« AnteriorContinuar »
fo favourable to Pretaupa Sing, it has appeared, that he fhewed fo little inclination to be punctual, in performing his part of the terms, that nothing but his terror from the troops, marching to the fiege of Madura, could induce him to pay his fecond Kift. When, upon the death of Pretaupa, in December 1763, his fon Tulja ji fucceeded to the Rajafhip, he improved on his father's obftinacy and crimes. Having removed the legitimate branches of his own family, either by the dagger or bowl, he formed a clofe connection and established a fecret correfpondence, with Ifoph Chan, then in actual rebellion, and befieged in Madura, by the Nabob and English. When a war was kindled between Hyder Ali and the English, the Rajah, though he had obtained, at the time, favours from the Prefidency, affifted their enemy with money. When that chief invaded the Carnatic in 1769, Tulja-jî affifted him with money and provifions, which enabled him to carry the war to the gates of Madras, and to conclude a peace on his own terms. Hyder Ali was fo fenfible of the Rajah's fervices, and the Rajah fo certain of the protection and affiftance of that chief, that Hyder infifted, his new ally should be comprehended in the treaty, which he dictated, in a manner, to the Prefidency in April 176 Though the Prefidency, by a fubterfuge, to which they endeavoured to affix a meaning, infifted upon including the Rajah in the treaty, as their friend, he did not confider himself in that light; but, on the contrary, depending upon the power of Hyder Ali, topped the payment of the ftipulated tribute, which became due juft three months after the treaty of April 1769 was concluded.
It has appeared, that the Court of Directors were fo fenfible of the duplicity and treachery of the Rajah, and fo much irritated at the whole of his conduct, that, on the 17th of March 1769, they fent pofitive orders to the Prefidency, to affilt the Nabob in bringing to a fevere account his undutiful vaffal. That the Court plainly were of opinion, that the treaty of 1762 had not abridged any part of the conflitutional rights of the Carnatic over Tanjore. That they confidered that country, as a PART of the Carnatic; and its Rajah only. a Zemindar of that province. That he had not only deserved chaftilement for his conduct; but that the Company were bound to affist the Nabob against his refractory feudatory. It has been fhewn, that the oftenfible reafons, for not executing thofe orders, proceeded from circumftances very different, from any amendment in the behaviour of the Rajah. That the Prefidency, who were, by no means, prejudiced in favour of the Nabob, declared that the Rajah certainly deferved chastisement, for having aflifted the enemy of the Carnatic, with money and provifions, and for delaying the payment of the peifhcuifh, fettled by the treaty of 1762. That, in the end of the year 1770, the Rajah's correfpondence with Hyder and the Marattas, which two powers he invited to an invation of the Carnatic, was dif covered, by the Prefidency, as well as the Nabob. That, whilft he folicited foreign enemies to attack the Nabob, he himself actually took up arms against the dependents and vaffals of that prince. That when the English Prefident wrote to the Rajah to fufpend hoftilities, instead of paying attention to that application, he conveyed infult and impertinence, in his anfwer. That, upon the whole, the intrigues of the Rajah, with the avowed enemies of the Carnatic, his
taking up arms against the dependents of a prince, to whom he himfelf was tributary, his breach of the treaty of 1762, of which the Company were guarantees, his oppofition to the English commerce,, his connection with other European factories, his avowed difobedience to his fuperior, his ingratitude to his protectors, his behaviour in the late war, the danger that might refult from his known character, in any future war, rendered it juit, expedient and neceffary, to bring him to a fevere account.
Though the conduct of the Rajah appeared to the Prefidency to merit the ultimate chaftilement of war, it has been fhewn, that the Nabob preferred negociation to hoftility. That when the decifion of arms became neceffary, he vetted his eldest fon with powers, to accommodate matters with the Rajah. That when an agent was fent with letters to Tanjore, from the Prefident, the General, and the young Nabob, Tulja ji treated him with indignity, and his dispatches with contempt. That notwithstanding, when a practicable breach was made, a peace was concluded, fo favourable to the Rajah, that the Prefidency exprefled the higheft diffatisfaction, on that head. That, from the known character and views of Tulja-jî, it was the opinion of the Prefidency, that a fecond expedition against Tanjore would foon become neceffary; and that nothing short of the abfolute reduction of the Rajah could preferve the peace of the Carnatic. That this opinion was verified by the fubfequent conduct of the Rajah, who renewed his intrigues, with foreign powers, as foon as the guns, which had breached his walls, were withdrawn from the batteries. That he demanded fuccours from the Marattas, affured Hyder, that be had no other protector, promised to aflift that chief, in difmembering the Carnatic, entered into intrigues, treaties and agreements for a military affistance, with the Dutch of Negapatnam, Danes of Tranquebar, and French at Pondicherry. That, inftead of treating the juft authority of nis fuperior, with becoming refpect, he had refufed, upon requifition, to affift him with troops, in terms of his tenure. That he received, protected and aided the enemies of the Nabob, encouraged depredations in his country, and neglected to pay the money, ftipulated by the agreement, to the obfervance of which he had folemnly fworn, in the month of October 1771.
