The House of Commons, who are virtually the representatives of Lucknow, and who lately took 500,000_l._ of their money, will not suffer the natives first to be robbed of their property, and then the titles, which by the laws of their own country they have to the goods they possess, to be tried by any tribunal in Great Britain.  Why was it not tried in India before Mr. Hastings?  One would suppose that an English governor, if called to decide upon such a claim of the Nabob’s, would doubtless be attended by judges, muftis, lawyers, and all the apparatus of legal justice.  No such thing.  This man marches into the country, not with moulavies, not with muftis, not with the solemn apparatus of Oriental justice,—­no:  he goes with colonels, and captains, and majors,—­these are his lawyers:  and when he gets there, he demands from the parties, not their title,—­no:  “Give me your money!” is his cry.  It is a shame (and I will venture to say, that these gentlemen, upon recollection, will feel ashamed) to see the bar justify what the sword is ashamed of.  In reading this correspondence, I have found these great muftis and lawyers, these great chief-justices, attorneys-general, and solicitors-general, called colonels and captains, ashamed of these proceedings, and endeavoring to mitigate their cruelty; yet we see British lawyers in a British tribunal supporting and justifying these acts, on the plea of defective titles.

The learned counsel asks, with an air of triumph, whether these ladies possessed these treasures by jointure, dower, will, or settlement.  What was the title?  Was it a deed of gift?—­was it a devise?—­was it donatio causa mortis?—­was it dower?—­was it jointure?—­what was it?  To all which senseless and absurd questions we answer, You asked none of these questions of the parties, when you guarantied to them, by a solemn treaty, the possession of their goods.  Then was the time to have asked these questions:  but you asked none of them.  You supposed their right, and you guarantied it, though you might then have asked what was their right.  But besides the force and virtue of the guaranty, these unhappy princesses had ransomed themselves from any claim upon their property.  They paid a sum of money, applied to your use, for that guaranty.  They had a treble title,—­by possession, by guaranty, by purchase.

Again, did you ask these questions, when you went to rob them of their landed estates, their money, their ornaments, and even their wearing-apparel?  When you sent those great lawyers, Major ——­, Major ——­, and the other majors, and colonels, and captains, did you call on them to exhibit their title-deeds?  No:  with a pistol at their breast, you demanded their money.  Instead of forging a charge of rebellion against these unhappy persons, why did you not then call on them for their vouchers?  No rebellion was necessary to give validity to a civil claim.  What you could get by an ordinary judgment did not want confiscation called to its aid.  When you had their eunuchs, their ministers, their treasurers, their agents and attorneys in irons, did you then ask any of these questions?  No.  “Discover the money you have in trust, or you go to corporal punishment,—­you go to the castle of Chunar,—­here is another pair of irons!”—­this was the only language used.