sovereignty, which "has come to a natural end. I think it would be unwise to seek to restore it by unusual means. The family should be treated with great liberality and kindness. Every fair degree of consideration should be shown to the place which was the seat of a native sovereignty. But the province should be incorporated in form, as it has long been in fact, with the dominions of the British Crown; and the revenues should be applied in such manner as will best promote the public good." It was not the fault of the Governor-General that his liberal intentions towards the family were not carried out after his departure. With the seizure of the personal and private property of the Ranis he had nothing to do; and if closer attention had been given to dates and facts, it is difficult to believe that any writer would have been guilty of the bitter remarks which have imputed to him-"resort to the technicalities of the law courts," and "a steady policy of seizing every chance of aggrandisement." Be that as it may, the reader has now before him the grounds on which Lord Dalhousie acted in dealing with titular sovereignties, the decisions of the Court of Directors, the object-lesson afforded by Delhi, and the subsequent confirmation by Secretaries of State of acts done by the Presidents of the Board or the Court to whose joint authorities they have succeeded.

This is perhaps the proper place to refer to one other decision passed in 1851, that which put an end to the allowance given to the late Peshwa, Baji Rao, who for more than a quarter of a century had drawn the splendid life-pension of eight hundred thousand rupees, which Sir John Malcolm had too liberally granted, and from it and from the proceeds of his landed estate had accumulated immense savings.

On his death, there was no question of maintaining the dignity of an ex-Peshwa, but the Commissioner had recommended a continuance of a portion of the princely pension to an adopted son called Dondu Pant, the notorious Nana Sahib, and the LieutenantGovernor had expressed an opinion adverse to that of his subordinate. On the 19th of February, 1851, Lord Dalhousie wrote to inform Hobhouse that he did not intend to be misled by sentiment, and Hobhouse, who in the meantime had become Lord Broughton, expressed no dissent. Yet Kaye describes the action of Lord Dalhousie as "harsh," and Arnold seems to regard it as "grasping." There is no reason to doubt that the Peshwa's allowance was personal, and it is equally certain that the Bithur estate was continued rent free to the Nana Sahib, whose subsequent misuse of his resources might be quoted in justification of the Governor-General's decision. Lord Dalhousie's reasons, however, may be left to carry their own conviction as recorded on the 15th of September, 1851

In thirty-three years the Peshwa received the enormous sum of more than two and a half millions sterling. He had no charges to maintain, no sons of his own, and has bequeathed twenty-eight lacs. to his family. Those who remain have no claim whatever on the consideration of the British Government. They have no claim on its charity, because the income left to them is amply sufficient for them.

CHAPTER V

ANNEXATIONS BY LAPSE

General policy of non-interference-Issues raised by annexations-Lord Auckland's declaration in 1842-Views of the home authoritiesThe "law of lapse" explained-Sir C. Wood's views as to successions in independent states-Lord Dalhousie's principles of annexation— Strictly limited to Hindu dependent states-Hobhouse suggests annexation of Satara-History of that state-Views of the Bombay Government-Lord Dalhousie proposes and Court of Directors approve annexation-Question raised in Parliament-Misleading passage in Lord Dalhousie's Satara minute-Annexation of Jaitpur and Jhansi-Sambalpur annexed and misgoverned-Baghat annexed, but re-granted after the mutiny-Udaipur treated as a lapse, but afterwards added to Sarguja-Lord Dalhousie's mistake in treating Karauli as a dependent state-But his decision as to the succession correct-Annexation of Nagpur-Liberal treatment of the late ruling family-The Bhosla fund.

THE account given in the last chapter will have explained and illustrated the excessive regard which Lord Dalhousie had for the sovereign rights of the rulers of protected Native States. He called them "independent," and he treated them as such, allowing them to remain uncontrolled by those frequent engagements which his successors have found necessary, and carrying his doctrine of non-interference to the limit of allowing civil war in Bahawalpur. When their chiefs inflicted injuries upon the Company's Government the means of redress to which he resorted were those recognised by the law of

VOL. II

145

L

nations. Rulers who took the sword had only themselves to blame for the consequences. If kingdoms like Lahore and Pegu had provoked conquest and suffered the penalty of annexation, smaller chieftains like the sons of Tularam who violated good faith could not expect to be forgiven. The policy of non-interference could only be upheld by strictness in punishing flagrant rupture of treaties or engagements. On the other hand, when the Nizam became deeply indebted to the Company, ample time was given to him to meet his liabilities, notwithstanding that the needs of the Government of India were urgent, and in the general settlement which was ultimately arrived at the greatest forbearance was shown to him. The Mir of Khairpur committed a deliberate fraud, and the lenient penalty exacted for his forgery was the restitution of districts to which he had no title. The Raja of Sikkim insulted the British Government, seized its representative, and as a consequence was compelled by force to give up a tract of 1670 square miles. The removal of titular sovereigns was a necessary complement to the doctrine of independence. There was no place in the system of foreign relations with Indian princes for mock sovereignties. So far, then, as this biography has gone there was nothing in the field of foreign policy to justify the epithets of "grasping," "harsh," and "unjust," so recklessly flung at the Marquis of Dalhousie after his death. It has now to be seen whether the circumstances attending his annexations merit these and even stronger terms of censure.

To impute the mutiny of the Sepoys to one man and in particular to a single act in his eventful life, is as if one should blame or praise one set of figures in a long column on account of the total. Yet the policy of

lapse pursued by Lord Dalhousie was in 1857 and for many years afterwards treated as the main cause of that outbreak. Time and reason have now produced a strong reaction against the violence of expression which compared his annexation to "counting out the spoil of brigands in a wood," and represented the GovernorGeneral as the author of " many unwise and unjust acts." Mr. Bosworth Smith shows a truer conception of public opinion when he refers to Lord Dalhousie in more measured language as an administrator whose "superlative merits were temporarily obscured by the share which his annexations were then supposed to have had in bringing on the mutiny." That the annexation of Oudh added fuel to the fire of discontent need not be denied, but here it must be remembered that Oudh was annexed as an act of State, and with no reference whatever to the law of lapse which is the subject of this chapter. Opinions may differ as to whether it was in any particular case wise to refuse sanction to the adoption of a son by a Hindu ruler who had no lineal male descendant. Granted, again, that sound policy and justice permitted annexation in certain circumstances, the question remains whether the Governor-General took a correct view of the circumstances in those cases where he applied the rule. To assist a judgment on these points an endeavour will be made presently to explain the rule adopted by Lord Dalhousie and the facts of each application of it. But before that part of the subject is reached two propositions must be proved. The first is that Lord Dalhousie did not invent the doctrine, and that, so far from extending its application, he restricted it to "dependent" states. It is true that the occasions for applying the policy were more frequent in his time than in that of his predecessors. But it was