^{page 71 note 1} For a summary of the opening events at Meerut, v. Holmes, T. R. E., A History of the Indian Mutiny (London, 1885), p. 99 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 71 note 2} Accounts and Papers, “East India (Parliamentary Series), Copy of the Evidence taken before the Court appointed for the Trial of the King of Delhi.” 1859, No. 162, cited as “Trial.”

^{page 71 note 3} Wheeler, J. Talboys, Early Records of British India (London, 1878), pp. 109 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 71 note 4} Viz. The Mahratta Confederacy, the Deccan, the Carnatic, Bengal. Oudh was in alliance with Bengal. The Sikhs, too, promised 5,000 horse. I.O. Home Misc., Vol. 556, p. 37.

^{page 72 note 1} Michaud, J. F., Histoire de … l'empire de Mysore (Paris, 1801–1809), I, pp. 246 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 72 note 2} L. Rice, Mysore, I, pp. 399–400. On the claim to Quraish descent, thereby qualifying for the title of Khalīfah, v. Hussain, Mīr ‘Alī Khān. History of Hydur Naick. Tr. Miles, W. (London, 1842), p. 1Google Scholar. For Sindia's view of this step, I.O. Home Misc., Vol. 556, pp. 37, 41, 47, etc. Moodajee “wished to know … whether … the English intended to permit Tippoo to become Sultaun of India.” Tīpū's attempt to link himself with the Sultān of Rūm points to a recognition of the Turkish Caliphate—in other words, an eighteenth century Khilāfat Movement.

^{page 72 note 3} Fraser, J., The History of Nadir Shah (London, 1742), pp. 68 f.Google Scholar, 131, 138. MSS. Bibl. Nat. (Paris) Fonds. Fr. 8971, 10. 21b. ff. Grant Duff (ed. 1921), I, 398 ff. Elphinstone, History of India (ed. Cowell, 1905), p. 702, n. 32, however, does not give credit to these allegations. His dismissal of the subject is not convincing.

^{page 72 note 4} Elphinstone, op. cit., pp. 700 ff. Shāh Ālam Nāma (B. Ind.), pp. 32, 170 ff.

^{page 73 note 1} Duperron, Anquetil, Législation Orientale (1778), pp. 87 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 73 note 2} V. Dict. Nat. Biog., xxxv, 261 f.

^{page 73 note 3} As shown in the opposition to the renewal of the Charters. See also Cobbett's Annual Register, April, 1804; Feb., 1806; Feb., 1813, etc.: a selection of extracts from this paper was printed in 1857.

^{page 74 note 1} Mr. W. Foster, C.I.E., of the India Office, in the discussion after this paper, suggested that the point of view here worked out was perhaps too theoretical, and that the issue was really practical. I suggest in reply that the policy of the Company throughout India, at any rate, from 1757, was against the political stability of the Empire; its attacks on various vassals from 1813, its modification of courts, legislation on religious matters, etc., all showed a serious misunderstanding of the temper of the Mughal Army and State, of which it was a part. Cf. Edwards, W., Reminiscences of a Bengal Civilian (London, 1866), pp. 305 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 75 note 1} E.g. the charges, especially the first and third (Trial, p. 2); the question to Mr. Saunders (ib., p. 94); the speech for the prosecution (pp. 136 1, 141); the attempt to find a day of proclamation of the King, as if his reign only began in May, 1857 (pp. 28, 87, 88).

^{page 75 note 2} E.g. questions on Oudh (ib., pp. 70, et passim), the murīds (p, 156), where there is evidence of a pious observation on the part of the Court, acquiesced in by the witness (“But it is evident that a ‘Pir’ … circumstances”).

^{page 75 note 3} Kaye, J. W., The Sepoy War, II, 1–42Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 1} Trial, pp. 72, 126 (13). Kaye, II, 38 ff.; for dates, J. Burgess, The Chronology of Modern India, s.d. 1761. Wüstenfeld, F., Vergleichungs Tabellen der Muh. und Chr. Zeit (Leipzig, 1854)Google Scholar, s.d. of Plassey. Cf. Firminger, Fifth Report, I, pp. i–ii, n. 1; and Lee Warner, The Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie, II, 369, for Outram's opinion.

