by them, and which the victims of their
mistake declared that they were able to
corroborate by further testimony. One of
the two gentlemen rejected, Mr. Thakur,
would have been under the required limit
of age by either reckoning; either by the
books of his university or by the more
exact evidence deposited with the commissioners.
But by assuming the year of his
birth from one statement and the month
from another, he could be excluded. That
was done, and he also was rejected. One of
the three gentlemen whose evidence of age
was questioned would have been still under
twenty-one by any way of calculation. To
him, therefore, the secretary to the
commissioners wrote: " The discrepancy is
important as affecting your character, it
being obvious that a motive for understating
your age on the later of the two occasions
may have existed in the wish to be able to
compete again in 1870, if unsuccessful in
1869. Having carefully considered all the
circumstances of the case, the commissioners
now desire to acquaint you that
they do not think there is sufficient ground
for regarding you as disqualified in respect
of character for the Civil Service of India,
and that your name will therefore remain
on the list of selected candidates."

One need not say how this ungracious
acceptance was felt by a young man who is
not only high-minded and accomplished,
but modest and keenly sensitive. One
thing, however, is clear from it. The
monstrous blunder of the commissioners is not
only conspicuous for size, but is also well
defined. The native candidates who are
deprived, for the present, of the prize they
have honestly won, are not excluded on the
ground of character. The case is limited
to the simple question of fact: How old
are they? Nobody, we believe, doubts
that the true date of birth was given to the
commissioners, and that the apparent error
is accounted for by the loose usage, on a
point in itself not so material as to induce
much strictness, at the Indian universities.
There are several gentlemen now
in England who have been connected with
the Indian universities: two of them,
indeed, as registrars. But their evidence as
to that looseness of usage was offered in
vain to the commissioners. The commissioners
had spoken, and the commissioners
are supreme. To be sure they had not
spoken wisely, but what will supremacy
come to next, if it begin by coming to
confession? Their mistake is manifest to
every one outside their office; to members
of the Indian government; to old Indian
authorities; and to the judges of the Court
of Queen's Bench. No matter. The
commissioners are almost irresponsible. They
are beyond the reach of the Council for
India; and a court of law has only a
limited though, in this case let us hope,
sufficient power over their decisions. When
they refused to receive any evidence, or to
consider anything, and, in reply to Mr.
Banerjea's statement clearly showing that
he was within the prescribed age, wrote
back that he had "admitted" he was
beyond it, the only hope left to the young
man was appeal to English justice. The
facts of the case, with the documents
relating to it, were brought before the Court
of Queen's Bench, on the last day but one
of last term: when motion was made on
the part of one of the rejected Hindoos for
a mandamus to the Civil Service Commissioners
to hear and receive evidence on the
matter. Four judges were on the bench,
and their opinions of the course taken by
the commissioners are thus reported in the
Times of the twelfth of June:

"The Lord Chief Justice: They say in
effect, ' Any evidence you may adduce, we
shall set at nought.'

"Mr. Justice Mellor: They say, ' You
are estopped by your statement at
Calcutta,' though it plainly appears that it is
quite consistent with his present statement.

"Mr. Justice Blackburn: They totally
misapprehend his statement, and then they
tell the applicant that upon their mistaken
construction of it, they consider it
conclusive against him, whereas in reality it is
not so.

"Mr. Justice Hannen: They appear to
represent it as imperative upon them to
take the eastern mode of computation.

"The Lord Chief Justice: Show us that
we have jurisdiction, and I think there is
no doubt we shall exercise it."

The mandamus accordingly was issued,
bubt the following day was the last day of
term, and the case cannot be heard until
November. Are the commissioners now
waiting to be just under compulsion, or do
they hold that even the Queen's Bench
cannot force their will? The power of the
judges over them is, we believe, paralleled
by a man's power of taking a horse to
the water, but not being able to make him
drink. The commissioners may say, "Well,
you are for convincing us against our will.
Produce the evidence you bind us to
receive. And now, having considered what