CHAPTER 3
Feudal Incidents.
Relief.
By Magna Charta reliefs were settled at rates proportionate to the dignity of the holder.[[2]] In France the relief was fixed by the customary laws at one year’s revenue.[[3]] This last has long been the settled amount of nazarana, or fine of relief, in Mewar.
Fine paid on Succession.
In this we plainly perceive the original power (whether exercised or not) of resumption. On this subject more will appear in treating of the duration of grants. The kharg bandhai, or ‘binding of the sword,’ is also performed when a Rajput is fit to bear arms; as amongst the ancient German tribes, when they put into the hands of the aspirant for fame a lance. Such are the substitutes for the toga virilis of the young Roman. The Rana himself is thus ordained a knight by the first of his vassals in dignity, the chief of Salumbar.
Renunciation of Reliefs.
It is in Mewar alone, I believe, of all Rajasthan, that these marks of fealty are observable to such an extent. But what is remarked elsewhere upon the fiefs being movable, will support the doctrine of resumption though it might not be practised: a prerogative may exist without its being exercised.
Fine of Alienation.
In Cutch, amongst the Jareja[[6]] tribes, sub-vassals may alienate their estates; but this privilege is dependent on the mode of acquisition. Perhaps the only knowledge we have in Rajasthan of alienation requiring the sanction of the lord paramount, is in donations for pious uses: but this is partial. We see in the remonstrance of the Deogarh vassals the opinion they entertained of their lord’s alienation of their sub-fees to strangers, and without the Rana’s consent; which, with a similar train of conduct, produced sequestration of his fief till they were reinducted [160].
Tenants of the Crown may Alienate.
Escheats and Forfeitures.
In Marwar, at this moment, nearly all the representatives of the great fiefs of that country are exiles from their homes: a distant branch of the same family, the prince of Idar, would have adopted a similar line of conduct but for a timely check from the hand of benevolence.[[8]]
There is, or rather was, a class of lands in Mewar appended to the crown, of which it bestowed life-rents on men of merit. These were termed Chhorutar, and were given and taken back, as the name implies; in contradistinction to grants which, though originating in good behaviour, not only continued for life but descended in perpetuity. Such places are still so marked in the rent-roll, but they are seldom applied to the proper purpose.
Aids.
“These feudal aids are deserving of our notice as the commencement of taxation, of which they long answered the purpose, till the craving necessities and covetous policy of kings established for them more durable and onerous burthens.”[[9]]
The great chiefs, it may be assumed, were not backward, on like occasions, to follow such examples, but these gifts were more voluntary. Of the details of aids in France we find enumerated, “paying the relief of the suzerain on taking possession of his lands”;[[10]] and by Magna Charta our barons could levy them on the following counts: to make the baron’s eldest son a knight, to marry his eldest daughter, or to redeem his person from captivity. The latter is also one occasion for the demand in all these countries. The chief is frequently made prisoner in their predatory invasions, and carried off as a hostage for the payment of a war contribution. Everything disposable is often got rid of on an occasion of this kind. Cœur de Lion would not have remained so long in the dungeons of Austria had his subjects been Rajputs. In Amber the most extensive benevolence, or barar,[[11]] is on the marriage of the Rajkumar, or heir apparent.
Wardship.
Another instance of the danger of permitting wardships, particularly where the guardian is the superior in clanship and kindred, is exemplified in the Kalyanpur estate in Mewar. That property had been derived from the crown only two generations back, and was of the annual value of ten thousand rupees. The mother having little interest at court, the Salumbar chief, by bribery and intrigue, upon paying a fine of about one year’s rent, obtained possession—ostensibly to guard the infant’s rights; but the falsehood of this motive was soon apparent. There were duties to perform on holding it which were not thought of. It was a frontier post, and a place of rendezvous for the quotas to defend that border from the incursions of the wild tribes of the south-west. The Salumbar chief, being always deficient in the quota for his own estate, was not likely to be very zealous in his muster-roll for his ward’s, and complaints were made which threatened a change. The chief of Chawand was talked of as one who would provide for the widow and minor, who could not perform the duties of defence.