^{page 76 note 2} Trial, p. 156. Cf. Shāh 'Ālam Nāma, pp. 52, i n, 150, 160, for Shāh 'Ālain's religious activities as Prince 'Alī Gōhar and Emperor.

^{page 77 note 1} E.g. “spiritual guide” (murshid), “divine vicegerent” (Khalīfah ullāh) (Trial, p. 156), “usual form of salutation” (p. 79), “about fifteen paces” (ib.), nazr (pp. 33–4), Iobes of honour (passim). It is interesting to notice the occurrence of “murshid“ and “murīd” Sūfī terms, cf. Herklots, Qanōn-i-Islām (ed. 1922), pp. 283 ff., reflecting the Safavi ancestry of later Mughal authority (Trial, p. 121). Notice, too, the King's crossexamination of Makhan, mace-bearer of Captain Douglas (Trial, p. 79), who was apparently the third bakhshī of the Empire—in charge of the wālā shāhī troops. For the “usual form of salutation,” v. Foster, W., Early Travels in India, p. 119Google Scholar, cf. 'Ain-i-Akbari, Bk. II, 'Ain, 73 f. For a probable summary at the instance of the Court, v. Trial, p. 156, “But it is evident that a Pir expects,” etc. The lack of harmony of this sentence with what precedes is clear either in retranslation or; n remembering the Sūfī terminology of the passage.

^{page 77 note 2} Trial, p. 2.

^{page 78 note 1} I.O. (Tracts), No. 268. Diary and Consultation Book Ft. St. Geo., 1685, ed. Pringle, A. T., pp. 44 ffGoogle Scholar. Malabari, P. M., Bombay in the Making, p. 209Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 2} Storia do Mogor, II, 296, etc., Ill, 410, IV, 41–2, 217, cf. Bill. Nat. (Paris) MSS. Fond. Fr. 9090, p. 162, where a similar claim was made for Pondicherry in 1726.

^{page 78 note 3} Dalton, , Life of Thomas Pitt, p. 345Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 4} Ib., pp. 381 ff. The whole of Chapter XX throws considerable light pn the position of Madras in the Mughal Empire.

^{page 79 note 1} E.g. I.O. Home Misc. 629, p. 3.

^{page 79 note 2} Cf. B.M. Pers. (Addl.) MSS. 24039, foll. 24 v. 29, 31 v. 32, 33. The word qaum is used colloquially as the equivalent of zāt (casie or race). Fallon, , A New Hindustani-English Dictionary, p. 892Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 3} Wheeler, op. cit., pp. 90 ff. Cf. Dalton, op. cit., c. xx.

^{page 79 note 4} Cf. Dodwell, H. H., Dupleix and Clive, pp. 3, 30, 43Google Scholar. With his view contrast [Macpherson, James], The History and Management of the East India Company, pp. 55 ff., 62 ffGoogle Scholar. Professor Dodwell mistakes the real status of both the English and the French by admitting the Company's interpretation of their position in India on political grounds. Muhammad 'Ali was legally not “the protege” of the English, any more than was Shah 'Ālam in 1803, but their suzerain. It is significant to notice that when the Company wished to make their claims to sovereign rank in 1812, they omitted all “treaties” prior to 1759 from Madras, thereby concealing their true status. This position, accepted by Professor podwell, is, I suggest, an anachronism.

^{page 80 note 1} Cf. Shāh 'Ālam Nāma, p. 39, 1. 10, māl wājibi wa pēshkash. Inshae Herkern, pp. 28–9, māl wājibī for revenue only. For nazr, Vullers, Lex. Pers.-Lat., II, 1303a, s.v. “pactionem conficere, votum sibi imponere.” The best translation perhaps in English (had not the word acquired the sense of bakhshīsh) would be “alms” (ctr. Dodwell, op. cit., p. 151, and the Shāh 'Ālam Nāma, p. 87), as given not to the beggar, but to the Deity.

^{page 80 note 2} Elphinstone, op. cit., p. 681, ctr. Macaulifie, R. P., The Nizam, pp. 8–9Google Scholar. Some Notes on the Hyderabad Residency (Calcutta, G. of I., N.D.), p. 9 (Letter of June 20, 1830), Dodwell, p. 46, gives an instance of his activity at Delhi in 1750.

