction of legal right.' They go on to say, 'The Commissioners possess, it is true, much information in the shape of answers to questions addressed to the several Courts of Sudder Dewanny and Nizamut Adawlut. But these questions were framed with a view to obtain such information as should enable the Commission to determine whether it was necessary to make any distinctions in the penal code in consequence of the legal existence of slavery; and it is obvious that a much more searching and minute inquiry is necessary before the Commission can venture to recommend positive measures for the mitigation and ultimate abolition of slavery. They abstain from entering into any further details until they are informed whether it is the wish of his Honor in Council' (the Governor-general was then absent in the North-West) that they should give their assistance to Government in executing the intentions of Parliament as expressed in the 88th section of the Charter Act. In reply, the Law Commission were informed that it was not the intention of the President in Council to direct them to institute an inquiry into the state of slavery in India in the manner they had suggested.' Then the Law Commissioners go on to say in their report, "The above detail has appeared to us to be necessary for two purposes: first, for the purpose of showing that we did not delay to enter upon the subject of slavery after we had been instructed to do so, although it was not without regret that we were compelled to withdraw our attention from several subjects on which we were engaged, and which, in our opinion, are of still greater importance than slavery; and, secondly, for the purpose of showing that the report which we have now the honour to present is not the result of such an inquiry into the subject as we should have thought it right to make, if we had been left to the guidance of our own discretion. As our reports are to be laid before the two Houses of Parliament, who are not cognizant of the details of our proceedings, each report ought, as it seems to us, to show the circumstances which may increase or diminish its value.""

1993. By whom is that signed?

That is signed by the Law Commission; the Commissioners differed upon many points from one another, and therefore they reported separately. The first part of the report is signed by Mr. Millett and myself; the second part is signed by Mr. Amos, Mr. Eliott, and Mr. Borrowdaiie; but all the five signatures are given to what I have read to your Lordships.

1994. Was not slavery abolished about March 1842 ?

I think so; I do not remember exactly the date.

1995. Can you give the Committee shortly the dates of the several proceedings with respect to the penal code: you have given the date of the presentation of the penal code prepared by Mr. Macaulay, and the date of the two reports of the Law Commission; but you have not stated the date of the reference of those reports home?

I am afraid I cannot give that. My minute, recommending that the request from Bombay should be complied with, is dated the 13th of November 1846. There is one part of the history of the code which has not yet been stated. In this same minute I recommended that the Law Commissioners should be directed to prepare a scheme of pleading and procedure for carrying into effect the penal code: that recommendation was carried into effect by the Council of India. Directions were sent to the Law Commission to prepare such a plan of pleading and procedure.

1996. You have stated that the code was sent home from India; can you state the date of its transmission?

No, I cannot.

1997. You stated Sir Edward Ryan's suggestion upon the subject of the code; was that a written suggestion?

I do not know.

C. H. Cameron,
Esq.

7th June 1852.

C. H. Cameron,
Esq.

7th June 1852.

1998. You stated that the purport of it was, that the code should be considered in England, and finally disposed of?

Yes; instead of that, I understand that it was sent back to India.

1999. From your knowledge of the business before the Government of India, you think it humanly possible that the Government could give the necessary consideration to the code?

do

No, I think it impossible, either to that code, or to any of the larger suggestions of the Law Commissioners.

2000. But the Law Commission had plenty of time to devote to it?
Yes, it had nothing else to do; it was created solely for those purposes.

2001. When was the plan of criminal procedure presented?

That was the last thing I put my hand to before I left India, in 1848.

2002. You also proposed a plan of a model Civil Court?

Yes.

2003. When was that presented?

That was presented in the year 1844; Lord Ellenborough was then Governorgeneral. When I presented it as President of the Law Commission, Lord Ellenborough said that it was clear that the Council had not time or means to form an opinion upon such a large proposition of law reform; and, therefore, that it must go home. I assented to that, and said I should be glad to write the despatch which was to take it home. Lord Ellenborough said, "By all means write the despatch;" and I wrote it accordingly. The despatch recommended that the report in question, and the plans which it contained, should be referred to competent jurists in England.

2004. You also proposed a plan of civil procedure; when was that presented?

That was the 5th of February 1844.

