A History of the Mahrattas v2.c35.3

v2.c35.3

Three months afterwards, or on the 31st March, the Bombay Government further reported to Bengal their proceedings up to that date. But early in February intelligence of the siege of Tannah reached the Governor-General in Council, by the way of Tellicherry and Madras, before they received the reply from Bombay of the 31st December. The delay on the part of the Bombay Government certainly, to say the least, wore the semblance of a premeditated evasion, and, as new authority is generally tenacious, the Governor-General and Council addressed (1775.) another letter on the 3d February, censuring the Bombay Presidency for having gone to war with the Mahrattas, and peremptorily requiring immediate and special information of the causes and motives of their conduct. On the 21st May the Bombay Government received the reply to their first letter, of the 31st December, wherein the Supreme Government offered no opinion respecting the capture of Salsette, but disapproved of the intention of joining Rugoba, not because Rugoba was making war against his lawful prince and was generally obnoxious in the Mahratta country, or because the Bombay Government had unjustly espoused the cause of a man branded with the crime of murder; circumstances of which the Bombay Government, it is justice to them to say, were never well informed, and of which the Supreme Government were ignorant; but they disapproved because, to use their own words, ‘it was inconsistent with your negotiations with the ruling powers at Poona, and with the authority of this government.’ They also expressed apprehensions that the measure might involve them in hostilities with Sabajee Bhonslay, the enemy of Rugoba and their neighbour. To which the Bombay Government replied that they neither have, nor ever had any negotiations with the ministry at Poona, and that they need be under no apprehension in regard to Sabajee Bhonslay, as he had been killed in action by Moodajee, the friend of Rugoba, who was now the acknowledged guardian of Rughoojee and the ruler of Berar; all of which was perfectly true—victory had declared for Sabajee; Moodajee was surrounded by his brother’s troops; and on the point of being made prisoner, when Sabajee, in the exultation of the moment, drove his elephant up to that on which Moodajee was riding, and called out to him to submit. Moodajee replied by the discharge of a pistol, which laid his brother dead and left him undisputed regent and guardian of the young Rughoojee, who, it will be remembered, was his son.¹