My lords, I have only further to inform your lordships, that these institutes of Timour ought to be very well known to Mr. Hastings. He ought to have known, that this prince never claimed arbitrary power, that the principles he adopted were to govern by law, to repress the oppressions of his inferior governors, to recognise in the nobility the respect due to their rank, and in the people the protection to which they were by law entitled. This book was published by Major Davy, and revised by Mr. White. The Major was an excellent Orientalist, he was secretary to Mr. Hastings, to whom, I believe, he dedicated this book. I have inquired of persons the most conversant with the Arabic and Oriental languages; and they are clearly of opinion, that there is internal evidence to prove it of the age of Tamerlane; and he must be the most miserable of critics, who, reading this work with attention, does not see that, if it was not written by this very great monarch himself, it was at least written by some person in his court, and under his immediate inspection. Whether, therefore, this work be the composition of Tamerlane, or whether it was written by some persons of learning near him, through whom he meant to give the world a just idea of his manners, maxims, and government, it is certainly as good authority as Mr. Hastings's Defence, which he has acknowledged to have been written by other people.

From the Tartarian, I shall now proceed to the later Mahomedan conquerors of Hindostan, for it is fit that I should show your lordships the wickedness of pretending that the people of India have no laws or rights. A great proportion of the people are Mahomedans; and Mahomedans are so far from having no laws or rights, that when you name a Mahomedan, you name a man governed by law, and entitled to protection. Mr. Hastings caused to be published, and I am obliged to him for it, a book, called the Hedaia; it is true that he has himself taken credit for the work, and robbed Nobkissin of the money to pay for it; but the value of a book is not lessened because a man stole it. Will you be

lieve, my lords, that a people having no laws, no rights, no property, no honor, would be at the trouble of having so many writers on jurisprudence? and yet there are, I am sure, at least a thousand eminent Mahomedan writers upon law, who have written far more voluminous works than are known in the common law of England; and I verily believe more voluminous than the writings of the Civilians themselves. That this should be done by a people who have no property, is so perfectly ridiculous as scarcely to require refutation; but I shall endeavor to refute it, and without troubling you a great deal.

First, then, I am to tell you, that the Mahomedans are a people amongst whom the science of jurisprudence is much studied and cultivated, that they distinguish it into the law of the Khoran and its authorized commentaries; into the Fetfa, which is the judicial judgments and reports of adjudged cases; into the Canon, which is the regulations made by the emperor, for the sovereign authority in the government of their dominions; and lastly into the Rage ul Mulk, or custom and usage, the common law of the country, which prevails independent of any of the former.

In regard to punishments being arbitrary, I will with your lordships' permission read a passage, which will show you that the magistrate is a responsible person. "If a supreme ruler, such as the caliph for the time being, commit any offence punishable by law, such as whoredom, theft, or drunkenness, he is not subject to any punishment, (but yet if he commit murder he is subject to the law of retaliation, and he is also accountable in matters of property,) because punishment is a right of God, the infliction of which is committed to the caliph (or other supreme magistrate) and to none else; and he cannot inflict punishment upon himself, as in this there is no advantage, because the good proposed in punishment is that it may operate as a warning to deter mankind from sin, and this is not obtained by a person's inflicting punishment upon himself contrary to the rights of the individual, such

as the laws of retaliation and of property, the penalties of which may be exacted of the caliph, as the claimant of right may obtain satisfaction, either by the caliph empowering him to exact his right from himself, or by the claimant appealing for assistance to the collective body of Mussulmans.” *

Here your lordships see that the caliph, who is a magistrate of the highest authority which can exist among the Mahomedans, where property or life is concerned, has no arbitrary power, but is responsible just as much as any other man.

I am now to inform your lordships, that the sovereign can raise no taxes. The imposing of a tribute upon a Mussulman, without his previous consent, is impracticable: and so far from all property belonging to the sovereign, the public treasure does not belong to him. It is declared to be the common property of all Mahomedans. This doctrine is laid down in many places, but particularly in the 95th page of the second volume of Hamilton's Hedaia.