The sovereign himself often assumes the guardianship of minors; but the mother is generally considered the most proper guardian for her infant son. All others may have interests of their own; she can be actuated by his welfare alone. Custom, therefore, constitutes her the guardian; and with the assistance of the elders of the family, she rears and educates the young chief till he is fit to be girded with the sword [163].[[12]]
The Faujdar, or military manager, who frequently regulates the household as well as the subdivisions of the estate, is seldom of the kin or clan of the chief: a wise regulation, the omission of which has been known to produce, in these maires du palais on a small scale, the same results as will be described in the larger. This officer, and the civil functionary who transacts all the pecuniary concerns of the estate, with the mother and her family, are always considered to be the proper guardians of the minor. ‘Blood which could not inherit,’ was the requisite for a guardian in Europe,[[13]] as here; and when neglected, the results are in both cases the same.
Marriage.
No Rajput can marry in his own clan; and the incident was originated in the Norman institutes, to prevent the vassal marrying out of his class, or amongst the enemies of his sovereign.[[14]]
Thus, setting aside marriage (which even in Europe was only partial and local) and alienation, four of the six chief incidents marking the feudal system are in force in Rajasthan, viz. relief, escheats, aids, and wardships.
Duration of Grants.
Classes of Landholders.
The Bhumia does not renew his grant, but holds on prescriptive possession. He succeeds without any fine, but pays a small annual quit-rent, and can be called upon for local service in the district which he inhabits for a certain period of time. He is the counterpart of the allodial proprietor of the European system, and the real zamindar of these principalities. Both have the same signification; from bhum and zamin, ‘land’: the latter is an exotic of Persian origin.
Girāsia.
Whether Resumable.
Since these exchanges were occurring, it is evident the fiefs (pattas) were not grants in perpetuity. This is just the state of the benefices in France at an early period, as described by Gibbon, following Montesquieu: “Les bénéfices étoient amovibles; bientôt ils les rendirent perpétuels, et enfin héréditaires.”[[25]] This is the precise gradation of fiefs in Mewar; movable, perpetual, and then hereditary. The sons were occasionally permitted to succeed their fathers;[[26]] an indulgence which easily grew into a right, though the crown had the indubitable reversion. It is not, however, impossible that these changes[[27]] were not of ancient authority, but arose from the policy of the times to prevent infidelity.
We ought to have a high opinion of princes who could produce an effect so powerful on the minds of a proud and turbulent nobility. The son was heir to the title and power over the vassals’ personals and movables, and to the allegiance of his father, but to nothing which could endanger that allegiance.
A proper apportioning and mixture of the different clans was another good result to prevent their combinations in powerful families, which gave effect to rebellion, and has tended more than external causes to the ruin which the State of Mewar exhibits.
Nobility: Introduction of Foreign Stocks.
Kāla Pattas.
Exogamy.
Descent gives a strength to the tenure of these tribes which the foreign nobles do not possess; for although, from all that has been said, it will be evident that a right of reversion and resumption existed (though seldom exercised, and never but in cases of crime), yet the foreigner had not this strength in the soil, even though of twenty generations’ duration. The epithet of kala patta, or ‘black grant,’ attaches to the foreign grant, and is admitted by the holder, from which the kinsman thinks himself exempt. It is virtually a grant resumable; nor can the possessors feel that security which the other widely affiliated aristocracies afford [167]. When, on a recent occasion, a revision of all the grants took place, the old ones being called in to be renewed under the sign-manual of the reigning prince, the minister himself visited the chief of Salumbar, the head of the Chondawats, at his residence at the capital, for this purpose. Having become possessed of several villages in the confusion of the times, a perusal of the grant would have been the means of detection; and on being urged to send to his estate for it, he replied, pointing to the palace, “My grant is in the foundation of that edifice”: an answer worthy of a descendant of Chonda, then only just of age. The expression marks the spirit which animates this people, and recalls to mind the well-known reply of our own Earl Warenne, on the very same occasion, to the quo warranto of Edward: “By their swords my ancestors obtained this land, and by mine will I maintain it.”
