tiong
Chap. XII. J ('LIYE'8 .IA(JH1I{K. tioi)
It is impossible to doubt that the nabob was right when he said that the a.d. iiyj
([uit-rent was the jaghire which woidJ least interfere with his government. In fact Juggut Seit, wlien he suggested it, must have had a shrewd suspicion that no part of the ciuit-rent would ever be brought into the Moorshedabad treasury. <^je<=«'" The nabob was already owing the Company far more than he was able to pay; jagiure. and therefore, had he retained the right to it, it would only have been to .see it mentioned as a sum which the Company had retained in their own hands as a reduction p7'0 taiito of their debt. To him, therefore, it was utterly worthless as a source of revenue, and he lost nothing by parting with it. The case of the Company was so very different, that it is difficult to understand what the nabob meant when he said that it was the jaghire which " stood the clearest in relation to the Company's affairs.' On the contrary, it would be easy to show that the transference of the quit-rent to one of tiieir servants placed them in a fai- worse position than before. So long as the quit-rent was payable to the nabob, they could always use it as a set-ofF against him. It was of the nature of a security, which they could always make available for the repayment of their advances. But the moment it was validly transferred to Clive, or any other British subject, the pa^Muent of it covdd be enforced in the British courts of law like any other debt. Its character was thus entirely changed, and its value as a security was entii'ely lost. On this ground alone the Company miglit Avell object to the con- version of the quit-rent into what was called Clive's jaghire. But there were other con.siderations which, without affecting the legality of the jaghire, showed it to be at the least unseemly and inexpedient. The Company might, without any loss of dignity, consent to hold their ceded lands under the Nabob of Bengal, but was it fair or becoming to set a new landlord over their heads, and make them the tenants of one of their own servants? It ought always to have been recollected, that however great Clive's services might have been, they were really the services of those who had employed him, and that therefore, if the nabob was in a ))osition to renounce the quit-rent, the renunciation ought to have been made in the Company's favour. It deserves also to be observed, that at tiie time when the jaghire was granted the government of Bengal could not be con.sidered as settled. One great revolution had already taken place, and others to all ap- pearance could not be distant. Was it not more than probable that ere long the country which was already virtually ruled by the Company would be actually ti'aiisferred to them? In that case the (piit-i-ent would necessarily fall. With what decency or justice, then, could any one attempt during this interval of transition to bind it down upon them as a permanent burden, to be made effectual if necessary by a decree of the Court of Chancery? The estimated value of
the jagliiro.
annual value of the jaghire was about £30,000. Tiiis, at ten years' purchase, is £300,000 ; and thus, for the services of less than three years in Bengal, Clive had received, in addition to his ordinary pay and emoluments, considerably more than £500,000 sterling.
