9.  The year was 1652, not 1648 (Tavernier, Travels, transl.  Ball, vol. i, p. 260, note).  The passages describing the criminal procedure of Amir Jumla are not very long, and deserve quotation, as giving an accurate account of the administration of penal justice by an able native ruler.  ’On the 14th [September] we went to the tent of the Nawab to take leave of him, and to hear what he had to say regarding the goods which we had shown him.  But we were told that he was engaged examining a number of criminals, who had been brought to him for immediate punishment.  It is the custom in this country not to keep a man in prison; but immediately the accused is taken he is examined and sentence is pronounced on him, which is then executed without any delay.  If the person whom they have seized is found innocent, he is released at once; and whatever the nature of the case may be, it is promptly concluded. . . .  On the 15th, at seven o’clock in the morning, we went to the Nawab, and immediately we were announced he asked us to enter his tent, where he was seated with two of his secretaries by him. . . .  The Nawab had the intervals between his toes full of letters, and he also had many between the fingers of his left hand.  He drew them sometimes from his feet, sometimes from his hand, and sent his replies through his two secretaries, writing some also himself. . . .  While we were with the Nawab he was informed that four prisoners, who were then at the door of the tent, had arrived.  He remained more than half an hour without replying, writing continually and making his secretaries write, but at length he suddenly ordered the criminals to be brought in; and after having questioned them, and made them confess with their own mouths the crime of which they were accused, he remained nearly an hour without saying anything, continuing to write and to make his secretaries write, . . .  Among these four prisoners who were brought into his presence there was one who had entered a house and slain a mother and her three infants.  He was condemned forthwith to have his feet and hands cut off, and to be thrown into a field near the high road to end his days.  Another had stolen on the high road, and the Nawab ordered him to have his stomach slit open and to be flung in a drain, I could not ascertain what the others had done, but both their heads were cut off.  While all this passed the dinner was served, for the Nawab generally eats at ten o’clock, and he made us dine with him.’  (Ibid., pp. 290-3.) Such swift procedure and sharp punishments would still be highly approved of by the great mass of Indian opinion in the villages.

10.  Misprinted ‘much less’ in original edition.

11.  The new Act, V of 1840, prescribes the following declaration:  ’I solemnly affirm, in the presence of Almighty God, that what I shall state shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’,—­and declares that a false statement made on this shall be punished as perjury. [W.  H. S.] The law now in force is to the same effect.  This form of declaration is absolutely worthless as a check on perjury, and never hinders any witness from lying to his heart’s content.  The use of the Koran and Ganges water in the courts has been given up.