Mr. Hastings has told you what a sovereign is, and what sovereignty is all over India; and I wish your lordships to pay particular attention to this part of his defence, and to compare Mr. Hastings's idea of sovereignty with the declaration of the Mahomedan law. The tenth chapter of these laws treats of rebellion, which is defined an act of warfare against the sovereign. You are then told who the sovereign is, and how many kinds of rebels there are. The author then proceeds to say; "The word baghee, (rebellion) in its literal sense, means prevarication, also injustice and tyranny; in the language of the law it is particularly applied to injustice, namely, withdrawing from obedience to the rightful Imâm, (as appears in the Fattahal-Kadeen). By the rightful Imam, is understood a person in whom all the qualities essential to magistracy are united, such as islamism, freedom, sanity of intellect, and maturity of age,-and who has been elected into his office by any tribe of Mussulmans, with

their general consent:-whose view and intention is the advancement of the true religion, and the strengthening of the Mussulmans, and under whom the Mussulmans enjoy security in person and property; one who levies tithe and tribute according to law; who out of the public treasury pays what is due to learned men, preachers, Kâzees, Mooftis, philosophers, public teachers, and so forth; and who is just in all his dealings with Mussulmans: for whoever does not answer this description is not the right Imam, whence it is not incumbent to support such a one; but rather it is incumbent to oppose him and make war upon him, until such time as he either adopt a proper mode of conduct, or be slain.”*

My lords, is this a magistrate of the same description as the sovereign delineated by Mr. Hastings? This man must be elected by the general consent of Mussulmans, he must be a protector of the person and property of his subjects, a right of resistance is directly established by law against him, and even the duty of resistance is insisted upon. Am I in praising this Mahomedan law applauding the principle of elective sovereignty? No, my lords; I know the mischiefs which have attended it: I know, that it has shaken the thrones of most of the sovereigns of the Mussulman religion; but I produce the law as the clearest proof that such a sovereign cannot be supposed to have an arbitrary power over the property and persons of those who elect him, and who have an acknowledged right to resist and dethrone him, if he does not afford them protection.

I have now gone through what I undertook to prove, that Mr. Hastings, with all his Indian council, who have made up this volume of arbitrary power, are not supported by the laws of the Moguls, by the laws of the Gentoos, by the Mahomedan laws, or by any law, custom, or usage, which has ever been recognised as legal and valid.

But, my lords, the prisoner defends himself by example;

and, good God! what are the examples which he has chosen? Not the local usages and constitutions of Oude, or of any other province; not the general practice of a respectable emperor, like Akbar, which, if it would not fatigue your lordships, I could show to be the very reverse of this man's. No, my lords, the prisoner, his learned counsel here, and his unlearned cabinet council, who wrote this defence, have ransacked the tales of travellers for examples, and have selected materials from that mass of loose remarks and crude conceptions, to prove that the natives of India have neither rights, laws, orders, nor distinction.

I shall now proceed to show your lordships, that the people of India have a keen sense and feeling of disgrace and dishonor. In proof of this I appeal to well known facts. There have been women tried in India for offences, and acquitted, who would not survive the disgrace even of acquittal. There have been Hindoo soldiers condemned at a courtmartial, who have desired to be blown from the mouth of a cannon, and have claimed rank and precedence at the last moment of their existence; and yet these people are said to have no sense of dishonor! Good God! that we should be under the necessity of proving in this place all these things; and of disproving that all India was given in slavery to this

man!

But, my lords, they will show you, they say, that Ghinges Khân, Khouli Khân, and Tamerlane destroyed ten thousand times more people in battle than this man did. Good God! have they run mad? Have they lost their senses in their guilt? Did they ever expect that we meant to compare this man to Tamerlane, Ghinges Khân, or Khouli Khân? To compare a clerk at a bureau,—to compare a fraudulent bullock contractor (for we could show, that his first elementary malversations were in carrying on fraudulent bullock contracts, which contracts were taken from him with shame and disgrace, and restored with greater shame and disgrace,) to compare him with the conquerors of the world!

7