changed. At first, the palace was guarded by the Sayyads' most trusted soldiers, and all offices within it were held by their nominees. On the 14th Jamādī I (3rd May, 1719) a concession to propriety was so far made that the hereditary doorkeepers and palace servants were allowed to returu to duty. But the change was more nominal than real. It is asserted that even then the Emperor's meals were not served without the express order of his tutor, Himmat Khān, a Bārhah Sayyad. The young Emperor was allowed little liberty, and in his short reign he seldom left the palace. He visited Qutb-ul-mulk on the 19th Jamādi I (8th April, 1719) at his house in the Moti Bagh, to condole with him on the death of a daughter. He paid another visit to Husain ‘Ali Khan on the 14th Jamādī II (3rd May, 1719); and he also went on one hunting expedition to Shakkarpur (24th Jamādi I, 3rd April).1

'

In addition to keeping the strictest watch over Rafi'-ud-darajāt, the Sayyads' conduct was in other respects indecorous and reprehensible. Qutb-ul-mulk, a man of pleasure, not content with a harem already filled with women collected from far and near, carried off two or three of the most beautiful women from the imperial harem. One writer, Khushḥāl Cand, makes a still more scandalous accusation against him. Through Ṣadr-un-nissa, head of the harem, he sent a message to 'Inayat Bāno, the Emperor's wife, that he had fallen in love with her. The go-between executed her task, only to meet with an absolute refusal. Again she was sent to urge his suit; "like a longing lover, he was fast bound by the long curling locks of that fairy." "Inayat Bāno writhed at the insult, undid her hair, which was over a yard long, cut it off, and threw it in the face of her tempter. The younger The younger brother's sin being pride, he displayed his disrespect in another manner. day he was present alone with Rafi'-ud-darajāt in his private chapel (tasbiḥkhānah). The Emperor sat down on his chair. At once, without waiting for permission, Husain 'Ali Khan, sat down in front of him.3 Highly-placed orientals are rarely at fault on such occasions, and Rafi'ud-darajāt showed his usual readiness at rebuking an affront. Stretching out his feet in the direction of Husain 'Ali Khan, he said: "Draw

1 Kāmwar Khan, 200, Siwāniḥ-i-Khizrī.

One

* In spite of the evidence of Khūshḥāl Cand, a contemporary and a resident of Dihlī, I fear that this story about the princess' cutting off her hair, must be treated as what lawyers call " common form." It is also related by N. Manucci, Phillips MS. No. 1945, Part I, p. 261, in regard to Ra'nà Dil, one of the widows of Dārā Shukoh, when summoned to his harem by 'Alamgir.

3 No one sat in the Emperor's presence without his order or permission. Yabyā Khān, 127a, has a version of this story, but he ascribes it to Rafï'-ud-daulah.

off my stockings (mozah)." Although inwardly raging, Husain 'Ali Khần could do nothing else but comply.1

That the young man was not altogether devoid of sense, is proved by the story of a dispute that arose once between Qutb-ul-mulk and Rafi'-ud-darajāt. A warrant of appointment having been signed, next day the wazir brought a second order giving the same post to another nominee. The Emperor asked: "Is it the same village, or another with the same name?" He was told it was the same one, but this man was fit for the place and offered more than the other. The Emperor said it was foolishness to act like that, and threw the paper on the floor.%

SECTION 8.-THE EMPEROR'S DEPOSITION AND DEATH.

In the confusion and hurry attending his accession, no heed had been paid to the state of Rafi'-ud-darajāt's health. He was afterwards found to be far advanced in consumption, he was also addicted to the use of opium; and from the day that he ascended the throne, he became weaker and weaker. By the middle of Rajab (June) it was evident that his days were numbered. He then told the Sayyads that if they would comply with his most earnest desire, and raise to the throne his elder brother, Rafi'-ud-daulah, he should die happy. Accordingly on the 17th Rajab (4th June 1719) Rafi'-ud-darajat was deposed and sent back into the harem. Two days afterwards (6th June, 1719), Rafi'-uddaulah was seated on the throne in the Public Audience-hall within the palace at Dihli. On the 24th Rajab (11th June, 1719) Rafi'-uddarajat expired, and was buried near the shrine of Khwajah Qutb-uddin.8

APPENDIX (Rafī‘-ud-darajāt).

