e a republic of princes with a great chief at
their head than a territory in absolute, uniform, systematic subjection
from one end to the other,--in which light Mr. Hastings and others of
late have thought proper to consider it. According to them, if a
subordinate prince, like Cheyt Sing, was not ready to pay any exorbitant
sum on instant demand, or submit to any extent of fine which should be
inflicted upon him by the mere will of the person who called _robbery_ a
_fine_, and who took the measure of that fine without either 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 o