^{page 81 note 1} MissMonckton-Jones, E. M., Warren Hastings in Bengal (1772–1774), PP. 153. 166 ff., 183 ff., 189 ff.Google Scholar, gives a clear statement of the Company's point of view without reference, however, to the terms of the farmān by which it held the Dīwāni.

^{page 81 note 2} Cf. Manucci, op. cit., Ill, 91. J. D. Sarkar, Mughal Administration, p. 82. Parl. Papers, 1805 (48), p. 7.

^{page 81 note 3} Edwards, W., Reminiscences of a Bengal Civilian, pp. 55–57Google Scholar; also quoted Kaye, Sepoy War, II, 661–2.

^{page 81 note 4} Trial, p. 154.

^{page 81 note 5} For a fuller account of the use of the Khil'at, v. my note J. Theol. S., Jan., 1922, pp. 197–9. The Khil'at appears to have signified the delegation of the personal sovereignty of the Khalīfah. Cf. Enger, , Mawerdii Constitutiones Politicae, pp. 33 and 47Google Scholar (Tr. E. Fagnan, pp. 44–57 and 59) for the distinction between the general and special types of delegation.

^{page 82 note 1} W. Foster, op. cit., p. 56. Edwards, loc. cit., supra, p. 81, 11. 3.

^{page 82 note 2} For Bābur, , Tārīkh-i-Rashīdi, ed. Elias, and Ross, (1898), pp. 246–247 and noteGoogle Scholar; for Humāyūn, Erskine, W., A History of India, II, 275 ff.Google Scholar; for duties of Amir, Enger, op. cit., pp. 47 ff. (Tr., pp. 59 ff.).

^{page 83 note 1} E.g. Dorn, B., Muhammedenische Quellen, III, 171Google Scholar, Jahāngīr is called “Nawāb Salīm Shāh.” For the Persian Ambassador's conduct at the Court of Shāh Jahān, Bernier, Travels (Constable and Smith), pp. 151–3. Aurangzēb and Persia, Sarkar, J. D., A History of Aurungzéb, III, pp. 120 ffGoogle Scholar. Manucci, op. cit., II, 47–52, 129 ff., 146–7. Nādir Shāh and Muhammad Shāh, Sir Sykes, P. M., A History of Persia (2nd ed.), II, 259 ffGoogle Scholar. J. Fraser, op. cit. (1742), pp. 131 ff. Ahmad Shāh and 'Ālamgīr II, Shāh 'Alam Nāma, p. 29, also that author's references to the masnad-i-'imārat (passim). Tīpū's appeal to Afghanistan against Shāh 'Ālam, supra, p. 72, n. 1; an appeal from Shāh 'Alam, I.O. Home Misc. 556, p. 96, where the “Treaty of Commerce” is clearly a myth, and finally, Trial, pp. 69, 80—1, 96, 103, 114, 120–7, 148 154–5. Note particularly, the acknowledgment of the original suzerainty of Shāh 'Abbās Safavī over Humāyūn (ib., p. 121).

^{page 83 note 2} Badāonī, Muntakhab al Tawārikh (B.I.), II, 272–3. Akbarnāma (B.I.), Text I, 124, cf. discussion Malleson. Akbar (B.I.), p. 154 ff. V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, pp. 178 ff. Both miss the significance of the step.

^{page 84 note 1} A curious piece of evidence in favour of this conjecture is found in the Shāh 'Ālam Nāma, p. 24 (last sentence).

^{page 85 note 1} For fuller treatment of this point and its possible relation to modern politics, see my article “The Historical Antecedents of the Khilāfat Movement.” (The Contemporary Review, May, 1922.)

