History of the Reigning Family of Lahore ...

Front Cover
W. Thacker and Company, 1847 - India - 263 pages
 

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page xxii - Seiks made an unprovoked attack, nor that we have acted towards them with great forbearance If the Seiks were to be considered entirely an independent State, in no way answerable to us, we should not have provoked them— for to assert that the bridge of boats brought from Bombay, was not a cause belli but merely a defensive measure is absurd...
Page 36 - Prince was put into the palki, and when he was assisting to put him there, he saw that above the right ear there was a wound which bled so slightly as only to cause a blotch of blood about the size of a rupee on the pillow or cloth on which Nao Nihal Singh's head rested while in the palki.
Page 47 - Khalsajee ! as the host, disdaining further attempts at secrecy, advanced to the assault. The small and silent band on the walls of the fort calmly beheld the approach of the dense columns of infantry, the squadrons of cavalry, and more fearful than all, the enormous train of the Khalsa artillery. The entire circuit of the fort now presented a closely wedged mass of men, forming close up to the very walls.
Page xxii - In the event of a violation of any of the preceding Articles, or of a departure from the rules of friendship on the part of either State, this Treaty shall be considered to be null and void.
Page xxii - ... powers, and the British Government will have no concern with the territories and subjects of the Raja to the northward of the river Sutlej. Article 2. The Raja will never maintain in the territory which he occupies on the left bank of the river Sutlej more troops than are necessary for the internal duties of that territory, nor commit or suffer any encroachments on the possessions or rights of the Chiefs in its vicinity.
Page xxiii - But if on the other hand the treaty of 1809 is said to have been binding between the two Governments, then the simple question is, who first departed from the rules of friendship? I am decidedly of the opinion that we did.
Page xxii - Bombay, was not a causa belli, but merely a defensive measure, is absurd ; besides the Seiks had translations of Sir Charles Napier's speech (as it appeared in the Delhi Gazette) stating that we were going to war with them; and as all European powers would have done under such circumstances, the Seiks thought it as well to be first in the field. Moreover they were not encamped in our territory, but their own.
Page 257 - With all this he was courteous and polite in demeanour and exhibited a suavity of manner and language that contrasted fearfully with his real disposition." The present Jammu and Kashmir is his monument" It is at once a memorial of that foul act when, like the arch traitor of old, we bartered innocent lives, which fate placed in our hands, for a few pieces of silver.
Page iii - Punjaub it is stated to be a general rule, that the chiefs, to whom the territories belong, should receive one-half of the produce,f and the farmer the other : but the chief never levies the whole of his share : and in no country, perhaps, is the Rayat, or cultivator, treated with more indulgence.
Page xxii - Moreover they were not encamped in our territory, but their own. ' . . . and I only ask, had we not departed from the rules of friendship first ? The year before the war broke out, we kept the island between Ferozepore and the Punjaub, though it belonged to the Seiks, owing to the deep water being between us and the island.

Bibliographic information