Captain Lockett selected one pair, which he accepted, and placed, as
usual, in the Resident's Toshuk-khana.
When he signed the paper he remarked the omission of all mention of
Eesa Meean's associates in that document, but did not consider it to
be his duty to point out the oversight, lest it might increase the
excitement, and prolong the angry discussions. In his report of the
circumstances to the Resident, however, he mentioned it to him, and
told him that the omission clearly arose from an oversight, and
unless his associates received the same indulgence as the principal,
Eesa Meean himself, their exclusion from the benefits of the
engagement might be attributed to decoit or artifice on his part. The
Resident concurred in this opinion, and in his report of the
following day to Government, he recommended that they should all be
considered as included in the engagement.
Government, in its reply of the 25th of June 1824, consents to this
construction of the written engagement, but notices a no less
important oversight on the part of the Resident and his Assistant, in
the free pardon given to Eesa Meean, for the share he had taken in
the Bareilly insurrection, which had caused the loss of so many lives
in April 1816. Government infers, that they could, neither of them
have been aware, that this ruffian was the original instigator and
most active leader in that formidable insurrection; that it was
chiefly, if not entirely, owing to his endeavours to inflame the
popular phrenzy, and to collect partizans from the neighbouring
towns, that the efforts of the local authorities, to quell or avert
the rising storm, failed wholly of success; that he stood charged as
a principal in the murder of Mr.
Pages:
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119