In 1900 the Chief Court of Lower Burma was established, Mr. Copleston becoming the first Chief Judge. The selection was vehemently criticized, the local Bar and Press clamouring for the appointment of a barrister and for Mr. Copleston’s head on a charger. I should like to explain the reasons which may be urged in support of the appointment of a civilian. The judicious skipper will perhaps be warned, and avoid the next page or two. It is open to argument that there should not be any civilian Judges; that, as in England, all Judges should be barristers trained in forensic practice. This argument is not seriously advanced by anyone conversant with the conditions, and need not be traversed at length. But the situation may be briefly stated. From the beginning of their service, civilians are constantly doing judicial work, always criminal, generally civil. In the five-and-twenty years or so that pass before they are likely to enter a High or Chief Court, those who have any aptitude or inclination for legal studies have had abundant experience and have acquired a good stock of learning. Where there is a division between the executive and judicial branches, certain officers specialize almost exclusively. Civilians of my own standing had even an earlier training. During their term of probation law formed a prominent part of their reading. Periodical examinations tested their proficiency, and they had also to attend Courts and prepare notes of cases. They saw in practice the daily working of Courts under the presidency of the best Judges and magistrates in England. A selected candidate who failed at the Final Examination to qualify in law was ruthlessly rejected, excluded for ever from the paradise of the Civil Service. It is thought by some not unintelligent persons that in the trial of civil and criminal causes it is an advantage for the Judge to have knowledge of the language, customs, and character of the people concerned. Apart from this, every High and Chief Court in India has civilian Judges, by common consent as well qualified as their barrister colleagues. So much for the appointment of any civilians as Judges. Now for the question of the Chief Judge. In the Chief Court of Lower Burma, with which we are immediately concerned, in forensic business the Chief Judge has no more weight or authority than any of his puisne brothers. Only when all the Judges are sitting as a Bench, and when they are equally divided, has the Chief Judge a casting-vote. As yet that instance has not happened. Ordinarily, in court the Chief Judge is on terms of exact equality with his colleagues. As a member of a Bench he can be outvoted by his juniors. His decision as a single judge can be considered, modified, or overruled by a Bench, of which he may or may not be a member. So far as judicial work is concerned, every objection to the appointment of a civilian as Chief Judge can be urged with equal force to the appointment of any civilians as Judges. But