"
But it appears that they soon adopted other ideas and assumed other
principles concerning this object. In the instructions, dated the 23d of
June, 1773, which the Council of Fort William gave to the said Warren
Hastings, previous to his interview with the Nabob Sujah ul Dowlah at
Benares, they say, that, "while the King continued at Delhi, whither he
proceeded in opposition to their most strenuous remonstrances, they
should certainly consider the engagements between him and the Company as
dissolved by his alienation from them and their interest; that the
possession of so remote a country could never be expected to yield any
profit to the Company, and the defence of it must require a perpetual
aid of their forces": yet in the same instructions they declare their
opinion, that, "if the King should make overtures to renew his former
connection, _his right to reclaim the districts of Corah and Allahabad
could not with propriety be disputed_," and they authorize the said
Warren Hastings to restore them to him _on condition that he should
renounce his claim to the annual tribute of twenty-six lac of rupees_,
herein before mentioned, _and to the arrears which might be due_,
thereby acknowledging the justice of a claim which they determined not
to comply with but in return for the surrender of another equally
valid;--that, nevertheless, in the treaty concluded by the said Warren
Hastings with Sujah ul Dowlah on the 7th of September, 1773, it is
asserted, that his Majesty, (meaning the King Shah Allum,) "having
abandoned the districts of Corah and Allahabad, and given a sunnud for
Corah and Currah to the Mahrattas, had thereby forfeited his right to
the said districts," although it was well known to the said Warren
Hastings, and had been so stated by him to the Court of Directors, that
this surrender on the part of the King had been extorted from him by
violence, while he was a prisoner in the hands of the Mahrattas, and
although it was equally well known to the said Warren Hastings that
there was nothing in the original treaty of 1765 which could restrain
the King from changing the place of his residence, consequently that his
removal to Delhi could not occasion a forfeiture of his right to the
provinces secured to him by that treaty.
Pages:
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474