by Edmund Burke
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.
Although these materials have not furnished us with evidence in support of the Rajah’s claim, they are far from satisfactory to evince the justice of or the political necessity for the Nabob’s continuing to withhold the jaghire from the descendants of Tremaul Row; his hereditary right to that jaghire seems to us to have been fully recognized by the stipulations of the treaty of 1762, and so little doubted, that, on his death, his widow was admitted by the Nabob to hold it, on account, as may be presumed, of the nonage of his grandson and heir, Seneewasarow, who appears to have been confirmed in the jaghire, on her death, by the Nabob, as the lineal heir and successor to his grandfather.
With respect to Seneewasarow, it does not appear, by any of the Proceedings in our possession, that he was concerned in the misconduct of the braminees, complained of by the Nabob in the year 1770, which rendered it necessary for his Highness to take the jaghire into his own hands, or that he was privy to or could have prevented those disturbances.
We therefore direct, that, if the heir of Tremaul Row is not at present in possession of the jaghire, and has not, by any violation of the treaty, or act of disobedience, incurred a forfeiture thereof, he be forthwith restored to the possession of it, according to the terms and stipulations of the treaty of 1762. But if any powerful motive of regard to the peace and tranquillity of the Carnatic shall in your judgment render it expedient to suspend the execution of these orders, in that case you are with all convenient speed to transmit to us your proceedings thereupon, with the full state of the facts, and of the reasons which have actuated your conduct.
We have before given it as our opinion that the stipulations of the treaty of 1762 do not apply to the points remaining to be decided. But the late act of Parliament having, from the nature of our connection with the two powers in the Carnatic, pointed out the expediency, and even necessity, of settling the several matters in dispute between them by a speedy and permanent arrangement, we now proceed to give you our instructions upon, the several other heads of disputes before enumerated.
With respect to the fort and district of Hanamantagoody, we observe, that, on the restoration of the Rajah in 1776, you informed us in your letter of the 14th of May, That the Rajah had been put into possession of the whole of the country his father held in 1762, when the treaty was concluded with the Nabob; and on the 25th of June you came to the resolution of putting the Rajah into possession of Hanamantagoody, on the ground of its appearing, on reference to the Nabob’s instructions to Mr. Dupré in June, 1762, to his reply, and to the Rajah’s representations of 25th March, 1771, that Hanamantagoody was actually in the hands of the late Rajah at the time of making the treaty of 1762. We have referred as well to those papers as to all the other proceedings on this subject, and must confess they fall very short of demonstrating to us the truth of that fact. And we find, by the Secret Consultations of Fort William of the 7th of August, 1776, that the same doubt was entertained by our Governor-General and Council.
But whether, in point of fact, the late Rajah was or was not in possession of Hanamantagoody in 1762, it is notorious that the Nabob had always claimed the dominion of the countries of which this fort and district are a part.
We observe that the Nabob is now in the actual possession of this fort and district; and we are not warranted, by any document we have seen, to concur with the wishes of the Rajah to dispossess him.
With regard to the government share of the crop of 1775-6, we observe by the dobeer’s memorandum, recited in your Consultations of the 13th of May, 1776, that it was the established custom of the Tanjore country to gather in the harvest and complete the collections within the month of March, but that, for the causes therein particularly stated, the harvest (and of course the collection of the government share of the crop) was delayed till the month of March was over. We also observe that the Rajah was not restored to his kingdom until the 11th of April, 1776; and from hence we infer, that, if the harvest and collection had been finished at the usual time, the Nabob (being then sovereign of the country) would have received the full benefit of that year’s crop.
Although the harvest and collection were delayed beyond the usual time, yet we find by the Proceedings of your government, and particularly by Mr. Mackay’s Minute of the 29th of May, 1776, and also by the dobeer’s account, that the greatest part of the grain was cut down whilst the Nabob remained in the government of the country.
It is difficult, from the contradictory allegations on the subject, to ascertain what was the precise amount of the collections made after the Nabob ceased to have the possession of the country. But whatever it was, it appears from General Stuart’s letter of the 2d of April, 1777, that it had been asserted with good authority that the far greater part of the government share of the crop was plundered by individuals, and never came to account in the Rajah’s treasury.
Under all the circumstances of this case, we must be of opinion that the government share of the crop of 1776 belonged to the Nabob, as the then reigning sovereign of the kingdom of Tanjore, he being, de facto, in the full and absolute possession of the government thereof; and consequently that the assignments made by him of the government share of the crop were valid.
Nevertheless, we would by no means be understood by this opinion to suggest that any further demands ought to be made upon the Rajah, in respect of such parts of the government share of the crop as were collected by his people.
