The judicial system of the island was tardy, expensive, and unpopular. The great defects of that system were attributable to the little importance which the natives attached to a character for veracity—to the little interest which they took in the administration of justice, which they left wholly to foreigners-to the difficulty which the European judges, who were obliged to pronounce on the facts, and at the same time apply the law, encountered in ascertaining the degree of confidence which could be placed in the testimony of the natives-and to the slowness of legal proceedings, which was attended by the double inconvenience of detaining the witnesses a long time at court, and of causing heavy expenses to the government. There were several means which it was necessary to use in remedying these defects in the administration of justice. It was necessary, in the first place, to interest the natives, by bestowing a large portion of it on them; secondly, to render truth estimable by accustoming them to consider it an indispensable qualification for obtaining the good opinion of their fellow-citizens, or employment under the government; thirdly, to appoint the natives themselves judges of the fact-as the knowledge which they had of the character of their own countrymen rendered them more capable than strangers of appreciating the value of their testimony—also, to shorten the time of the trials, so that the witnesses might be relieved from a long attendance at court, and the great expenses of the government diminished. The introduction of the trial by jury at Ceylon, and the extension of the right to serve as jurors to all the natives, with some few exceptions, appeared to me the best mode of effecting the object in view. I consulted the principal ministers of the religion of Boodh concerning the interests of the Cingalese in the southern part of the island, and the Brahmins of Remissura, Madura, and Jafria, concerning the interests of the Hindoos in the northern part. I submitted my plan afterwards to the governor and council of the island. Sir T. Maitland, who was then governor, and the other members of the council, considered the adoption of my plan an object of great importance in respect to the prosperity of the island; but they feared that the proposed plan would meet with objections in England, because no rights had been granted to any of the natives of India of the kind which I asked for the natives of

Ceylon. I was therefore sent on an official mission to England, in my capacity of first member of the council of the island, with full power to urge the adoption of the measure, with such modifications as his Majesty's ministers should judge necessary after they had considered the subject. After the project had been thoroughly examined in London, a charter was granted under the great seal to the natives of Ceylon, which conferred on them the right of sitting and judging as jurors in criminal causes according to the plan which I had proposed, and on my return to Ceylon in 1811 measures were taken to carry it into effect.

To give you an idea of the manner in which the trial by jury has been introduced among the natives of Ceylon and the inhabitants constituting the demi-cast, I ought to inform you, first, of the conditions on which a native can be one of a jury; secondly, how the jurors are summoned at each session of the court; thirdly, how they are chosen for each trial; and, fourthly, how they form their opinions and pronounce their verdict. Every native of Ceylon, who is free, twenty-one years of age, and a resident of the island, is qualified to serve as a juror. As soon as the time of holding a court in a county is fixed the sheriff summons a great number of jurors of each cast. He is very careful not to summon a juror out of his turn, nor when his business would render it inconvenient for him to leave home, nor when the presence of the men of his cast are required at any religious ceremony. At the opening of the court the names of all the jurors who have been summoned are called; those who appear take their seats with the magistrates and police-officers, and the judge then addresses them on the subject of the offences which they will be called to try. The criminals are next presented and arraigned. Each one has the right of being tried by thirteen jurors of his own cast, unless the prosecuting attorney, who performs at Ceylon almost the same duties which the lord-advocate does in Scotland, is able to assign satisfactory reasons for depriving him of his right, or unless the accused himself, fearing the prejudices of a part of his own cast, should demand a jury of another cast, or of the half-cast, or of Europeans. After the cast which ought to furnish the jury is definitively settled, the clerk of the court puts into an urn, which is placed so as to be near the whole audience, the names of a great number of the jurors of the cast from which the jury is to be

taken. The accused is entitled to five peremptory challenges and to an indefinite number for cause, when thirteen unexceptionable names have been drawn from the urn; each juror takes an oath, according to the forms of his own religion, to decide the cause justly and impartially. The prosecuting attorney opens the case to the court (and by an interpreter if necessary), and proceeds to call all his witnesses. The judge receives their testimony in the presence of the jury, and also with the aid of an interpreter if needed. The jurors have the right of examining, and the accused of cross-examining the witnesses. When the prosecutor has established the charge, the accused opens his defence and produces his witnesses. Their testimony is also taken by the judge; the jurors exercising the right of examination, and the prosecuting attorney his, of cross-examination. Seldom, and never unless under extraordinary circumstances, is the prosecutor allowed to reply, or introduce further testimony. The trial is closed with the defence, and the judge then recapitulates from his notes, to the jury (and with the aid of an interpreter, if required), the results of the testimony, and adds such observations as he thinks useful. The jury, after having deliberated together, either in their seat or privately in their room, deliver their verdict by their foreman in open court. The verdict is formed by the opinion of a majority of the jurors. Great care is taken to prevent them from separating or conversing with any one, from the time they are sworn until their verdict is pronounced and publicly recorded by the clerk.

