Judge to point out and dwell upon the motives which might lead to the confession being false, and should compare it with the rest of any cor roboration from the surrounding circumstances.

I have dwelt upon this point because, in nearly all the cases which come up from the Mofussil, a confession of the prisoner is obtained, whereas with prisoners taken in Bombay a confession is very rarely forthcoming. As no effect is produced without a cause, and as undoubtedly no confession is made without a motive, and a motive having the supposed interest of the party more or less remotely in view, it is quite obvious that some general cause must be at work to produce the difference between the two systems. On no one point, perhaps, connected with criminal jurisprudence, do the ideas of Asiatics and Europeans differ more widely than in the mode in which prisoners should be treated with respect to confessions. Very few inhabitants of the East, I apprehend, and perhaps not many even amongst our own countrymen, who have been long domiciled here, would object to a prisoner who has been apprehended under suspicious circumstances being taken up and flogged until he made disclosures. I have no doubt that in a great many instances, this practise succeeds in eliciting the truth, and that without it, in very many cases, the truth would go undiscovered. Yet the system is attended with such evils, it necessarily admits of such occasional tyranny, it enables such large irresponsible powers to be vested in parties wholly unfit to possess them, and the consequences and results which ensue on feigned confessions being produced are so dreadful to contemplate, that after an experience of many hundred years, the whole of civilized Europe has tacitly abandoned the practise. The putting to the question, as it was mildly called in the language of ancient Rome, once found a place in all European codes, not excluding the English, but I am not aware that it exists now in any country of the western world except perhaps in Russia. It is clear however to me, that the theory which once prevailed so extensively in the West, and which it has required a large experience and a refined jurisprudence to extirpate, still prevails very extensively in the eastern world, and this is quite sufficient to account for the very great number of confessions which make their appearance in Mofussil cases.

With respect to the admissibility in evidence of confessions obtained under such circumstances, the point would probably be made a matter of discussion by counsel at the bar. The English law has probably gone too far in its anxiety to exclude any confessions that might possibly have been extorted, and I have already stated, that in my opinion the true and expedient rule should be to admit and examine the confession, and to contrast it with all the circumstances of the case, the influences by which it might have been extorted, and especially by the confirmation or denial which it might meet with from the statements of the prisoner at the trial. A judge however, of course cannot act on his own, possibly crude, notions of what is expedient, but bows implicitly to the rule of law. That rule is neatly and concisely summed up in a celebrated work on evidence as follows:-" It has been considered necessary in all cases, previous to receiving a confession in evidence, to inquire whether it has been voluntary. The usual questions are whether the prisoner has been told that it would be better for him to confess, or worse for him if he did not confess, or whether any language to that effect has been used. The presumption of the truth of the statement is supposed to cease, when there is ground to apprehend that it may have been wrung from a timid and apprehensive mind, deluded by promises of safety, or subdued by threats of violence or punishment. This, as was before observed, is an observation not wholly unconfirmed by experience. But perhaps the cases are rare, in which such unfounded self-accusations occur, or at least where a Jury

would be misled by them; and certainly the rule occasions, in a multitude of instances, the escape of the guilty. There is a general feeling which seems to be well-founded, that the rule has been extended much too far, and been applied in some cases where there could be no reasonable ground for supposing that the inducement offered to the prisoner was sufficient to overcome the strong and universal motive of self-preservation."*

These remarks are worthy of much attention in this country. We knew a case in which a man was sentenced to imprisonment for life, in Alipore jail on the evidence of his own confession; some subsequent confessions of other parties, which were completely corroborated by other evidence, made it clear that this prisoner could not have had any share in the offence for which he was condemned; and so after some years he obtained his liberty. His confession had in fact been extorted by torture; and thus, first torture, and then false imprisonment, had been the result of a loose system of encouraging the native police in obtaining confessional evidence. There cannot, we fear, be a doubt, that wherever it is necessary to assume an appearance of great activity and zeal in detecting offences, the native police will not scruple, if it can be done without discovery and punishment, to compel prisoners whose main offence is the inability to bribe them, to accuse themselves of offences of which perhaps none know so well that they are innocent, as the very police officers who maltreat them. And therefore, if confessional evidence be received cautiously in England, it is still more justly liable to suspicion here.

In an appendix to his charge Sir Erskine Perry prints some interesting statistical tables. We find by these that the average yearly number of prisoners in the Bombay House of Correction for the 5 years from January 1, 1840, till December 31st, 1844, was 744. The average of sick persons yearly in the same period amounted to 236, and the average number of deaths yearly was 12. This gives a better return than any English house of correction, but the period for which the prisoners were confined is not specified. The daily average for the same period of five years was 119; the average of the sick 11; the per centage of deaths was 1.63; and the per centage of deaths to sick was 5.27. And yet it appears that there have been great complaints of the unhealthiness of this place of punishment.

We thank Sir Erskine Perry for his little tract, and heartily do we hope that he may apply the powers of his mind, during his residence in India, to her moral improvement. Little indeed has been done in this way by the Impeys, and many more who have sat on the English Bench. Few are the British Judges who have exerted their great influence assiduously and wisely, for great and noble ends. But some there are who have been of another mind; although there has been but one Sir Henry Blossett. There are now, however, on the Indian bench some men of great ability and of true philanthropy; and to these we hope that we shall not look in vain for earnest efforts to adorn their elevated station, as well by acts of public benevolence as by the exercise of impartial justice.

Phillips on Evidence.

The Education of the People of India: its political importance and advantages; pp. 26. Calcutta; published by Ostell and Lepage, 1845.

THIS small pamphlet has been published anonymously-why; we know not. For sure we are that there is nothing either in its style or substance of which the author need be ashamed. If it enounces no new, striking, or original views, it at least propounds some important old ones, in language that is lucid and for the most part elegant. Such seasonable reiteration of fundamental principles, neither generally acknowledged in theory, or energetically acted on in practice, is what the peculiarity of present circumstances urgently demands, and what must prove vastly more beneficial than any unverified speculations, however, ingenious, or any novel suggestions, however brilliant or profound.

If our space admitted of it, we would gladly quote large passages from this sober, judicious, and well timed pamphlet. But we can only find room for the author's own summary of its contents:

"In these considerations, our object has been to point out, by investigation the state of society, its past history, and the character and condition of the population, the true nature of those obstacles, which must be overcome, ere justice can be properly administered, and the welfare of the community secured. Institutions and laws may bridle the outbreaks and disorders of society, encourage and assist its progress in improvement, but they will not change the character of a nation, or give a stirring impulse to that improvement; they will not create it, where it does not already exist. Climate will invigorate the body and give tone to the mind, or impart weakness and listlessness; the nature of the country will materially affect the character of its inhabitants; war and oppression will disorganize society, and make the people abject slaves. But what except education, will give them a new character, new desires, new hopes, and new impulses? What save education will awake among them a spirit of improvement?”

Undoubtedly, a sound education, widely diffused throughout the native community of all classes and grades, must be regarded as one of the primary instruments of its effectual amelioration. Of the partial good which has already resulted, amid many disappointments and drawbacks from the educational measures hitherto adopted, our own pages furnish demonstrative testimony; see vol. II. p. 31.

And when, in the spirit of the remarks there made, we simply state that the article in the present number, on Rammohun Roy, is the bona-fide production of an educated Hindu, we think we have furnished a fresh argument to the friends of sound education to persevere more earnestly than ever in their philanthropic labours.

RA

SANDERS, CONES AND CO., TYPS., NO. 7, MISSION ROW, CALCUTTA.

A