Hence it may be pronounced that a grant of an estate is for the life of the holder, with inheritance for his offspring in lineal descent or adoption, with the sanction of the prince, and resumable for crime or incapacity:[[30]] this reversion and power of resumption being marked by the usual ceremonies on each lapse of the grantee, of sequestration (zabti), of relief (nazarana), of homage and investiture of the heir. Those estates held by foreign nobles differ not in tenure; though, for the reasons specified, they have not the same grounds of security as the others, in whose welfare the whole body is interested, feeling the case to be their own: and their interests, certainly, have not been so consulted since the rebellions of S. 1822,[[31]] and subsequent years. Witness the Chauhans of Bedla and Kotharia (in the Udaipur valley), and the Pramar of the plateau of Mewar, all chiefs of the first rank.
The difficulty and danger of resuming an old-established grant in these countries are too great to be lightly risked. Though in all these estates there is a mixture of foreign Rajputs, yet the blood of the chief predominates; and these must have a leader of their own, or be incorporated in the estates of the nearest of kin. This increase might not be desirable for the crown, but the sub-vassals cannot be turned [168] adrift; a resumption therefore in these countries is widely felt, as it involves many. If crime or incapacity render it necessary, the prince inducts a new head of that blood; and it is their pride, as well as the prince’s interest, that a proper choice should be made. If, as has often occurred, the title be abolished, the sub-vassals retain their sub-infeudations, and become attached to the crown.
Many estates were obtained, during periods of external commotion, by threats, combination, or the avarice of the prince—his short-sighted policy, or that of his ministers—which have been remedied in the late reorganization of Mewar; where, by retrograding half a century, and bringing matters as near as possible to the period preceding civil dissension, they have advanced at least a century towards order.
Bhūmia, the Allodial Proprietor.
Their clannish appellations, Kumbhawat, Lunawat, and Ranawat, distinctly show from what stem and when they branched off; and as they ceased to be of sufficient importance to visit the court on the new and continually extending ramifications, they took to the plough. But while they disdained not to derive a subsistence from labouring as husbandmen, they never abandoned their arms; and the Bhumia, amid the crags of the alpine Aravalli where he pastures his cattle or cultivates his fields, preserves the erect mien and proud spirit of his ancestors, with more tractability, and less arrogance and folly, than his more [169] courtly but now widely separated brethren, who often make a jest of his industrious but less refined qualifications.[[33]] Some of these yet possess entire villages, which are subject to the payment of a small quit-rent: they also constitute a local militia, to be called in by the governor of the district, but for which service they are entitled to rations or peti.[[34]] These, the allodial[[35]] tenantry of our feudal system, form a considerable body in many districts, armed with matchlock, sword, and shield. In Mandalgarh, when their own interests and the prince’s unite (though the rapacity of governors, pupils of the Mahratta and other predatory schools, have disgusted these independents), four thousand Bhumias could be collected. They held and maintained without support the important fortress of that district, during half a century of turmoil, for their prince. Mandalgarh is the largest district of Mewar, and in its three hundred and sixty towns and villages many specimens of ancient usage may be found. The Solanki held largely here in ancient days, and the descendant of the princes of Patan still retains his Bhum and title of Rao.[[36]]
Feudal Militia.
Circumstances have concurred to produce a resemblance even to the refined fiction of giving up their allodial property to have it conferred as a fief. But in candour it should be stated, that the only instances were caused by the desire of being revenged on the immediate superiors of the vassals. The Rathor chief of Dabla held of his superior, the Raja of Banera, three considerable places included in the grant of Banera. He paid homage, an annual quit-rent, was bound to attend him personally to court, and to furnish thirty-five horse in case of an invasion. During the troubles, though perfectly equal to their performance, he was remiss in all these duties. His chief, with returning peace, desired to enforce the return to ancient customs, and his rights so long withheld; but the Rathor had felt the sweets of entire independence, and refused to attend his summons. To the warrant he replied, “his head and Dabla were together”; and he would neither pay the quit-rent nor attend his court. This refractory spirit was reported to the Rana; and it ended in Dabla being added to the fisc, and the chief’s holding the rest as a vassal of the Rana, but only to perform local service. There are many other petty free proprietors on the Banera estate, holding from small portions of land to small villages; but the service is limited and local in order to swell the chief’s miniature court. If they accompany him, he must find rations for them and their steeds.
