considering the means of paying or the degree of delinquency that justified it, their properties, liberties, and lives were instantly forfeited.  The rajahs of that country were armed; they had fortresses for their security; they had troops.  In the receipt of both their own and the imperial revenue, their securities for justice were in their own hands:  but the policy of the Mogul princes very rarely led them to push that people to such extremity as it is supposed that on every slight occasion we have a right to push those who are the subjects of our pretended conquest.

Mr. Holwell throws much light on this policy, which became the standing law of the empire.

In the unfortunate wars which followed the death of Mauz-o-Din, “Sevajee Cheyt Sing,” (the great rajah we have just mentioned,) “with a select body of Rajpoots, by a well-conducted retreat recovered Agra, and was soon after reconciled to the king [the Mogul] and admitted to his favor,—­conformable to the steady policy of this government, in keeping a good understanding with the principal rajahs, and more especially with the head of this house, who is ever capable of raising and fomenting a very formidable party upon any intended revolution in this despotic and precarious monarchy.”

You see that it was the monarchy that was precarious, not the rights of the subordinate chiefs.  Your Lordships see, that, notwithstanding our ideas of Oriental despotism, under the successors of Tamerlane, these principal rajahs, instead of being called wretches, and treated as such, as Mr. Hastings has thought it becoming to call and treat them, when they were in arms against their sovereign, were regarded with respect, and were admitted to easy reconciliations; because, in reality, in their occasional hostilities, they were not properly rebellious subjects, but princes often asserting their natural rights and the just constitution of the country.

This view of the policy which prevailed during the dynasty of Tamerlane naturally conducts me to the next, which is the fourth era in this history:  I mean the era of the Emperor Akbar.  He was the first of the successors of Tamerlane who obtained possession of Bengal.  It is easy to show of what nature his conquest was.  It was over the last Mahomedan dynasty.  He, too, like his predecessor, Tamerlane, conquered the prince, not the country.  It is a certain mark that it was not a conquered country in the sense in which we commonly call a country conquered, that the natives, great men and landholders, continued in every part in the possession of their estates, and of the jurisdictions annexed to them.  It is true, that, in the several wars for the succession to the Mogul empire, and in other of their internal wars, severe revenges were taken, which bore resemblance to those taken in the wars of the Roses in this country, where it was the common course, in the heat of blood,—­“Off with his head!—­so much for Buckingham!” Yet, where the country again recovered its form and settlement, it recovered the spirit of a mild government.  Whatever rigor was used with regard to the Mahomedan adventurers from Persia, Turkey, and other parts, who filled the places of servile grandeur in the Mogul court, the Hindoos were a favored, protected, gently treated people.