For, on the contrary, after so great a length of time as hath elapsed, we should think it highly unjust that the Rajah should be now compelled either to pay the supposed balances, whatever they may be, or be called upon to render a specific account of the collection made by his people.
The Rajah has already, in his letter to Governor Stratton of the 21st of April, 1777, given his assurance, that the produce of the preceding year, accounted for to him, was little more than one lac of pagodas; and as you have acquainted us, by your letter of the 14th of October, 1779, that the Rajah has actually paid into our treasury one lac of pagodas, by way of deposit, on account of the Nabob’s claims to the crop, till our sentiments should be known, we direct you to surcease any further demands from the Rajah on that account.
We learn by the Proceedings, and particularly by the Nabob’s letter to Lord Pigot of the 6th of July, 1776, that the Nabob, previous to the restoration of the Rajah, actually made assignments or granted tunkaws of the whole of his share of the crop to his creditors and troops; and that your government, (entertaining the same opinion as we do upon the question of right to that share,) by letter to the Rajah of the 20th of August, 1776, recommended to him “to restore to Mr. Benfield (one of the principal assignees or tunkaw-holders of the Nabob) the grain of the last year, which was in possession of his people, and said to be forcibly taken from them, — and farther, to give Mr. Benfield all reasonable assistance in recovering such debts as should appear to have been justly due to him from the inhabitants; and acquainted the Rajah that it had been judged by a majority of the Counc
il that it was the Company’s intention to let the Nabob have the produce of the crop of 1776, but that you had no intention that the Rajah should be accountable for more than the government share, whatever that might be; and that you did not mean to do more than recommend to him to see justice done, leaving the manner and time to himself.” Subsequent representations appear to have been made to the Rajah by your government on the same subject, in favor of the Nabob’s mortgages.
In answer to these applications, the Rajah, in his letter to Mr. Stratton of the 12th January, 1777, acquainted you “that he had given orders respecting the grain which Mr. Benfield had heaped up in his country; and with regard to the money due to him by the farmers, that he had desired Mr. Benfield to bring accounts of it, that he might limit a time for the payment of it proportionably to their ability, and that the necessary orders for stopping this money out of the inhabitants’ share of the crop had been sent to the ryots and aumildars; that Mr. Benfield’s gomastah was then present there, and oversaw his affairs; and that in everything that was just he (the Rajah) willingly obeyed our Governor and Council.”
Our opinion being that the Rajah ought to be answerable for no more than the amount of what he admits was collected by his people for the government share of the crop; and the Proceedings before us not sufficiently explaining whether, in the sum which the Rajah, by his before-mentioned letter of the 21st April, 1777, admits to have collected, are included those parts of the government share of the crop which were taken by his people from Mr. Benfield, or from any other of the assignees or tunkaw-holders; and uninformed, as we also are, what compensation the Rajah has or has not made to Mr. Benfield, or any other of the parties from whom the grain was taken by the Rajah’s people; or whether, by means of the Rajah’s refusal so to do, or from any other circumstance, any of the persons dispossessed of their grain may have had recourse to the Nabob for satisfaction: we are, for these reasons, incompetent to form a proper judgment what disposition ought in justice to be made of the one lac of pagodas deposited by the Rajah. But as our sentiments and intentions are so fully expressed upon the whole subject, we presume you, who are upon the spot, can have no doubt or difficulty in making such an application of the deposit as will be consistent with those principles of justice whereon our sentiments are founded. But should any such difficulty suggest itself, you will suspend any application of the deposit, until you have fully explained the same to us, and have received our further orders.
With respect to the repairs of the Anicut and banks of the Cavery we have upon various occasions fully expressed to you our sentiments, and in particular in our general letter of the 4th July, 1777, we referred you to the investigation and correspondence on that subject of the year 1764, and to the report made by Mr. James Bourchier, on his personal survey of the waters, and to several letters of the year 1765 and 1767; we also, by our said general letter, acquainted you that it appeared to us perfectly reasonable that the Rajah should be permitted to repair those banks, and the Anicut, in the same manner as had been practised in times past; and we directed you to establish such regulations, by reference to former usage, for keeping the said banks in repair, as would be effectual, and remove all cause of complaint in future.
Notwithstanding such our instructions, the Rajah, in his letter to us of the 15th October, 1783, complains of the destruction of the Anicut; and as the cultivation of the Tanjore country appears, by all the surveys and reports of our engineers employed on that service, to depend altogether on a supply of water by the Cavery, which can only be secured by keeping the Anicut and banks in repair, we think it necessary to repeat to you our orders of the 4th July, 1777, on the subject of those repairs.
