was the title? Was it a deed of gift?--was it a devise?--was it _donatio
causâ 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.

When the Court of Directors, alarmed at the proceedings against these
ancient ladies, ordered their Indian government to make an inquiry into