restored to Shams-ud-din in lieu of a fixed sum of twenty-six
thousand rupees a year to be paid by him annually to his two younger
brothers. This proposal was made on the ground that Amin-ud-din could
not collect the revenues from the refractory landholders (instigated,
no doubt, by the emissaries of Shams-ud-din), and consequently could
not pay his younger brother's revenue into the treasury. In
calculating the annual net revenue of 10,420 rupees, 15,000 of the
_gross_ revenue had been estimated as the annual expenses of the
mutual [_sic_] establishments of the two brothers. To the arrangement
proposed by Mr. Martin the younger brothers strongly objected; and
proposed in preference to make over the pargana to the British
Government, on condition of receiving the net revenue, whatever might
be the amount. Mr. Martin was desired by the Governor-General to
effect this arrangement, should Amin-ud-din appear still to wish it;
but he preferred retaining the management of it in his own hands, in
the hope that circumstances would improve.

Shams-ud-din, however, pressed his claim to the restoration of the
pargana so often that it was at last, in September, 1833, insisted
upon by Government, on the ground that Amin-ud-din had failed to
fulfil that article of the agreement which bound him to pay annually
into the Delhi treasury 5,210 rupees for his younger brother, though
that brother had never complained; on the contrary, lived with him on
the best possible terms, and was as averse as himself to the
retransfer of the pargana, on condition that they gave up their
claims to a large share of the movable property of their late father,
which had been already decided in their favour in the court of first
instance. Mr. W. Fraser, who had succeeded to the office of Governor-
General's representative in the Delhi Territories, remonstrated
strongly against this measure; and wished to bring it again under the
consideration of Government; on the grounds that Zia-ud-din had never
made any complaint against his brother Amin-ud-din for want of
punctuality in the payment of his share of the net revenue after the
payment of their mutual establishments; that the two brothers would
be deprived by this measure of an hereditary estate to the value of
sixty thousand rupees a year in perpetuity, burthened with the
condition that they relinquished a suit already gained in the court
of first instance, and likely to be gained in appeal, involving a sum