Upon the whole, it has been fhewn, that the Rajah, by withholding, for more than two years, the tribute ftipulated to be annu ally paid to the Nabob, had broken the treaty of 1762, to which the Company were guarantees. That the Company were bound, by that treaty, which they themselves had made, to affift the Nabob against the Rajah. That, though the Rajah, as a tributary to the Carnatic, was in juftice bound to furnish his quota of men and money, towards the general defence, he refufed both, and affifted the enemy. That the Presidency of Fort St. George, by the exprefs orders of their fuperiors, were obliged to give their affiftance to the Nabob, in preferving the peace of the Carnatic, as well as the rights and dignity of his government. That the dangerous intrigues, preparations, and even hoftilities of the Rajah had broken that peace of which they were the guardians. That their duty to their fuperiors, their en-, gagements to the Nabob, and even felf-prefervation, forced them to take the field. That, when a war was once commenced, they could
only appear, as they themselves uniformly acknowledged, in the light of allies, auxiliaries or mercenaries. That, in none of those characters, they poffeffed, or pretended to poffefs, any right to what might be obtained by victory, except the plunder of places taken by ftorm. That, as Tanjore was a part of the Carnatic, as being tributary to that province, the keeping poffeffion of that place, when reduced, or the giving it to any other, than its lord paramount, the Nabob, would have been, in the Company, a direct infringement of the treaty of Paris, which guaranteed Mahommed Ali, in the entire and exclufive poffeffion of the whole country. That, granting Tanjore had not been a part of the Carnatic, a pofition which we deny, it became a part of that country, when it was conquered by the arms of the Nabob, in a neceffary, regular, and folemn war. That, as foon as it became a part of the Carnatic, by conqueft, which is the leaft difputable of all rights, it immediately fell under the fecurity of the treaty of Paris. That nothing but another conqueft, or a voluntary ceffion of Tanjore, by the Nabob himself, could alienate it from that prince. That the Company, by taking poffeffion of it, by keeping it for themselves, or transferring its revenue and government to another, not only infringed the guarantee of the ftate, but committed an act of private injuftice, if not robbery, which ought to be, and perhaps is, punishable by the laws of their country. That, by reftoring Tanjore to the Rajah, or, what in fact is the cafe, their feizing it for themfelves, they broke a folemn contract, concluded with the Nabob, under the faith of their own feal.'
The Author then gives a particular relation of the circumftances attending the reftoration of Tanjore; and cenfures, in the moft severe terms, the whole tranfaction, and all the parties who were actually concerned in it. With what juftice he does this, will more fully appear from the next Article, to which we fhall proceed, after informing our Readers, that this Writer gives the public reafon to expect, in the course of a few months, a fecond volume, in which he proposes to lay open what he calls the fecret intrigues of Leadenhall-ftreet.
ART. VIII. Confiderations on the Conqueft of Tanjore, and the Reftoration of the Rajah; founded upon authentic Facts, taken from the Records of the East India Company. 4to. 2 S. Cadell.