So cherished is this tenure of Bhum, that the greatest chiefs are always solicitous to obtain it, even in the villages wholly dependent on their authority: a decided proof of its durability above common grants. The various modes in which it is acquired, and the precise technicalities which distinguished its tenure, as well as the privileges attached to it, are fully developed in translations of different deeds on the subject [171].[[39]]
Rajas of Banera and Shāhpura.
They have their grants renewed, and receive the khilat of investiture; but they pay no relief, and are exempt from all but personal attendance at their prince’s court, and the local service of the district in which their estates are situated. They have hitherto paid but little attention to their duties, but this defect arose out of the times. These lands lying most exposed to the imperial headquarters at Ajmer, they were compelled to bend to circumstances, and the kings were glad to confer rank and honour on such near relations of the Rana’s house. He bestowed on them the titles of Raja, and added to the Shahpura chief’s patrimony a large estate in Ajmer, which he now holds direct of the British Government, on payment of an annual tribute.
Form and Substance of Grant.
Division of Pattas, or Sub-infeudation.
The court and the household economy of a great chieftain is a miniature representation of the sovereign’s: the same officers, from the pardhan, or minister, to the cup-bearer (paniyari), as well as the same domestic arrangements. He must have his shish-mahall,[[41]] his bari-mahall,[[42]] and his mandir,[[43]] like his prince. He enters the dari-sala, or carpet hall, the minstrel[[44]] preceding him rehearsing the praises of his family; and he takes his seat on his throne, while the assembled retainers, marshalled in lines on the right and left, simultaneously exclaim, “Health to our chief!” which salutation he returns by bowing to all as he passes them. When he is seated, at a given signal they all follow the example, and shield rattles against shield as they wedge into their places.
We have neither the kiss nor individual oaths of fidelity administered. It is sufficient, when a chief succeeds to his patrimony, that his ‘an’[[45]] is proclaimed within his sim or boundary. Allegiance is as hereditary as the land: “I am your child; my head and sword are yours, my service is at your command.” It is a rare thing for a Rajput to betray his Thakur, while the instances of self-devotion for him are innumerable: many will be seen interspersed in these papers. Base desertion, to their honour be it said, is little known, and known only to be execrated. Fidelity to the chief, Swamidharma, is the climax of all the virtues. The Rajput is taught from his infancy, in the song of the bard, to regard it as the source of honour here, and of happiness hereafter. The poet Chand abounds with episodes on the duty and beauty of fidelity; nor does it require a very fervid imagination to picture the affections which such a life is calculated to promote, when the chief is possessed of the qualities to call them forth. At the chase his vassals attend him: in the covert of the forest, the ground their social board, they eat their repast together, from the venison or wild boar furnished by the sport of the day; nor is the cup neglected. They are familiarly admitted at all times to his presence, and accompany him to the court of their mutual sovereign. In short, they are inseparable.[[46]]
Their having retained so much of their ancient manners and customs, during [173] centuries of misery and oppression, is the best evidence that those customs were riveted to their very souls. The Rajput of character is a being of the most acute sensibility; where honour is concerned, the most trivial omission is often ignorantly construed into an affront.
Provision for Chief’s Relations.
Charsa.
For what these minor vassals held to be their rights on the great pattawats, the reader is again referred to the letter of protest of the inferior pattawats of the Deogarh estate—it may aid his judgement; and it is curious to observe how nearly the subject of their prayer to the sovereign corresponded with the edict of Conrad of Italy,[[49]] in the year 1037, which originated in disagreements between the great lords and their vassals on the subject of sub-infeudations [174].
