pieces of argument ever advanced in cases of sedition. It was also characterised by a candour and frankness specially Mr. Tilak's. In one place he said “I have not come here to ask you any grace; I am prepared to stand the consequences of my acts... I have written it believing it my duty to write in the interests of the public in the way.” In vain Mr. Tilak argue that he was being tried not for what he did write but for what was a mistranslation into English of his writing. In vain did he attempt to establish the utter futility of relying upon the translators. The judge in summing up to the jury did what exactly Mr. Tilak had foreseen. “Here is the article, we have got it translated from the original, we place it before you, you can see that some of the words are very strong and likely to excite disaffection, therefore as a matter of legal inference the accused is guilty, so return a verdict of guilty and go away.” This exactly was the spirit of the trial. However there were two Indians amongst the Jurors. They could not, as men who could understand the language of the articles, convict Mr. Tilak. When the verdict had to be given they differed from the rest. If it were England Mr. Tilak would have been