THIS Writer, who appears to be well informed, and expreffes himself with coolness and moderation, in order to fhew the injuftice of the proceedings of the Eaft India Company against the Nabob of Arcot, firft enumerates the proofs which the Nabob, for many years paft, has given of his faithful attachment to the Company. He next proceeds to fhew, that the conqueft of Tanjore by the Nabob may be maintained on principles of juftice and found policy; and that the Gover nor and Council were warranted by the Company in affifting the Nabob in the conqueft of Tanjore. With this view he
produces the orders of the Company to the Governor and Council at Madras, effectually to fupport the Nabob in his pretenfions on the Rajah of Tanjore; and their letter to the fame, after they had received information that the Rajah was to be included in the treaty with Hyder Ali as a party to be protected; expreffing their diffatisfaction with the conduct of their agents; acknowledging the Rajah to be by right tributary to the Nabob; and fufpending their former order, only because the proceedings of the Council of Madras had rendered it impoffible to put them into execution. These orders, which it was ne ceffary to suspend, which the Council were foon after prepared to put in force, and which after feveral delays were executed, our Author juftifies by the following enumeration of facts:
That the Rajah's critical desertion of the Company and the Nabob, in the war with Hyder Ali, warranted their " ftrongest refentment at his conduct;"-that though he owed his fecurity, "and the peace of his country, to the measures fuftained by the Nabob and the Company;"-and though he was" a tributary Dependent on the Nabob," yet he refused to "furnish his quota towards carry ing on the war;" cultivating, on the contrary, a warm attachment with Hyder," the common enemy, and affifting him with money: "That it therefore "became neceffary to purfue fuch meafures against him as the Nabob might think confiftent with the juftice and dignity of his government."-That in addition to all this ill-conduct, the Rajah "withheld the peishcuifh, due to the Nabob," in violation of the Nabob's rights, in actual breach of his engagements, by the treaty of 1762, and in contempt of the honour and power of the Company, who had guaranteed it;-and that, as a confummation of his perfidy," he attacked the Dependents of the Nabob's government."
Having on these and other grounds justified the Company in affifting the Nabob to reduce Tanjore, our Author concludes, that they could have no right to reverse their conduct, and diveft him of the country they had fo juftly affifted him in recovering. He then proceeds:
But the Directors of 1775 thought otherwife. In their memora ble inftructions to Lord Pigot and the Council, dated 12th April 1775, we find the following affertions":"
"As the folemn promife made by our Governor and Council at the request of the Nabob of the Carnatic and the King of Tanjore, to guarantee the treaty of 1762, has been fully approved by the Court of Directors, we cannot but confider the public faith of the Company as forfeited, and the honour of the British nation deeply affected, by the measures taken for dethroning that unhappy prince; whofe kingdom has been wrested from him by our fervants, and put under the government of Mahomed Ali Cawn; in direct violation of that treaty, and contrary to our repeated orders and inftructions, which have uniformly and expressly prohibited them from attempting to enlarge our own, or the Nabob's dominions."
REV. Apr. 1779*
This extraordinary paffage conveys more than perhaps its authors were aware of. For it not only afferts the exifting validity of the old treaty of 1762, a mere fpeculative point, which may have mifled the opinions of fome; but it decides without reserve and without mercy against the characters of men who have filled, and who do fill, the highest stations both in the direction at home, and in the fervice of the Company abroad, with a reputation eminent as their rank, and till this period unimpeached, unfufpected.
Surely a subject so peculiarly delicate, required all caution and circumfpection. It would not have been unworthy the Directors of 1775, to have regarded with more tendernefs the character of their predeceffors. Nothing less than actual proof could juftify fuch fevere infinuations against the Directors of 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, and 1774, as that they fuffered the public faith of the Company to be forfeited, and the bonour of the British nation to be deeply affected by their connivance; and that they had rewarded fuch fignal delinquencies with diftinguished approbations, publicly acknowledging the eminent fervices of Mr. Dupree, and conferring on Mr. Haftings the government of Bengal.
If any motive could excufe repetition, it would be the defence of meritorious characters thus indifcriminately arraigned. We fhall, therefore, from the many which might be adduced, juft recapitulate the following recorded facts, viz.
"The Directors of 1769 declare the Rajah a delinquent both to the Nabob and the Company, for his notorious mifdemeanours, and enjoin the Governor and Council to redress the Nabob, and chastise the Rajah.
The Governor and Council concurred in the propriety of the orders; though they were under a temporary neceffity of deferring their execution by the treaty of 1769 with Hyder Ali; occafioned by the low ftate of their finances, and the Rajah's intrigues with that avowed enemy.
"The Directors of 1772 approve the conduct of the Governor and Council of 1771 against the Rajah, for his fresh breach of treaty, and invading the territories of Marawar and Nalcooty, dependent on the Nabob, which juftified with aggravated force the decifive orders against him.
"The fame Directors write to the Nabob, that they fhould have been at all events urged to unfbeath the fword, to chaflife that Rajab.
"The Directors of 1773, with the whole of this business before them up to that period, the first invafion of Tanjore, poffeffion of Fort Vellum, &c. exprefs not the flightest disapprobation of that measure. But promife to go into mature deliberation upon it, in order to frame further instructions for their future conduct.
"New violations of treaty by the Rajah, even of the last granted to bim by the Nabob at the gates of Tanjore, with the cogent circumftances of the feason of the year, and the state of the other powers of Indoftan, rendered it neceffary to recommence hostilities against him; before the above-mentioned letter from the Company could reach Madras.