The extent to which the subdivision before mentioned is carried in some of the Rajput States, is ruinous to the protection and general welfare of the country. It is pursued in some parts till there is actually nothing left sufficiently large to share, or to furnish subsistence for one individual: consequently a great deprivation of services to the State ensues. But this does not prevail so much in the larger principalities as in the isolated tributary Thakurats or lordships scattered over the country; as amongst the Jarejas of Cutch, the tribes in Kathiawar, and the small independencies of Gujarat bordering on the greater western Rajput States. This error in policy requires to be checked by supreme authority, as it was in England by Magna Charta,[[50]] when the barons of those days took such precautions to secure their own seignorial rights.
Brotherhood.
The author of the Middle Ages exemplifies ingeniously the advantages of sub-[175]infeudation, by the instance of two persons holding one knight’s fee; and as the lord was entitled to the service of one for forty days, he could commute it for the joint service of the two for twenty days each. He even erects as a maxim on it, that “whatever opposition was made to the rights of sub-infeudation or frerage, would indicate decay in the military character, the living principle of feudal tenure”;[[54]] which remark may be just where proper limitation exists, before it reaches that extent when the impoverished vassal would descend to mend his shoes instead of his shield. Primogeniture is the corner-stone of feudality, but this unrestricted sub-infeudation would soon destroy it.[[55]] It is strong in these States; its rights were first introduced by the Normans from Scandinavia. But more will appear on this subject and its technicalities, in the personal narrative of the author.
[1]. “Plusieurs possesseurs de fiefs, ayant voulu en laisser perpétuellement la propriété à leurs descendans, prirent des arrangemens avec leur Seigneur; et, outre ce qu’ils donnèrent pour faire le marché, ils s’engagèrent, eux et leur postérité, à abandonner pendant une année, au Seigneur, la jouissance entière du fief, chaque fois que le dit fief changerait de main. C’est ce qui forma le droit de relief. Quand un gentilhomme avait dérogé, il pouvait effacer cette tache moyennant finances, et ce qu’il payait s’appelait relief, il recevait pour quittance des lettres de relief ou de réhabilitation” (Art. ‘Relief,’[‘Relief,’] Dict. de l’anc. Régime).
[2]. Namely, “the heir or heirs of an earl, for an entire earldom, one hundred pounds; the heir or heirs of a baron, for an entire barony, one hundred marks; the heir or heirs of a knight, for a whole knight’s fee, one hundred shillings at most” (Art. III. Magna Charta).
[3]. “Le droit de rachat devoit se payer à chaque mutation d’héritier, et se paya même d’abord en ligne directe.—La coutume la plus générale l’avait fixé à une année du revenue” (L’Esprit des Loix, livre xxxi. chap. xxxiii.)
[4]. That symbolic species of investiture denominated ‘improper investiture,’ the delivery of a turf, stone, and wand, has its analogies amongst the mountaineers of the Aravalli. The old baron of Badnor, when the Mer villages were reduced, was clamorous about his feudal rights over those wild people. It was but the point of honour. From one he had a hare, from another a bullock, and so low as a pair of sticks which they use on the festivals of the Holi. These marks of vassalage come under the head of ‘petite serjanteri’ (petit serjeantry) in the feudal system of Europe (see Art. XLI. of Magna Charta).
[5]. ["All Rājput Jāgīrdārs, or holders of assigned lands, pay nazarāna on the accession of a new Mahārāna, and on certain other occasions, while most of them pay a fine called Kaid [‘imprisonment’] on succeeding to these estates. On the death of a Rājput Jāgīrdār, his estates immediately revert to the Darbār, and so remain until his son or successor is recognized by the Mahārāna, when the grant is renewed, and a fresh lease taken" (Erskine ii. A. 71).]
[6]. Jareja is the title of the Rajput race in Cutch; they are descendants of the Yadus, and claim from Krishna. In early ages they inhabited the tracts on the Indus and in Seistan [p. [102] above].
[7]. Wright on Tenures, apud Hallam, vol. i. p. 185.
[8]. The Hon. Mr. Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay. As we prevented the spoliation of Idar by the predatory powers, we are but right in seeing that the head does not become the spoliator himself, and make these brave men “wish any change but that which we have given them.”