^{page 85 note 22} V. supra, p. 83, n. 1, also Sleeman, , Rambles and Recollections (ed. Smith, V. A.), pp. 135 ffGoogle Scholar. and notes, for Persian survivals in Oudh and the Mughal Empire in general. Since I wrote this paper I have been indebted to Mr. B. H. Zaidi, of FitzWilliam Hall, Cambridge, for a reference confirming this conjecture. In Rampur State Library (Persian Histories, No. 229), a MS., Dastur al 'Amal, has been recently unearthed, in which are enclosed the Persian letters referred to by Ihsan Ullah Khan in the evidence. It is significant that the denial of the conversion is made only to the English and through a Shī'ah poet! The date of the conversion is A.H. 1270, 6 Rabī'al Awwal, 7 December, 1853 A.D. The motive of such a denial is clearly to unite Shī'ah and Sunnī.

^{page 86 note 1} At least so it would appear from Thurston, E., A History of the Coinage of the East India Company (1890), p. 66Google Scholar, although the controversy may merely refer to design.

^{page 87 note 1} Two instances will suffice to illustrate this point. The Mahrattas in Bengal (Grant Duff, Oxford Edn., I, 424 f.), and Ghāziuddīn, the Wazir's alliance counteracted by 'Alī Gōhar's alliance with Vithal Rāo. Shāh 'Ālam Nāma, pp. 32 and 40. For Sindia's part during the danger of Tīpū, I.O. Home Misc. 556, passim. That volume is a record of a contrast between Mahratta loyalty and the Company's disloyalty to the Mughal Emperor—even the pro-Company point of view of the compiler fails to obliterate this fact.

^{page 87 note 2} Miss E. M. Monckton-Jones, op. cit., p. 184. Letter 4. Cf. Parl. Papers (East Indies), 1805 (19), p. 13. Gentil, Indoustan en Empire Mogol, p. 73 (Bibl. Nat. (Paris) MSS. Fr. 9091).

^{page 88 note 1} Correspondence of Charles, First Marquis of Cornwallis, ed. Ross, C., I, 307Google Scholar. See also Thorn, W., Memoir of the War in India (1818), pp. 139 ff.Google Scholar, 149, 151. For the text of the poem, W. Francklin, Shah Aulum, App. IV (p. 250). Parl. Papers, 1805 (48), p. 6, I.O. Home Misc. 556, pp. 100 ff.

^{page 88 note 2} I.O. Home Misc. 556, p. 41.

^{page 88 note 3} Ibid., pp. 33 ff., 99 ff. It is significant to note that the “Bengal Tribute” controversy is contemporary with the increased pressure of Tipu on the Mahratta Sūbahs of the Empire. Michaud, I, 144. Both Mill (VI, 509–10) and Thorn (p. 126) omit to state the non possumus in favour of Sindia, for which v. Wellesley, , History of the Transactions of the British Government in India (1805), p. 193Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 4} For Tīpū's claim to Quraish descent, supra, p. 72, n. 2; its significance, Hughes, T. P., Dict, of Islām, p. 264aGoogle Scholar.

^{page 89 note 1} v. Mill, IV, 557 ff. For the practical mind of Cornwallis, v. letter,cit. supra, p. 88, n. 1.

^{page 89 note 2} A Collection of Treaties, p. 213. For Negotiations, v. Mill, Bk. VI, c. 9, and Dacoitee in Excelsis (1857), pp. 39 ff. Sir Lawrence, Henry (Calcutta Review, 1845, pp. 375 ff.)Google Scholar. Parl. Papers, 1806 (7), pp. 31 ff., and 1806 (20).

^{page 89 note 3} For discussions of the Treaty of Bassein (1802), v. Mill, Bk. VI, c. 11. Grant Duff, II, 328 ff.

^{page 89 note 4} Trial, p. 94.

^{page 91 note 1} Parl. Papers, 1805 (x), pp. 761–2. Thorn, op. cit., pp. 76 ff. Prentout, H., l'ile de France sous Decaen, pp. 8 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 91 note 2} Cf. supra, p. 97.

^{page 91 note 3} Tac. Germ., c. xiv.

^{page 91 note 4} Parl. Papers (1805), x, 762 (2).

^{page 92 note 1} Ibid., 770–1. Cf. pp. 766, 769, and Wellesley's letter, p. 767.