Age. At his death Rafi'-ud-darajāt was about twenty years of age; the words wāris-i-tāj (1111 H.), "heir to the crown," giving the year of his birth, Khāfi Khan, II, 816. The Jam-i-Jam gives the precise date as the 8th Jamādī II, 1111 H. (30th November, 1699); Mirzā Muḥammad, Tārīkh-i-Muḥammadi, declares that he was only sixteen or seventeen years of age at his death. A chronogram for that event is :— Cūn jān-i-Shahanshāh Rafi'-ud-darajāt

Rah just ba sayah-i-nihāl-i-ṭūbā,

Rizwān ba dar-i-bihisht iqdām kunān

Guftā: “khuld-i-barīn magām o māwā.”

1 Khāfi Khān, II, 821, Khushḥal Cand, B.M. MS. No. 3288, fol. 415a.

2 Yahya Khan, 1276.

3 Wärid, 159a, Tārīkh-i-Muzaffarī, 165.

"When the soul of the Lord of Lords, Rafi'-ud-darajat
Sought the shade of the tree of goodness,

Rizwan greeting him at the gate of Paradise

"Cried: 'Most blessed of abodes and asylums.'

(Jām-i-Jam, and Miftaḥ, 304).

Reign. He reigned from his accession on the 9th Rabi' II to his deposition on the 17th Rajab 1131 H., for a period of three months and nine days.

Titles. His style and title as Emperor was Abū-l-barakāt, Sultān Shams-ud-din, Muḥammad Rafi'-ud-darajat, Badshah, Ghāzi. (Mirzā Muḥammad, Tazkirah, 470).

Coin.-The distich placed upon his coin was:

Zad sikkah ba Hind bā hazārān barakāt
Shāhan-shāh-i-baḥr-o-bar, Rafi-ud-darajat.

"Coin was struck in Hind, with a thousand blessings,

"By the king of kings on land and sea, Rafi'-ud-darajat."

But on the second day of the reign Qutb-ul-mulk called on Fatḥ Khan, Fazil, to provide a couplet which should allow of a different word for gold coins (ashrafi) and silver coins (rupees), as was the case with 'Alamgir's coinage. The poet on the spur of the moment produced the following lines:

On the rupee the word badr (moon) was substituted for mihr (sun). It is not known whether these lines were ever actually brought into use, as we have no coin on which they appear; but there is another variant on one coin in the Lahore Museum:

Sikkah-i-mübārik-i-bādshāh-i-ghāzi, Rafi'-ud-darajāt.1

There are twenty-three coins of this reign in the three public collections at London, Calcutta, and Lahore; four of gold and nineteen of silver, all circular in shape. All except one are dated according to the Hijra or the regnal year, or both. All except one coin can be classed under the subahs in which their place of mintage was situated. These twenty-two coins belong to ten mints in eight out of the twenty-one provinces; Kashmir, Taṭṭhah, Ajmer, Gujarāt, Malwah, Bengal, Orissa and the six Dakhin şubahs being unrepresented. The number of coins

1 British Museum Catalogue, p. 372, Lahore Museum Catalogue, p. 206, Kāmwar Khan, 197, Mirza Muḥammad, 470.

J. 1. 6

from each mint is: Kabul (1), Lahor (4), Multan (1), Shāhjahānābād (5), Akbarābād (5), Gwaliyār (1), Iṭāwah (2), Mu'azzamābād, i.e., Audh (1), Kora (1), Patnah (1). It is curious that in such a short reign a distant province like Kabul should have issued any coin; but the other places were well within control of the court. In the gold coins the weights are 160, 168, 169, and 169.5 grains, and the diameters •77, 8, 85, and '94 of an inch. For the silver coins the weight and the diameter are respectively 172 (2), 173 (4), 174 (1), 174.5 (2), 175 (5), 176 (2), 177 (1), 178 (1), and 179 (1), grains, and 82 (1), '85 (2), •90 (5), 95 (5), 96 (1), '97 (1), 1·0 (3), 1·03 (1) of an inch. Mr. M. Longworth Dames ("Numismatic Chronicle," Fourth Series, II, 275309) has three coins of this reign; adding thereby two more mints to the above, viz., Burhanpur and Sihrind.

Family. The only reference to Rafi'-ud-darajāt's wife or wives is to be found in the story given a page or two back, from which we learn the name of one wife, 'Inayat Bāno. He seems to have left no children. One notable point about him was his descent on both sides from 'Alamgir, his mother being the daughter of prince Akbar, that monarch's fourth son. With such an ancestry it is strange that he did not display more of the energy and ability characteristic of the earlier generations of his house.

