It was of a person who was raised to a high office; no business was suffered to come before him without a previous present.
"One morning, the king being at this time on a hunting party, the _nazar_ came to the tent of the king, but was denied entrance by the _meter_, or master of the wardrobe.

About the same time the king came forth, and, seeing the nazar, commanded his officers to take off the bonnet from the head of that dog that took gifts from his people, and that he should sit three days bareheaded in the heat of the sun, and as many nights in the air.

Afterwards he caused him to be chained about the neck and arms, and condemned him to perpetual imprisonment, with a _mamoudy_ a day for his maintenance; but he died for grief within eight days after he was put in prison." Do I mean, by reading this to your Lordships, to express or intimate an approbation either of the cruelty of the punishment or of the coarse barbarism of the language?
Neither one nor the other.

I produce it to your Lordships to prove to you, from this dreadful example, the horror which that government felt, when any person subject to it assumed to himself a privilege to receive presents.

The cruelty and severity exercised by these princes is not levelled at the poor unfortunate people who complain at their gates, but, to use their own barbarous expression, _to dogs that impose taxes and take presents_.