United States or Saint Kitts and Nevis ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
We have thus stated to you the result of our inquiry into the grounds of the dispute relative to Arnee; and as the research has offered no evidence in support of the Rajah's claim, nor even any lights whereby we can discover in what degree of relationship, by consanguinity, caste, or other circumstances, the Rajah now stands, or formerly stood, with the Killadar of Arnee, or the nature of his connection with or command over that district, or the authority he exercised or assumed previous to the treaty of 1771, we should think ourselves highly reprehensible in complying with the Rajah's request, and the more so, as it is expressly stated, in the treaty of 1762, that this fort and district were then in the possession of the Nabob, as well as the person of the jaghiredar, on account of his disobedience, and were restored him by the Nabob, in condescension to the Rajah's request, upon such terms and stipulations as could not, in our judgment, have been imposed by the one or submitted to by the other, if the sovereignty of the one or the dependency of the other had been at that time a matter of doubt.
In respect to the jaghire of Arnee, we do not find that our records afford us any satisfactory information by what title the Rajah claims it, or what degree of relationship or connection has subsisted between the Rajah and the Killadar of Arnee, save only that by the treaty of 1762 the former became the surety for Tremaul Row's performance of his engagements specified therein, as the conditions for his restoration to that jaghire; on the death of Tremaul Row, we perceive that he was succeeded by his widow, and after her death, by his grandson Seneewasarow, both of whom were admitted to the jaghire by the Nabob.
Now if the best critic of the age, writing fifteen years after Burns's death, found himself between the horns of such a dilemma' which indeed, like those of an old Arnee bull, meet at the points, and form a complete circle of contradictions what must have been the bewilderment of lesser folk during the prodigy's very lifetime? what must, indeed, have been his own bewilderment at himself, however manfully he may have kept it down?
These instructions appear to have been executed in the month of April, 1776; and by your letter of the 14th May following you certified to us that the Rajah had been put into the possession of the whole country his father held in 1762, when the treaty was concluded with the Nabob; but we do not find that you came to any resolution, either antecedent or subsequent to this advice, either for questioning or impeaching the right of the Nabob to the sovereignty of Arnee, or expressive of any doubt of his title to it.
And in your letter to us of the 28th February, 1772, you certified the district of Arnee to be one of the countries acquired by this treaty, and to be of the estimated value of two lacs of rupees per annum.
The objects of the treaty of 1762 appear to be restricted to the arrears of tribute to be paid to the Nabob for his past claims, and to the quantum of the Rajah's future tribute or peshcush; the cancelling of a certain bond given by the Rajah's father to the father of the Nabob; the confirmation to the Rajah of the districts of Coveladdy and Elangaud, and the restoration of Tremaul Row to his jaghire of Arnee, in condescension to the Rajah's request, upon certain stipulations, viz., that the fort of Arnee and Doby Gudy should be retained by the Nabob; that Tremaul Row should not erect any fortress, walled pagoda, or other stronghold, nor any wall round his dwelling-house exceeding eight feet high or two feet thick, and should in all things behave himself with due obedience to the government; and that he should pay yearly, in the month of July, unto the Nabob or his successors, the sum of ten thousand rupees: the Rajah thereby becoming the security for Tremaul Row, that he should in all things demean and behave himself accordingly, and pay yearly the stipulated sum.
The Court, having duly attended to your reasonings and decisions on the subjects of Arnee and Hanamantagoody, beg leave to observe, with due deference to your judgment, that the directions we had given in these paragraphs which did not obtain your approbation still appear to us to have been consistent with justice, and agreeable to the late act of Parliament, which pointed out to us, as we apprehended, the treaty of 1762 as our guide.
Nevertheless, we find, that, although the Board passed no such resolution, yet your President, in his letter to the Nabob of the 30th July and 24th August, called upon his Highness to give up the possession of Arnee to the Rajah; and the Rajah himself, in several letters to us, particularly in those of 21st October, 1776, and the 7th of June, 1777, expressed his expectation of our orders for delivering up that fort and district to him; and so recently as the 15th of October, 1783, he reminds us of his former application, and states, that the country of Arnee being guarantied to him by the Company, it of course is his right, but that it has not been given up to him, and he therefore earnestly entreats our orders for putting him into the possession of it.
Upon a review of this treaty, the only point now in dispute, which appears to us to be so immediately connected with it as to bring it within the strict line of our duty to ascertain and settle according to the terms and stipulations of the treaty, is that respecting Arnee.
On a retrospect of the proceedings transmitted to us from your Presidency, on the subject of the disputes which have heretofore arisen between the Nabob and the Rajah, we find the following points remain unadjusted, viz. 1st, Whether the jaghire of Arnee shall be enjoyed by the Nabob, or delivered up, either to the Rajah, or the descendants of Tremaul Row, the late jaghiredar.
Word Of The Day