[9]. Hallam.
[10]. Ducange, apud Hallam.
[11]. Barar is the generic name for taxation.
[12]. The charter of Henry I. promises the custody of heirs to the mother or next of kin (Hallam, vol. ii. p. 429).
[13]. Hallam, vol. i. p. 190.
[14]. [The rule of tribal exogamy, whatever may be its origin, is much more primitive than the author supposed (Sir J. G. Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, i. 54 ff.).]
[15]. Zabti, ‘sequestration.’
[16]. Nazarana.
[17]. It might not be unworthy of research to trace many words common to the Hindu and the Celt; or to inquire whether the Kimbri, the Juts or Getae, the Sakasena, the Chatti of the Elbe and Cimbric Chersonese, and the ancient Britons, did not bring their terms with their bards and vates (the Bhats and Bardais) from the highland of Scythia east of the Caspian, which originated the nations common to both, improved beyond the Wolga and the Indus [?].
[18]. Hallam, vol. i. 155. [Welsh, Cornish gwas, ‘a servant.’]
[19]. Patta, a ‘patent’ or ‘grant’; Pattāwat, ‘holder of the fief or grant.’
[20]. Montesquieu, chaps. xxv., liv., xxxi.
[21]. Ten generations ago. [At present an estate is not liable to confiscation save for some gross political offence (Erskine ii. A. 71).]
[22]. The mountainous and woody region to the south-west, dividing Mewar from Gujarat.
[23]. The grand chain dividing the western from the central States of Rajasthan.
[24]. Such changes were triennial; and, as I have heard the prince himself say, so interwoven with their customs was this rule that it caused no dissatisfaction; but of this we may be allowed at least to doubt. It was a perfect check to the imbibing of local attachment; and the prohibition against erecting forts for refuge or defiance, prevented its growth if acquired. It produced the object intended, obedience to the prince, and unity against the restless Mogul. Perhaps to these institutions it is owing that Mewar alone never was conquered by the kings during the protracted struggle of seven centuries; though at length worried and worn out, her power expired with theirs, and predatory spoliation completed her ruin.
[25]. Gibbon, Misc. Works, vol. iii. p. 189; Sur le système féodal surtout en France.
[26]. Hallam, quoting Gregory of Tours; the picture drawn in A.D. 595.
[27]. "Fiefs had partially become hereditary towards the end of the first race: in these days they had not the idea of an ‘unalienable fief.’" Montesquieu, vol. ii. p. 431. The historian of the Middle Ages doubts if ever they were resumable at pleasure, unless from delinquency.
[28]. The Nahlwara of D’Anville and the Arabian travellers of the eighth century, the capital of the Balhara kings.
[29]. Janam, ‘birth’; es, ‘lord’ or ‘man.’ [See p. [24] above.]
[30]. “La loi des Lombards oppose les bénéfices à la propriété. Les historiens, les formules, les codes des différens peuples barbares, tous les monumens qui nous restent, sont unanimes. Enfin, ceux qui ont écrit le livre des fiefs, nous apprennent, que d’abord les Seigneurs purent les ôter à leur volonté, qu’ensuite ils les assurèrent pour un an, et après les donnèrent pour la vie” (L’Esprit des Loix, chap. xvi. livre 30).
[31]. A.D. 1766.
[32]. Contemporary and opponent of Sultan Babur.
[33]. Many of them taking wives from the degraded but aboriginal races in their neighbouring retreats, have begot a mixed progeny, who, in describing themselves, unite the tribes of father and mother.
[34]. Literally, ‘a belly-full.’
[35]. Allodial property is defined (Hallam, vol. i. p. 144) as “land which had descended by inheritance, subject to no burthen but public defence. It passed to all the children equally; in failure of children, to the nearest kindred.” Thus it is strictly the Miras or Bhum of the Rajputs: inheritance, patrimony. In Mewar it is divisible to a certain extent; but in Cutch, to infinity: and is liable only to local defence. The holder of bham calls it his Adyapi, i.e. of old, by prescriptive right; not by written deed. Montesquieu, describing the conversion of allodial estates into fiefs, says, “These lands were held by Romans or Franks (i.e. freemen) not the king’s vassals,” viz. lands exterior and anterior to the monarchy. We have Rathor, Solanki, and other tribes, now holding bhum in various districts, whose ancestors were conquered by the Sesodias, but left in possession of small portions insufficient to cause jealousy. Some of these may be said to have converted their lands into fiefs, as the Chauhan lord of ——, who served the Salumbar chief.
