failure of heirs whatsoever, or where permission is asked to continue by adoption or succession which fails in the natural line.

Source.-(iii) Letter written by Sir W. Sleeman to Sir James Weir Hogg, dated January 12, 1853, "Journey through the Kingdom of Oude." Vol. II., pp. 390-1. (Bentley.)

I write chiefly to call your attention to a rabid article in the Friend of India, written by Mr. Marshman, when about to proceed to England to become, it is said, one of the writers in the London Times. Of course, he will be engaged to write Indian articles; and you will find him advocating the doctrines of the school mentioned in my last letter. I consider their doctrines to be prejudicial to the stability of our rule in India, and to the welfare of the people, which depends upon it. The Court of Directors is our only safeguard against these Machiavellian doctrines; and it may be rendered too powerless to stem them by the new arrangement for the Government of India. The objects which they propose for attainment-religion, commerce, etc., are plausible; and the false logic by which they attempt to justify the means required to attain them, however base and cruel, is no less so. I was asked by Dr. Duff, the Editor of the Calcutta Review, to write some articles for that journal, to expose the fallacies, and to counteract the influences of the doctrines of this school; but I have for many years ceased to contribute to the periodical papers, and have felt bound by my position not to write for them. Few officers of experience, with my feelings and opinions on this subject, now remain in India; and the influence of this school is too great over the rising generation, whose hopes and aspirations they tend so much to encourage. Mr. Elphinstone, Mr. Robertson, and George Clark will be able to explain their danger to you. India must look to the Court of Directors alone for safety against them, and they will require the exertion of all its wisdom and strength.

Mr. Robertson will be able to tell you that, when I was sent to Bundelcund, in 1842, the feelings of the people of that province were so strongly against us, under the operation of the doctrines of this school, that no European officer could venture, with safety, beyond the boundary of a cantonment of British troops; and their servants were obliged to disguise themselves in order to pass from one cantonment to another. In a brief period, I created a feeling entirely different, and made the character of British officers respected and beloved. In the Gwalior territories the same result was attained by the same means. However impulsive on other occasions, Lord Ellenborough behaved magnanimously after his victories over the Gwalior troops; but in sparing the state, he acted, I believe, against the feelings of

E

his Council, amongst whom the doctrines of the absorbing, annexing, and confiscating school prevailed; and the Friend of India condemned him, though the invasion was never justified, except on the ground of expediency. Had I, on these occasions, adopted the doctrines of the absorbing school, I might have become one of the most popular and influential men in India; but I should, at the same time, have rendered our rule and character odious to the people of India, and so far have injured our permanent interest in the country. I mention all this merely to show that my opposition to the doctrines of this school is not new, nor in theory only, but of long standing and practice, as far as my influence has extended. I deem them to be dangerous to our rule in India, and prejudicial to the best interests of the country. The people see that these annexations and confiscations go on, and that rewards and honorary distinctions are given for them, and for the victories which lead to them, and for little else; and they are too apt to infer that they are systematic, and encouraged and prescribed from home. The native states I consider to be breakwaters, and when they are all swept away, we shall be left to the mercy of our native army, which may not always be sufficiently under our control. Such a feeling as that which pervaded Bundelcund and Gwalior in 1842 and 1843, must, sooner or later, pervade all India, if these doctrines are carried out to their full extent; and our rule could not, probably, exist under it.

The doctrine of lapse in its most uncompromising form is defined in the following words of Lord Dalhousie : 1-" I hold that on all occasions when heirs natural shall fail, the territory should be made to lapse and adoption should not be permitted, excepting in those cases in which some strong political reason may render it expedient to depart from this general rule." In spite of this general dictum the actual policy was that of restricted application. In reviewing the course of events in 1854 Lord Dalhousie wrote on June 13 :

1 Minute dated August 30, 1848.

If a

cp. "From time immemorial, the adoption of heirs in default of natural issue has been the common custom of the Hindus. man have no son it is an imperative article in his religious belief that he should adopt one, because it is only through the ceremonies and offerings of a son that the soul of the father can be released from put, which seems to be the Brahmanical term for purgatory. The adopted child succeeds to every hereditary right, and is treated in every respect as if lawfully begotten."-Montgomery Martin, “The Indian Empire," Vol. II., p. 38.

"I had a definite principle of distinction in my mind, and I think it is a sound one. There are three chief classes of Hindu states in India.

Ist. Hindu sovereignties which are not tributaries, and which are not and never have been subordinate to a paramount power.

