In civil disputes the parties have the right to select their own judges, while criminal causes are tried before the chief governor of the town or village.[36] At first this system of administering justice would appear to be a fair and equitable plan, being apparently merely an agreement to refer the matter to the consideration of umpires. This is, however, not the case. The orders of government forbid this, but nevertheless the prohibition is not observed; the utmost corruption prevails, for any complainant goes to a sufficiently influential person in the neighbourhood, and for a bribe obtains a decision in his favour. Sangermano sarcastically remarks, “It may be easily conceived to what injustice and inconvenience this practice must necessarily lead.” The severest calamity that can befall any person is “to be put into justice.” There is no small degree of wit in this Burman phrase. Crawfurd mentions an instance of the strange proceeding of the Burman courts, which may be interesting.[37] “In 1817, an old Burmese woman, in the service of a European gentleman, was cited before the Rung-d’hau, or court of justice, of Rangoon. Her master appeared on her behalf, and was informed that her offence consisted in having neglected to report a theft committed upon herself three years before, _by which the government officers were defrauded of the fees and profits which ought to have accrued from the investigation or trial_. On receiving this information, he was about to retire, in order to make arrangements to exonerate her, when he was seized by two messengers of the court, and informed, that by appearing in the business he had rendered himself responsible, and could not be released unless some other individual were left in pledge for him, until the old woman’s person were produced. A Burman lad, his servant, who accompanied him, was accordingly left in the room. In an hour he returned with the accused, and found, that in the interval, the lad left in pledge had been put into the stocks, his ankles squeezed in them, and by this means, a little money which he had about his person, and a new handkerchief, extorted from him. The old woman was now put into the stocks in her turn, and detained there until all were paid, when she was discharged _without any investigation whatever into the theft_.” One would imagine that this circumstance was much more likely to have happened in our High Court of Chancery, under the “sharp practice” of a Dodson and Fogg. It seems to be a mutilated Burman version of one of our “great” institutions made into a matter of physical force by Malcom’s Oriental Chartist. I may here mention an affecting incident related by Sangermano,[38] and doubtlessly too true.