[36]. Amidst ruins overgrown with forest, I discovered on two tables of stone the genealogical history of this branch, which was of considerable use in elucidating that of Anhilwara, and which corresponded so well with the genealogies of a decayed bard of the family, who travelled the country for a subsistence, that I feel assured they formerly made good use of these marble records.
[37]. See Appendix, Nos. [XVI]. and [XVII].
[38]. I was intimately acquainted with, and much esteemed, many of these Bhumia chiefs—from my friend Paharji (the rock), Ranawat of Amargarh, to the Kumbhawat of Sesoda on the highest point, lord of the pass of the Aravalli; and even the mountain lion, Dungar Singh who bore amongst us, from his old raids, the familiar title of Roderic Dhu. In each situation I have had my tents filled with them; and it was one of the greatest pleasures I ever experienced, after I had taken my leave of them, perhaps for ever, crossed the frontiers of Mewar, and encamped in the dreary pass between it and Marwar, to find that a body of them had been my guards during the night. This is one of the many pleasing recollections of the past. Fortunately for our happiness, the mind admits their preponderance over opposite feelings. I had much to do in aiding the restoration of their past condition; leaving, I believe, as few traces of error in the mode as could be expected, where so many conflicting interests were to be reconciled.
[39]. See Appendix.
[40]. See Appendix, Nos. [IV]., [V]., [VI].
[41]. Mirror apartments. [To meet the demand for the glass mosaics seen in the palaces of Rājputāna, the Panjab, and Burma, the industry of blowing glass globes, silvered inside, came into existence. The globes are broken into fragments, and set in cement (in Burma in laquer), and used to decorate the walls (Watt, Comm. Prod. 563, 717 f.). There is a Shīsh Mahall in the Agra Fort.]
[42]. Gardens on the terrace within the palace.
[43]. Private temple of worship.
[44]. Dholi.
[45]. An is the oath of allegiance. Three things in Mewar are royalties a subject cannot meddle with: 1, An, or oath of allegiance; 2, Dan, or transit dues on commerce; 3, Khan, or mines of the precious metals.
[46]. I rather describe what they were, than what they are. Contentions and poverty have weakened their sympathies and affections; but the mind of philanthropy must hope that they will again become what they have been.
[47]. Millar’s Historical View of the English Government, p. 85. [See p. [156] above.]
[48]. Hume, History of England, Appendix II. vol. ii. p. 291.
[49]. “1. That no man should be deprived of his fief, whether held of the emperor or mesne lord, but by the laws of the empire and judgement of his peers. 2. That from such judgement the vassal might appeal to his sovereign. 3. That fiefs should be inherited by sons and their children, or in their failure by brothers, provided they were feuda paterna, such as had descended from the father. 4. That the lord should not alienate the fief of his vassal without his consent.”[consent.”]
[50]. By the revised statute, Quia emptores, of Edw. I., which forbids it in excess, under penalty of forfeiture (Hallam, vol. i. p. 184).
[51]. Bhayyad, ‘frerage’.
[52]. Hallam, vol. i. p. 186.
[53]. Ibid.
[54]. Hallam, vol. i. p. 186.
[55]. “Le droit d’aînesse a causé, pendant l’existence du régime féodal, une multitude de guerres et de procès. Notre histoire nous présente, à chaque page, des cadets réduits à la mendicité, se livrant à toutes sortes de brigandages pour réparer les torts de la fortune; des aînés, refusant la légitime à leurs frères; des cadets, assassinant leur aîné pour lui succéder, etc.” (see article, ‘Droit d’aînesse,’ Dict. de l’Ancien Régime).