in his time, but by all posterity; and accordingly they are venerated at this time in Asia. If then this very Ghinges Khan, if Tamerlane, did not assume arbitrary power, what are you to think of this man, so bloated with corruption, so bloated with the insolence of unmerited power, declaring that the people of India have no rights, no property, no laws; that he could not be bound even by an English Act of Parliament; that he was an arbitrary sovereign in India, and could exact what penalties he pleased from the people, at the expense of liberty, property, and even life itself. Compare this man, this compound of pride and presumption, with Ghinges Khan, whose conquests were more considerable than Alexander's, and yet who made the laws the rule of his conduct; compare him with Tamerlane, whose institutes I have before me. I wish to save your Lordships time, or I could shew you in the life of this prince, that he, violent as his conquests were, bloody as all conquests are, ferocious as a Mahometan making his crusades for the propagation of his religion, he yet knew how to govern his unjust acquisitions with equity and moderation. If any man could be entitled to claim arbitrary power, if such a claim could be justified by extent of conquest, by splendid personal qualities, by great learning and eloquence, Tamerlane was the man who could

have made and justified the claim. This prince gave up all his time not employed in conquests, to the conversation of learned men. He gave himself to all studies that might accomplish a Such a man I say might, if any But the very

great man. may, claim arbitrary power. things that made him great, made him sensible that he was but a man. Even in the midst of all his conquests, his tone was a tone of humility; he spoke of laws, as every man must, who knows what laws are; and though he was proud, ferocious, and violent, in the achievement of his conquests, I will venture to say no prince ever established institutes of civil government more honourable to himself, than the institutes of Timour. I shall be content to be brought to shame before your Lordships, if the Prisoner at your bar can shew me one passage, where the assumption of arbitrary power is even hinted at by this great conqueror. He declares, that the nobility of every country shall be considered as his brethren; that the people shall be acknowledged as his children; and that the learned and the dervises shall be particularly protected. But, my Lords, what he particularly valued himself upon I shall give your Lordships in his own words: "I delivered the oppressed from the "hand of the oppressor; and after proof of "the oppression, whether on the property or

"the

"the person, the decision which I passed be"tween them was agreeable to the sacred law; " and I did not cause any one person to suffer "for the guilt of another*."

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 governours, 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 criticks, 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

Institutes of Timour, page 165.

sition 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 Mahometan conquerors of Hindostan, for it is fit that I should shew your Lordships the wickedness of pretending that the people of India have no laws or rights. A great proportion of the people are Mahometans; and Mahometans are so far from having no laws or rights, that when you name a Mahometan, 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 believe, my Lords, that a people having no laws, no rights, no property, no honour, would be at the trouble of having so many writers on jurisprudence? and yet there are, I am sure, at least a thousand eminent Mahometan writers upon law, who have written far more voluminous works than are known in the com

mon

mon 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 endeavour to refute it, and without troubling you a great deal.

First then I am to tell you, that the Mahometans 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 emperour, 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 shew you that the magistrate is a responsible person. "If a supreme ruler, "such as the caliph for the time being, com"mit any offence punishable by law, such as "whoredom, theft, or drunkenness, he is not subject to any punishment, (but yet if he com"mit murder he is subject to the law of reta

liation,