u/necessarydisplay

Letter from Charles II, Dated 27 March 1668, Granting Ports and Islands of Bombay to EIC.

Letter from Charles II, Dated 27 March 1668, Granting Ports and Islands of Bombay to EIC.

"The document of which we here reproduce the first sheet recites the cession of the island by “Our good brother the King of Portugall” and after noting the fact that it lies within the sphere of the Company’s operations, as defined in their recent charter, goes on to declare that, out of his earnest desire to encourage the said Company in their difficult and hazardous trade and traffic in those remote parts of the world, His Majesty grants them the whole of his rights in the said port and island of Bombay, and constitutes them “the true and absolute Lords and Proprietors” thereof, “to be holden of Us, our heires and Successors, as of the mannor of East Greenwich in our County of Kent, in free and common Soccage, and not in Capite nor by Knights service, yeilding and paying therefore to Us, our heires and Successors, at the Custome House, London, the rent or summe of tenn pounds of lawfull money of England, in gold, on the thirtyeth day of September yearely for ever.”

Provision is made that the rights of the existing inhabitants shall be respected and that they shall be allowed (as required by the Anglo-Portuguese treaty) the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion; also that the Company shall not sell or part with any portion of the island to a foreign state or individual. All warlike stores, ships, merchandise, cattle, etc., now on the island are freely bestowed on the Company, who are charged to fit out one or more vessels as soon as possible to take possession.

The salaries and wages of the garrison, as well as all charges of government, are to be paid by the Crown up to the time of the actual transfer; but should the Company fail to take possession before Michaelmas, 1668, the cost from that date is to fall upon them. Permission is given to enlist as many of the officers and men of the present garrison as may be willing to remain, the rest to be brought home at the expense of the Company. The latter may, at any of their General Courts, enact laws for the good government of the island and impose penalties for their infraction.

The Governors or other officers appointed by them are authorized to repel by force any attack upon the island, and to exercise martial law in cases of necessity. By another clause it is declared that all British subjects dwelling at Bombay, and all their children and posterity, shall enjoy as full privileges and liberties as if they had been abiding or born in England. And finally the powers hereby conferred on the Company are extended to any other settlements or possessions which they shall thereafter acquire.

Under the terms of this grant Bombay was taken over by the Company’s representative on September 23, 1668."

------------------------

Excerpt taken from Relics of the hon. East India Company by William Griggs.

u/necessarydisplay — 2 days ago

Why did Snape never leave Spinner’s End?

Snape had no love for his father and no nostalgia for his childhood abuse. Later, he could have easily afforded a nicer home in a better location.

Instead, he stayed in a derelict house in a dying mill town. It feels like he was intentionally surrounding himself with his own trauma. Do you think he stayed there out of a sense of penance, or was there a tactical advantage to it?

Do share any theories or headcanons!

Edit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/s/Wuv3gLW2tg

Found an old comment containing the Galleon-to-pound conversion calculations

Edit 2: Thank You for all the replies, but I have a few more questions.😅 Does anyone know if Eileen and Tobias were still alive when he joined Death Eaters?

Did Eileen ever try to stop him from joining?

and importantly How did a Witch end up in a broken abusive marriage with a Muggle?

Would love to hear any headcanons or ideas!🙃

reddit.com
u/necessarydisplay — 7 days ago

Looking for more context on this 1626 David Davies sketch of Bombay. Can anyone tell me more about the raid, the circumstances, or the history behind this map?

Thank You!

u/necessarydisplay — 11 days ago

Crawling Order

By 1919, Punjab was characterized by significant socio-economic instability. Despite India contributing approximately 1.3 million personnel to the British war effort, the region faced high inflation, heavy taxation, and the impact of the 1918 influenza pandemic. The enactment of the repressive Rowlatt Act, limiting civil liberties, attempting to crush dissent, served as the catalyst for widespread political unrest. On April 11, 1919 Marcella Sherwood, a British missionary was attacked by rioters while cycling in the lane, she was rescued by some local Indians, who hid her from the mob. Thereafter, Amritsar’s Kucha Kurrichhan became a focal point for the subsequent military response. 

On April 13, under the belief that an insurrection was imminent, Dyer banned public meetings, a notice many citizens never received. During the Baisakhi festival, thousands gathered peacefully at Jallianwala Bagh. Many who were present were merely passing through the Bagh on their way home. Without warning, Dyer blocked the exits and ordered his troops to fire into the densest parts of the crowd for ten minutes. Dyer later admitted his goal was "not to disperse the meeting but to punish the Indians for disobedience" 

Dyer's Statement

National Army Museum

Rituals of Humiliation: The Crawling Order 

Six days later, Dyer issued the Crawling Order. The street where Ms. Sherwood had been attacked was sealed off, and any Indian wishing to pass through was forced to crawl on their belly. During the Hunter Commission, Dyer justified this by stating:

“Some Indians crawl face downwards in front of their gods. I wanted them to know that a British woman is as sacred…”

https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/dyer-consequence/cid/1829351 

The Political Response and the Hansard Record (The Illusion of Accountability)

The British government's official reaction, as recorded in the July 1920 House of Commons session shows a strategic effort to categorize the event as an anomaly. Winston Churchill described the massacre as:

"An extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation."

Hansard Records: Army and General Dyer

This rhetoric aimed to frame the violence as "without precedent" in the history of the Empire to maintain the legitimacy of British law.

Hansard: Jallianwala Bagh Debate

Institutional vs. Public Outcomes 

While the House of Commons voted to remove Dyer from his appointment, the House of Lords passed a motion in his support. 

Moved, to resolve, "That this House deplores the conduct of the case of General Dyer as unjust to that officer, and as establishing a precedent dangerous to the preservation of order in face of rebellion."— (Viscount Finlay.)

Hansard: House of Lords

Dyer was never tried for murder. Instead, he was forced into a retirement funded by the British public. The Morning Post launched a fundraiser titled The Man Who Saved India, collecting £26,000 ensuring a comfortable retirement.

Related Links-

Medium Article

Jallianwala Bagh Wiki

Related Article: How a newspaper collected funds for Dyer

Rudyard Kipling donates to the Dyer Fund

Note: This post is a compilation of primary and secondary source materials, including Hansard records and National Army Museum archives. Given the depth of this subject, I welcome any factual corrections or additional context from those more familiar with the subject.

reddit.com
u/necessarydisplay — 19 days ago