THREE:During the absence of Major-General Smith Lord Lake maintained the bombardment of the fortress of Bhurtpore. As Holkar continued to hover near with a large body of cavalry, Lord Lake went in quest of him, and coming up with him, now again joined by Meer Khan and some bands of Pindarrees, he gave him a most crushing defeat on the 2nd of April, and drove him across the Chumbul river. On this, the Rajah of Bhurtpore consented to treat; and, on the 2nd of April, he agreed to surrender the fort of Deeg to the British till such time as they were satisfied of his fidelity; to renounce all connection with the enemies of Britain; to pay by instalments twenty lacs of Ferruckabad rupees; to surrender a portion of his territory, and deliver one of his sons as a hostage for the fulfilment of his engagements. This was settled on the 10th of April, and on the 21st Lord Lake went in quest of Scindiah and Holkar, who had united their forces. At his approach they retreated towards Ajmere. As the rainy season was approaching, Lord Lake returned, and quartered his troops at Agra, Muttra, and neighbouring towns. Lord Wellesley was now superseded in the government of India by Lord Cornwallis, who was averse from the system of extensive annexation which Lord Wellesley had pursued. But his own health was failing, and as he ascended the country in order to confer with Lord Lake on his future policy, he died at Ghazee-pure, near Benares, having returned to India only three months. Sir George Barlow assumed the direction of affairs till the appointment of a new Governor General; and as Lord Lake was of opinion that there could be no security till Holkar and Scindiah were driven over the Indus, it was resolved to carry out that object. Scindiah, however, came in and made peace, and Holkar went northward, boasting that he would cross the Indus, and then return with a new avalanche of Sikhs and Afghans, and sweep away the British forces. But the Sikhs, who wished both him and us away, refused all aid to Holkar, except to mediate for him. Even then he hung back, and made great difficulties about the conditions; but Lord Lake at last informed him that unless the treaty were signed by a certain day, he would cross the Sutlej and advance to attack him. This brought him to, and on the 7th of January, 1806, the treaty was duly signed by him. By it Holkar renounced all claims on Poonah and Bundelcund, and, indeed, on any territory on the northern bank of the Chumbul, as well as all claims on the British Government and its allies. On her part, Britain agreed to restore to him, eighteen months after the treaty, Chandore, Galnauh, and other forts and districts south of the Taptee and Godavery, provided he fulfilled his engagements, remained peaceful, and did not molest the territories of the Company and its allies. By the treaty with Scindiah, which was completed on the 23rd of November, that of Surjee Anjengaum, made by General Wellesley, was confirmed: to restore to him Gwalior and Gohud, with the right to resume them in case he violated the treaty. The river Chumbul was made his boundary. In exchange for certain jaghires, amounting to fifteen lacs of rupees annually, which had been granted to some of his officers by the former treaty, he received an annual pension of four lacs of rupees for himself, a jaghire, worth two lacs of rupees, for his wife, and another, worth one lac, for his daughter. As for his father-in-law, Surjee-Row-Gautkaa man most hostile to the British, and who was supposed to have stimulated both Scindiah and Holkar to their late warhe was bound, like Holkar, not to admit him again to his counsels or service. No interference was made with his conquests between the rivers Chumbul and Taptee, nor with his arrangements with his tributary chiefs in Mewar and Marwar; but, on the other hand, he was required not to take into his service any Europeans, without consent of the British. French officers, indeed, who had served under M. Perron, were found to have directed the defence of the hill forts in this campaign, greatly to our damage.The history of Hume was much over-estimated in his own time, in spite of the despotic notions which abound in it. It was held up as a marvel of eloquence and acuteness. But after times always correct the enthusiasm of contemporaries, and Hume's history has been found not in every case trustworthy. When we now, indeed, take up Hume, we are surprised to find it a very plain, clear narrative of events, with many oversights and perversions, and nothing more. We wonder where are the transcendent beauties which threw our readers of the eighteenth century into raptures for which language scarcely gave expression. Whoever will read the correspondence of contemporaries with Hume, will find him eulogised rather as a demi-god than a man, and his works described in extravagant strains of praise.
