1916) as it deserved to be, by Mr. Justice Batchelor and Justice (Sir) Lallubhai Shah in their separate but concurring judgments. (The Hon.) Mr. Jinnah ably defended Mr. Tilak both in the lower and the revisional court. But though Mr. Tilak triumphed, still his main points were not satisfactorily solved. The main feature of his speeches as the Times of India then re- marked was a distinction between the King and the King's Government. This sage paper shrewdly re- marked that if Mr. Tilak wanted, by this subtle distinc- tion to evade a law, with the meaning of which he ought to have been familiar, then "he is far less astute than. we thought him to be." This is not however a question of the evasion of the law or of that astuteness of the offender. Nor can it be set at rest by the opinions of the two learned Judges, Mri Justice Batchelor and Mr. Justice Shah. Mr, Tilak openly and sincerely professes his loyalty to His Majesty the King Emperor and the British Parliament which really are " the Government by law established in India." He claims full freedom to criticize the administration of the country. But Mr. Justice Batchelor holds that Government could act only through hum.an agency ; and as the Civil Service is admittedly the principal agency, where it is criticised en blcc, in an intemperate language, hatred of the Civil Service and consequently hatred or contempt of the Government is likely to be the result. According to this decision, it is purely a question of fact dependent on the language used and not on the distinction on which Mr. Tilak and his counsel relied. Regarding Mr. Tilak's speeches, Mr. Justice Batchelor writes as follows : —
' Probably the fairest way to ascertain the effect i&
