life and death, the whole revenue, and the whole administration of the law, rested in him. Such was the sovereignty he possessed within Benares; but he was a subordinate sovereign dependent upon a superior, according to the tenor of his compact, expressed or implied. Now having contended, as we still contend, that the law of nations is the law of India as well as of Europe, because it is the law of reason and the law of nature, drawn from the pure sources of morality, of publick good, and of natural equity, and recognised and digested into order by the labour of learned men, I will refer your Lordships to Vattel, book 1. cap. 16. where he treats of the breach of such agreements, by the protector refusing to give protection, or the protected refusing to perform his part of the engagement. My design in referring you to this author, is to prove that Cheit Sing, so far from being blameable in raising objections to the unauthorized demand made upon him by Mr. Hastings, was absolutely bound to do so, nor could he have done otherwise, without hazarding the whole benefit of the agreement upon which his subjection and protection were founded. The law is the same with respect to both contracting parties; if the protected or protector does not fulfil with fidelity each his separate stipulation, the protected may resist the unauthorized demand of the pro

tector,

tector, or the protector is discharged from his engagement; he may refuse protection, and declare the treaty broken.

We contend in favour of Cheit Sing, in support of the principles of natural equity, and of the law of nations, which is the birth-right of us all; we contend, I say, that Cheit Sing would have established, in the opinions of the best writers on the law of nations, a precedent against himself for any future violation of the engagement, if he submitted to any new demand, without what our laws call a continual claim or perpetual remonstrance against the imposition. Instead, therefore, of doing that which was criminal, he did that which his safety and his duty bound him to do, and for doing this he was considered by Mr. Hastings as being guilty of a great crime. In a paper which was published by the Prisoner, in justification of this act, he considers the Rajah to have been guilty of rebellious intentions; and he represents these acts of contumacy, as he calls them, not as proofs of contumacy merely, but as proofs of a settled design to rebel, and to throw off the authority of that nation by which he was protected. This belief he declares on oath, to be the ground of his conduct towards Cheit Sing.

Now, my Lords, we do contend, that if any subject under any name, or of any description,

be

be not engaged in publick open rebellion, but continues to acknowledge the authority of his sovereign, and if tributary to pay tribute conformably to agreement; such a subject, in case of being suspected of having formed traitorous designs, ought to be treated in a manner totally different from that which was adopted by Mr. Hastings. If the Rajah of Benares had formed a secret conspiracy, Mr. Hastings had a state duty and a judicial duty to perform. He was bound as governour, knowing of such a conspiracy, to provide for the publick safety; and, as a judge, he was bound to convene a criminal court, and to lay before it a detailed accusation of the offence. He was bound to proceed publickly and legally against the accused, and to convict him of his crime, previous to his inflicting, or forming any intention of inflicting, punishment. I say, my Lords, that Mr. Hastings, as a magistrate, was bound to proceed against the Rajah, either by English law, by Mahometan law, or by the Gentoo law; and that by all or any of these laws, he was bound to make the accused acquainted with the crime alleged, to hear his answer to the charge, and to produce evidence against him, in an open, clear, and judicial manner. And here, my Lords, we have again to remark, that the Mahometan law is a great discriminator of persons,

and

and that it prescribes the mode of proceeding against those who are accused of any delinquency requiring punishment, with a reference to the distinction and rank which the accused held in society. The proceedings are exceedingly sober, regular, and respectful, even to criminals charged with the highest crimes; and every magistrate is required to exercise his office in the prescribed manner. In the Hedaia, after declaring and discussing the propriety of the Cauzy's sitting openly in the execution of his office, it is added, that there is no impropriety in the Cauzy sitting in his own house to pass judgment; but it is requisite that he give orders for a free access to the people. It then proceeds thus: "It is requisite that such people "sit along with the Cauzy as were used to sit "with him, prior to his appointment to the

office; because, if he were to sit alone in "his house, he would thereby give rise to "suspicion."

My Lords, having thus seen what the duty of a judge is in such a case, let us examine whether Mr. Hastings observed any part of the prescribed rules. First, with regard to the publicity of the Did he ever give any notice to the Supreme Council of the charges, which he says

matter.

he

* Hedaia, 2 vol. p 621.

he had received against Cheit Sing? Did he accuse the Rajah in the council, even when it was reduced to himself and his poor, worn down, cowed, and I am afraid bribed colleague, Mr. Wheler? Did he even then, I ask, produce any one charge against this man? He sat in council as a judge; as an English judge; as a Mahometan judge; as a judge by the Gentoo law, and by the law of Nature. He should have summoned the party to appear in person, or by his attorney, before him, and should have there informed him of the charge against him. But, my Lords, he did not act thus. He kept the accusation secret in his own bosom. And why? because he did not believe it to be true. This may at least be inferred from his having never informed the council of the matter. He never informed the Rajah of Benares of the suspicions entertained against him, during the discussions which took place respecting the multiplied de-. mands that were made upon him. He never told this victim, as he has had the audacity to tell us and all this kingdom, in the paper that is before your Lordships, that he looked upon these refusals to comply with his demands to be overt acts of rebellion; nor did he ever call upon him to answer or to justify himself with regard to that imputed conspiracy or rebellion. Did he tell Sadanund the Rajah's agent, when that agent VOL. XV. I

was