CHAPTER VI.-RAFI'-UD-DAULAH (1719).

SECTION 1.-THE ACCESSION.

On the 19th Rajab 1131 H. (6th June, 1719), Rafi'-ud-daulah, middle son of Prince Rafi'-ush-shān, third son of Bahadur Shāh, ascended the throne in the audience-hall at Dihli in succession to his brother, Rafi'-ud-darajāt. He was eighteen months older than his predecessor. He received the title of Shahjahan Ṣāni, or the second Shahjahān. At his accession no changes took place, except the insertion of his name on the coin and in the Friday prayer. He remained like his brother in the hands of Qutb-ul-mulk's nominees. His coming out and going in, his appearances in the audience-hall, what he ate and what he wore, his every act was under the control of Himmat Khan, Bārhah. He was not allowed to attend the public prayers on Friday, to go hunting, or to converse with any noble, unless one of the two Sayyads or his guardian was present. His first formal audience was held in the ramnah or hunting preserve of Khizrābād on the 24th Rajab (11th June, 1719) when the generals appointed for duty at Agrah were presented and took their leave. After this the Khutbah was read at the great

mosque in the new Emperor's presence on the 26th of the same month (13th June, 1719).1

SECTION 2.-RISING OF SHAISTAH KHAN at DIHLI.

Shaistah Khan, maternal uncle of the late Emperor, Farrukhsiyar, was naturally discontented with the new régime, and at the instigation of Rājah Jai Singh, began to collect soldiers, with the intention of escaping from Dihli and joining the Rajah, then on his march to the assistance of Nekusiyar. Meanwhile he kept the Rajah well informed of all that was going on at Dihli. Khan Daurān, (Khwājah Aʻşim) and other great men attempted to dissuade Shāistah Khān from this dangerous course. He paid no heed to them and continued his preparations. Then by accident a letter addressed by him to Rajah Jai Singh fell into the hands of Husain 'Ali Khan. By this time the malcontent was reported to have collected seven or eight thousand men. 3

On the 23rd Rajab 1131 H. (10th June, 1719), Zafar Khan and Nāhar Khan, Hansawi were sent against Shaistah Khan with a strong force. They stormed his mansion and, taking him a prisoner, conveyed him to Husain 'Ali Khan then at Barahpulah, where he had been encamped since the 7th Rajab, (25th May, 1719). Shaistah Khan's property in cash and goods, his horses and his elephants, his cows and his asses, were given up to plunder. This incident aroused suspicions in the Sayyads' hearts with regard to many other of the nobles. But at

1 Kāmwar Khan, 203. Khāfi Khān, II, 831, fixes the 20th Rajab for the accession, perhaps to suit his chronogram: Shambah bistam-i-mah-i-Rajab būd, (1131 H.). Nor was it possible for the 20th to have fallen on a Saturday; it was either a Wednesday or a Thursday. The author of the Risalah-i-Muḥammad Shāh, B. M. Or. Ms. No. 180, fol. 75, says he composed two tārikh for the accession. The first is the same as that claimed by Khāfi Khan as his own.

The other is :

Pāe ‘adū afgand Shāh Rafi'-ul-qadr, Rafi'-ud-daulah.

This is, he tells us, a ta'amah, giving 6 in excess, but if the foot (pãe) of 'adu, i.e., the letter " waw " (=6) is thrown out (afgand) we get the exact date. But on adding up the figures, I make them come to 1431 instead of 1131. The Khizrābād referred to is about five miles south of the new city or Shahjahānābād, and near the Jamnah river.

2 Khwajah 'Ināyatullah, Kashmīrī, entitled Shäistah Khan, died early in Rajab 1141 H. (January, February, 1729,) at Shāhjahānābād, Tārīkḥ-i-Mḥdi.

% Khāfi Khăn, II, 831, Kāmwar Khan, 204, and Sirvānih-i-Khi n

4 That is "native of Hansi. He was either a Ranghar (a Mahomedan Rajput) or a Khānzādah. Possibly he is identical with the Nahar Khan, Shekhzādah, of Hānsī, mentioned as faujdar of Dholkah in Gujarāt, see Kamwar Khan, p, 200, entry of 24th Jamādi I, 1131 H. Kām Rāj, ‘Ibratnāmah, 69a, says S. Dilawar 'Al Khân, Bakhshĩ of the wazir, was also sent against Shaistah Khăn.