2005. You prepared also a plan for the abolition of the Recorder's Court in the Straits of Malacca, and for the constitution of an improved judicature there; when was that presented?

I have not got it here, and I cannot give the date at all, but it was while Lord Ellenborough was in India; it must have been in 1845 or 1846.

2006. Will you state the other plans of law reform which you propose? The next in the order in which they are mentioned in my petition, after the abolition of the Recorder's Court in the Straits of Malacca, was a law of prescription and limitation; that was at a very early period, but I cannot give the precise date. Then comes a lex loci for British India; the date of that report was the 31st of October 1840.

2007. Now will you have the goodness to go through the different plans, taking first the plan of the model Criminal Court; have you any observations to make upon that?

As to the plan of the model Criminal Court, what became of it I really do not know; I know that nothing has ever been done upon it: it was a recommendation by the Law Commission to form a Criminal Court, and it went into the important subject of the jury, or the association of the public with the business of judicature; it contained an elaborate dissertation upon that subject.

2008. Will you state the principal points of that recommendation?

The principal recommendation upon that subject was, that every Court should sit with a small number of the public associated with it; three, I think, was the number fixed upon; and that the judge should be bound to sum up and to explain the whole case to them, but that he should have the power of overruling their verdict.

2009. Will you state the proposed composition of the model Court?
It was to consist of one judge sitting with three jurymen.

2010. From what class were the jurymen to be chosen?
From the respectable householders of the neighbourhood.

2011. Without

2012. Was the judge to be a European?

The judge was not necessarily to be a European; he might either be a European or a native.

2013. What class of cases was that Court intended for?

The recommendation we then made applied only to offences not of the gravest character; the direction sent by the Government of India to the Law Commission was to provide a subordinate Criminal Court for Calcutta; but the Law Commission took the opportunity of stating, as it always did in such cases, the principles which it entertained upon the subject of criminal judicature; it was intended by the Law Commissioners as a model Court for general penal

purposes.

2014. Has the use of a jury as assessors, whose judgment might be overruled by the judge, been introduced at all into the practice of India?

No, I think it has not; but before I went to India I was a Commissioner for the reform of the law in Ceylon; I recommended it there, and it was established upon my recommendation, and it has worked well, in my judgment; I should say that it is a question upon which there are great differences of opinion; I do not think the judges like it much; a judge likes to sit with a jury, because it protects him from responsibility; but a judge does not like to sit with this kind of jury, where he has the power of controlling the verdict, because it does not protect him from responsibility, and yet gives him all the trouble of making the whole matter clear to the jury, and of course of making it first clear to himself.

2015. Does the system which you established at Ceylon exist now? Yes, it exists; but there have been several alterations for the worse in it; i have heard lately of a book published by a Ceylon civil servant, stating that the evils at present existing had resulted from deviations from my system.

2016. Do you know in what proportion of cases the judge overruled the verdict of the jury?

No, I am unable to say that.

2017. Has not the practice of trial by jury been used with great advantage at the political residences?

I believe it has; that I believe was the result of a recommendation of the Law Commission: I believe it was the Assam judicature, or the Mysore, for which the Governor-general requested us to draw up a small code of procedure, and we inserted the principle in it.

2018. Do you know with what success it has been carried out?

No, I cannot answer as to the success of it; I think it has been applied in Assam, and Mysore also.

2019. Not in the North-West Provinces ?

Yes, I think by Colonel Tapp; but I do not recollect what district he ruled over; I think he had the superintendence of the judicial administration of a district in the North-West at the time I am speaking of.

2020. Has not trial by jury been introduced very frequently amongst the political residences in judging great offenders?

I cannot answer that question.

2021. Is not the Puncheyat very congenial to the character of the natives? I think it is, certainly; the Puncheyat is a very ancient institution.

2022. Will you explain what the Puncheyat is?

The Puncheyat is a meeting or court of a village; it is a meeting of five or more (the name implies "five") inhabitants of a village to decide the disputes arising among the villagers; but the Puncheyat sits without any judge presiding over it.

2023. And the Puncheyat has an absolute jurisdiction?

The Puncheyat, I believe, has an absolute jurisdiction over the case.

C. H. Cameron,
Esq.

7th June 1852.