Having thus described, in a general manner, the inhabitants and country of the territory subject to the chief of Gorkha, I shall now give a similar view of the form of government which existed under the petty chiefs, to whom it was formerly subject, and of the changes which have been introduced since its union under one head. I shall only premise a very just observation of Colonel Kirkpatrick, who says, {101} “that the government, taking its colour, for the most part, from the character and temporary views of the ruling individual, must necessarily be of too fugitive a nature to admit of any delineation equally applicable to all periods and circumstances.” This may serve to explain many differences between his account and mine, without supposing the information received by either to be erroneous. The management of affairs in all the petty states was in many points the same, and differed chiefly in the names applied to similar officers, and in the nature of the military establishment in the two countries to the east and west of the river Kali. I have already mentioned, that in the former the Hindu rules of purity and law had been established with much less rigour than in the latter; but, in other points, such as the names of officers, and the form of government, the eastern parts followed more nearly the ancient Hindu system, while the western more fully imitated the Muhammedans. In the parts east of the Kali, for each small territory or manor called a Gang, or, where these were small, for every two or three, there was an officer called an Umra Mokudum or Mahato, and over from ten to twenty gangs there was a higher officer named Desali or Chaudhuri, assisted by a Mujumdar or accountant. In cases of disputes or petty offences, one or other of these officers, called a kind of jury, (Pangchayit,) and endeavoured to settle the affair, so as to avoid farther trouble; but, if one or other of the parties was dissatisfied, he might go to the Raja’s court. There an officer, called Bichari in the east, and Darogah in the west, received an account of the affair from the parties, or from the inferior officers, and endeavoured to settle it. If, however, the cause was important, or required severe punishment, or if either of the parties insisted on it, the matter was referred by the Bichari to the minister of the Raja, called Karyi in the east, and Vazir in the west, either verbally or by petition, according to its importance. The minister communicated the affair to the Raja, who ordered the Bichari to try it by a Pangchayit. This kind of jury made a report, saying, that the parties were guilty of such or such a crime. The Raja then ordered whatever punishment he thought fit, but, in doing so, usually consulted an officer called Dharm’adhikar, or owner of justice, who pointed out the law.