^{page 92 note 2} Mill, VI, 509–10. Cf. Part. Papers, cit., p. 777. Apparently Lake was appointed to the rank of “the third Bakhshī,” also called occasionally Bakhshī of the Wālā Shāhīs, that is of the household troops. (Cf. Irvine, , The Army of the Indian Moghuls, pp. 39–40Google Scholar; also Ap. J.A.S.B., LXVII, Pt. I, p. 154, where Mansūr Jang's promotion to this office and title is recorded.) Cf. p. 77 n. 1.

^{page 92 note 3} The Fifth Report of 1812, ed. Firminger, II, 300.

^{page 92 note 4} Parl. Papers, cit., p. 774. If, as is probable, the word translated “happily” is a derivative of nasaba (fixed—by Fate), the whole farmān is capable of a totally different interpretation!

^{page 93 note 1} Cf. Wollaston, A. N., A Complete English-Persian Dictionary (1889)Google Scholar, s.v. protection, protectorate. If there were no other clue, the use of the word farmān (order, command) would be final.

^{page 94 note 1} Miss Monckton-Jones, op. cit., p. 147, etc. Cf. Clive's letter, September 30, 1765. 7.0. Home Misc. 629, p. 288.

^{page 94 note 2} Ibid., p. 55.

^{page 94 note 3} I.0. Home Misc. 629, p. 296, para. 20.

^{page 94 note 4} Thorn, op. cit., pp. 43–4. Cf. supra, pp. 80–1.

^{page 95 note 1} Had the Court proceeded on the de facto grounds of right of conquest by the Queen of England in the war 1857–8, and had they not attempted to make any claim to legality, there might have been no ground for criticism. As it is, they failed to make good their case.

^{page 95 note 2} Arāīsh-i-Mahfil, ed. Court, p. 209. Court's translation is full of blunders and should be used only with care: e.g. twice (pp. 67 and 74) he translates ba'd-i-hangāmah-i-Bakhsār, “after the mutiny of Baksar”! The context shows clearly that the battle of Bakhsār is intended. If he is correct, the Company must be mutineers! but there is no need to attach such a specialized meaning to the word. J. Shakespear (1834) does not give the word “mutiny” as one of the meanings of the word.

^{page 96 note 1} Cf. Farman of 1765 and Sarkar, , Mughal Administration, pp. 61 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 96 note 2} Cf. Private Letters of the Marquis of Dalhousie, ed. Baird, J. G. A., pp. 380–381, 389–90Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 1} Voyages and Travels to India … in the years 1802–6, by Lord Valentia, pp. 99, 103, 147.

^{page 97 note 2} Mill and Wilson, op. cit., VII, 510 ff.

^{page 97 note 3} Esp. Article III.

^{page 97 note 4} Hastings, , Summary of Administration (1824), pp. 102–105Google Scholar. Rogers, C. J., Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, II, 198 ffGoogle Scholar. (Nos. 11608 ff.). Narrative of a Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, 1824–5, Bishop Heber, I, 371. In Norgate's Sepoy to Subedar, Sītarām never refers to him except as the Nawab.

^{page 98 note 1} Trial, pp. 70, 72, 160.

^{page 98 note 2} Cf. de Lauriston, Jean Law, Mémoire surquelques affaires de L'Empire Mogol (1756–1761), ed. Martineau, A., p. 22Google Scholar, for the authority of the Mīr Ātish over the Company's artillery. Both Swnnī and Shī'ah opinion were outraged, hence the value of Bahādur Shāh's dual policy (v. supra, p. 85. n. 2).

^{page 98 note 3} Trial, p. 157. The footnote is worthy of attention as an illustration gt the Court's inability to appreciate the religious situation.

^{page 99 note 1} It should be remembered that the Mughal Khilāfat was a Sūfī, not the ordinary Sunnī Khilāfat, although it had come tq be regarded in much the same light as the latter (v. supra, p. 83).

^{page 100 note 1} All the facts for this section are to be found in Kaye, Sepoy War, II, 1–42; cf. Trial, p. 154.

^{page 100 note 2} [Since January, in the light of fresh material, the views set forward in this paper have undergone some modification owing to the increase of Persian influence detected in Indian affairs down to 1857. As, however, any development in the theory has been to carry it still farther from the accepted view, it has seemed best not to make any alterations in the paper itself and only very slight additions to the notes, v. The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, II, 403–422 (in the Press).]