arious little encounters in the Legislative Council testify to
this difference of sentiment. When he explained to a military officer of
rank the power conferred by the Criminal Tribes Act, mentioned above,
the officer replied, 'It is quite a new idea to me that the law can be
anything but a check to the executive power.' The same sentiment
underlay the frequent complaints of the want of 'elasticity' of the law.
When brought to a point these complaints always related to certain
regulations for taking down and recording evidence. What was really
desired by the persons concerned was elasticity in the degree of
attention which they might pay to their most important duties. So an
officer complained that he could not punish certain persons whom he knew
to be murderers, though witnesses were afraid to appear. What he really
wanted, it was implied, was power to put people to death on the secret
information of irresponsible witnesses.

Hence, the first question is whether India should be governed by law or
by merely personal discretion. Baseless as the 'discretion' theory may
be, it has a strong unavowed influence. And yet it is the very specific
difference of our rule that it is rule by law and not despotism.
Englishmen could have no desire simply to set up a new despotism
differing from the old only in being administered by Englishmen instead
of natives. The moral difference is unmistakable. Decisive government by
law gives the only real security for life or property, and is the
indispensable condition for the growth of wealth. Nor is a compromise
more possible between law and despotism than between straight and
crooked. The essence of one system is that no one shall suffer in person
or property except according to law. The essence of the other is that
security of person and property is dependent upon the will of the ruler.
Nowhere is this shown more clearly than in India. The remedy of the
poorest peasant in the country against any wrongful action of the
Government in India is far clearer and more simple than the remedy of
the richest and most influential man against the Government in
England.[116]

The absolute necessity of government by law is shown, however, most
strikingly by a process going on throughout the country--the growth of
private rights, and especially of rights in land. Under the old despotic
systems, the place of law was taken by a number of vague and fluctuating
customs, liable to be infringed at every momen