And further, as it appears by the survey and report of Mr. Pringle, that those repairs are attended with a much heavier expense, when done with materials taken from the Tanjore district, than with those of Trichinopoly, and that the last-mentioned materials are far preferable to the other, it is our order, that, if any occurrences should make it necessary or expedient, you apply to the Nabob, in our name, to desire that his Highness will permit proper spots of ground to be set out, and bounded by proper marks on the Trichinopoly side, where the Rajah and his people may at all times take sand and earth sufficient for these repairs; and that his Highness will grant his lease of such spots of land for a certain term of years to the Company, at a reasonable annual rent, to the intent that through you the cultivation of the Tanjore country may be secured, without infringing or impairing the rights of the Nabob.
If any attempts have been or shall be hereafter made to divert the water from the Cavery into the Coleroon, by contracting the current of the Upper or Lower Cavery, by planting long grass, as mentioned in Mr. Pringle’s report, or by any other means, we have no doubt his Highness, on a proper representation to him in our name, will prevent his people from taking any measures detrimental to the Tanjore country, in the prosperity of which his Highness, as well as the Company, is materially interested.
Should you succeed in reconciling the Nabob to this measure, we think it but just that the proposed lease shall remain no longer in force than whilst the Rajah shall be punctual in the payment of the annual peshcush to the Nabob, as well as the rent to be reserved for the spots of ground. And in order effectually to remove all future occasions of jealousy and complaint between the parties, — that the Rajah, on the one hand, may be satisfied that all necessary works for the cultivation of his country will be made and kept in repair, and that the Nabob, on the other hand, may be satisfied that no encroachment on his rights can be made, nor any works detrimental to the fertility of his country erected, — we think it proper that it should be recommended to the parties, as a part of the adjustment of this very important point, that skilful engineers, appointed by the Company, be employed at the Rajah’s expense to conduct all the necessary works, with the strictest attention to the respective rights and interests of both parties. This will remove every probability of injury or dispute. But should either party unexpectedly conceive themselves to be injured, immediate redress might be obtained by application to the government of Madras, under whose appointment the engineer will act, without any discussion between the parties, which might disturb that harmony which it is so much the wish of the Company to establish and preserve, as essential to the prosperity and peace of the Carnatic.
Having now, in obedience to the directions of the act of Parliament, upon the fullest consideration of the indeterminate rights and pretensions of the Nabob and Rajah, pointed out such measures and arrangements as in our judgment and discretion will be best calculated to ascertain and settle the same, we hope, that, upon a candid consideration of the whole system, although each of the parties may feel disappointed in our decision on particular points, they will be convinced that we have been guided in our investigation by principles of strict justice and impartiality, and that the most anxious attention has been paid to the substantial interests of both parties, and such a general and comprehensive plan of arrangement proposed as will most effectually prevent all future dissatisfaction.
Approved by the Board.
HENRY DUNDAS,
WALSINGHAM,
W.W. GRENVILLE,
MULGRAVE.
WHITEHALL, October 27, 1784.
No. 9.
Referred to from p and 85.
Extract of a Letter from the Court of Directors to the President and Council of Fort St. George, as amended and approved by the Board of Control.
We have taken into our consideration the several advices and papers received from India, relative to the assignment of the revenues of the Carnatic, from the conclusion of the Bengal treaty to the date of your letter in October, 1783, together with the representations of the Nabob of the Carnatic upon that subject; and although we might contend that the agreement should subsist till we are fully reimbursed his Highness’s proportion of the expenses of the war, yet, from a principle of moderation, and personal attachment to our old ally, his Highness the Nabob of the Car
natic, for whose dignity and happiness we are ever solicitous, and to cement more strongly, if possible, that mutual harmony and confidence which our connection makes so essentially necessary for our reciprocal safety and welfare, and for removing from his mind every idea of secret design on our part to lessen his authority over the internal government of the Carnatic, and the collection and administration of its revenues, we have resolved that the assignment shall be surrendered; and we do accordingly direct our President, in whose name the assignment was taken, without delay, to surrender the same to his Highness. But while we have adopted this resolution, we repose entire confidence in his Highness, that, actuated by the same motives of liberality, and feelings of old friendship and alliance, he will cheerfully and instantly accede to such arrangements as are necessary to be adopted for our common safety, and for preserving the respect, rights, and interests we enjoy in the Carnatic. The following are the heads and principles of such an arrangement as we are decisively of opinion must be adopted for these purposes, viz.