[236] It will be more convenient for purposes of reference to append, as a note to each article, Macnaghten’s replies to these several points, as given at the subsequent interview: “With regard to the first article,” he writes, “I told the Shah that he might make his mind perfectly at ease, as the British Government had no intention or wish to interfere between his Majesty and his family and dependents.”—[Mr. Macnaghten to Government, July 17, 1838: MS. Records.]
[237] “With regard to the second article, I pointed out to the Shah, that the conquest of Shikarpoor would be directly opposed to one of the articles of the treaty. To the rest of the article I could only say that it would be naturally the wish of the British Government to witness the consolidation and extension, to their proper limits, of his Majesty’s dominions.”—[MS. Records.]
[238] “On the subject of the third article, I observed that, of course, the Shah did not mean to include the territories ceded to Runjeet Singh by the new treaty, and that the mention of Shikarpoor was inadmissible.”—[MS. Records.]
[239] “The fourth article I stated would doubtless be approved by the Governor-General.”—[MS. Records.]
[240] “The wish, I said, expressed in the fifth article would be scrupulously attended to.”—[MS. Records.]
[241] “With respect to the objection urged in the sixth article, to making money-payments to Maharajah Runjeet Singh, I reiterated the arguments formerly used, to show the distinctions between a tributary and a subsidiary obligation. These arguments, it will be observed, had due weight with his Majesty, for in the written article he brings forward the objection as one that may occur to the world, not as one to which he himself attaches any importance. Ultimately, however, his Majesty admitted that it would be impossible to satisfy all unreasonable objections, and that to those who understood the subject, and whose opinions alone were to be valued, the reciprocal nature of the subsidiary obligation would be sufficiently obvious. With regard to the objection specified in this article, founded on the anticipated want of means, I gave his Majesty encouragement to hope that the British Government would not permit him to be in distress for the means of discharging his necessary pecuniary obligations.”—[MS. Records.]
[242] “The seventh article, I observed, was at variance with the proposed provisions in the new treaty regarding Shikarpoor. His Majesty, after some conversation, agreed to expunge the article, as well as to exclude the mention of Shikarpoor in other places where it had been introduced from his paper of requests; but he seemed to set great value on his claim to Shikarpoor and the Sindh possessions generally. The Ameers, he observed, had no legitimate title to their dominions but what they derived from him. Shikarpoor, he said, he was particularly desirous to obtain possession of, as being an appropriate place of refuge and escape for his family in case of reverses; but he ultimately admitted that the object would be sufficiently secured to him so long as the British influence prevailed with the Ameers.”—[MS. Records.]
[243] “On the very delicate subject introduced into the last article, I observed to his Majesty that its connexion with the treaty generally did not seem to me to be obvious, but that I would nevertheless bring it to the notice of the Governor-General, who would, I felt persuaded, take it into consideration with the same anxious desire to gratify his Majesty in this as in all other matters.”—[MS. Records.]
[244] MS. Records.
[245] Mr. Macnaghten to Government, July 17, 1838: MS. Records.