The number of the natives of every cast who are qualified to serve as jurors is so great, and there is so much uncertainty in respect to those who shall compose a jury, or what may be their character, that it is almost impossible to influence or corrupt them. The number of jurors summoned by the sheriff at every session of the court, the impartiality of the selection by lot, the right of challenge exercised by the accused and the public prosecutor, and the particular care which the court takes to prevent the jurors, after they are sworn, from communicating with each other or third persons, give great weight to their decision.

The natives now decide the questions of fact, and consequently the European judges have only to expound and apply the law. This division of judicial functions renders it unneces

sary for more than one judge to attend trials by jury, while two or three are required when they performed both duties. The native jurors, knowing what reliance may be placed on the testimony of the witnesses, decide questions of fact with more accuracy and promptness than the Europeans. Since, too, the introduction of the jury, not more than one day is consumed in the trial and decision of a cause, nor more than eight or ten days in the session of a court; when heretofore a trial sometimes continued six weeks or two months, and a session of the court often three months. All the natives who attend court as jurors acquaint themselves so thoroughly during their attendance with the forms of legal proceedings and the rules of examination, that the government, since the establishment of this institution, has been able to select from the natives and the members of the demi-cast, some most excellent and worthy magistrates for the country. Placed under the inspection of the supreme court, they administer justice to their fellow-citizens in small matters with but little if any expense to government. The introduction of jurors composed of natives has produced a threefold benefit; it has increased the usefulness and importance of the courts of justice, relieved the accused and the witness from the great inconvenience to which they were subjected by the long continuance of the sessions of the court, and enabled the government to save in the administration of justice £10,000 per annum, as my report shows (page 8 of the printed document sent to London). No man of doubtful integrity and veracity is inscribed on the list of jurors, and this makes such an inscription an evidence of fair character. They appeal to it when charged with offences, and rely on it when they apply to government for employment, The lists of jurors which are received at every term of the supreme court exercise over the people of that country a powerful influence, and induce all the inhabitants to attach more importance to truth than they have been accustomed to heretofore. The right of sitting as jurors has elevated the character of the natives of Ceylon, and rapidly advanced them in moral attainments. All who are inscribed on the rolls of jurors think that they possess as great a share as the European judges themselves in the government of their country, and also take an interest in the support of the British government to which they

were before strangers. A judgment can be formed of the change which has taken place in their dispositions in this respect, by the difference in their conduct during the war of Kandy in 1803 and that of 1816. The war of 1803 was previous to the establishment of the trial by jury. During its continuance the native inhabitants of the English possessions were for the most part in a state of revolt.

In 1816, five years after this new mode of trial was introduced, so far from showing the least discontent, they availed themselves, in the heat of the contest, of my return to Europe, to express through me their gratitude to the British government, and their thanks to his Majesty, for granting them the important privilege of trial by jury. This attests the correctness of the address inserted at pages 16-50 of the collection which I have already cited. The report, made in 1820 by my successor in the office of chief justice, furnishes new and decisive proofs of the beneficial effects which have resulted from this measure. Some interesting information on this subject may be found in pages 289 and 290 of the tenth volume of the "Asiatic Journal." Every native juror, whatever may be his cast or religion, and whatever part of the island he may inhabit, attends court at least once in two years. At the opening of the court the presiding judge delivers a general charge to the jurors in attendance. The institution of the trial by jury has, therefore, not only given to the natives a part of the administration of justice, but also an opportunity of hearing the observations of the judges on the objects and condition of society, and on public and private morals. The difference in the conduct of the owners of slaves in Ceylon in 1806, before the introduction of the jury, and in 1816, five years after its introduction, is strong evidence of the change which the judges have effected in public opinion, by availing themselves of the opportunity, which the opening of the court offered, of inculeating on the minds of the natives correct ideas on the subject of improving the different classes of society. The right of holding their slaves having been granted to the owners by the capitulation which transferred to the English, in 1795, this Dutch colony, the British government has not thought itself authorized to abolish slavery, however desirable such a measure may have been. Nevertheless, in 1806, before the trial by jury was estab