2nd. Hindu sovereignties and chiefships which are tributary, and which owe subordination to the British Government as their paramount, in the place of the Emperor of Delhi, the Peishwa, etc. 3rd. Hindu sovereignties and chiefships created or revived by the sanad (grant) of the British Government.

66

Over principalities of the first class I contend we have no power whatever, and have no right, except that of might, over their adoptions.

Principalities of the second class require our assent to adoption, which we have a right to refuse, but which policy would usually lead us to concede.

'In the principalities of the third class I hold that succession should never be allowed to go by adoption."

In pursuance of this doctrine seven states were annexed. These were Satara, Jaitpur, Sambalpur, Baghat, Udaipur, Jhansi, and Nagpur. Lord Dalhousie also proposed to apply this doctrine to Karauli, but was overruled by the Court of Directors. The cases which gave rise to the greatest amount of criticism were those of Satara, Jhansi, and Nagpur.

The kingdom of Satara was a dependent state created as an act of policy by British sanad in 1819. Its ruler, Pertab Singh, was deported to Benares in 1839 for intriguing against the British and negotiating with Nagpur and Goa. The kingdom which might then have been resumed was given to Shahuji or Appa Sahib, a brother of the ex-king. Pertab Singh died at Benares in 1847, having adopted a son recognised neither by the British Government nor by the Rajah of Satara. Appa Sahib died soon afterwards, in 1848, having adopted a son on his deathbed. Lord Dalhousie referred the matter to the Government of Bombay, which advocated annexation. The GovernorGeneral recorded in a minute that "both as a matter of right and as an act of sound policy, the British Government ought to refuse its assent to adoption and should annex Satara." He recognised the right of the adopted son to succeed to the private property of the Rajah, and also supported the claim of the family to a liberal pension.

The Court of Directors supported him in this policy very warmly. "The result of our deliberations," they wrote, "is that we are fully satisfied that by the general law and custom of India, a dependent principality like that of Satara cannot pass to an adopted heir without the consent of the paramount power; that we are under no pledge, direct or constructive, to give such consent; and that the general interests committed to our charge are best consulted by withholding it." 1

The case of Jhansi arose in 1854, and is rendered famous by the fearless leadership of the mutineers assumed by the Rani Lakshmibai during 1857. The treaty with Jhansi dated from 1817, rendering Jhansi a protected state. Rao Ramchand, who was then Rajah, died in 1835 without a son and heir. His uncle, a leper, was placed on the throne in preference to a son adopted by the late king on his deathbed. He proved a very inefficient ruler. On his death, three years later, his brother, Gangadhar Rao, was allowed to succeed him, but he was found quite unfit to rule, and the kingdom was administered for him by the British till November, 1853, when he died. He had adopted a son a day before his death. Lord Dalhousie dealt with the question in a minute dated February 27, 1854.

There is no heir," he wrote, "of the body of the late Rajah-there is no heir whatever of any Rajah or Subadar of Jhansi with whom the British Government has at any time had relations; the late Rajah was never expected by his own people to adopt, and a previous adoption by the Rajah, whom the British Government constituted hereditary chief of Jhansi, was not acknowledged by the British Government. Wherefore it follows that the right to refuse to acknowledge the present adoption by Gangadhar Rao is placed beyond question." It was further argued that there would be a great advantage as the state was situated in the middle of British territories. And it was clear that the people would benefit from the advantage of progressive and firm government.

The annexation of Nagpur brought the largest and 1 Despatch of the Court of Directors, dated January 24, 1849.

richest piece of territorial accession under Lord Dalhousie's rule by the application of the doctrine of lapse. The rulers of Nagpur had tried the fair field of arms with the British and had been vanquished at Assaye and Argaon. The King Appa Sahib was ambitious to restore the kingdom to its former glory. He conspired with Gwalior and the Pindaris and attacked the Residency in 1817. In spite of his defeat he was restored, but his persistence in anti-British designs led in 1818 to his being exiled. This prize of victory was not appropriated but restored to a child, Raghuji II. There was a treaty in 1826 which rendered Nagpur a dependent state. The Rajah, Raghuji II., died in 1853 without any natural heirs, nor had he adopted a son. Lord Dalhousie decided to annex the state, not only because the political and geographical position of Nagpur would add great strength to the Company's rule and good facilities for improved communication, but because the British Government were within their right in refusing to continue a state which had proved so unfriendly in the past.