mMm^^.. 
 
 
 
 Ai 
 
 c 
 
 Ln 
 
 -T 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 5 = 
 
 
 
 2 = 
 
 
 
 5 J 
 
 -n 
 
 
 i> 
 
 == r- 
 
 — ( 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^^Bll^_ am 
 
 ■■ 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 ^^^HB|0E 
 
 "j^V^amT 
 
 J^ 
 
 -- ,*wvl!?r'^^^?*^ 
 
 
 ^:s 
 
 ?^^ 

 
 ADOPTION 
 
 versus 
 
 ANNEXATION: 
 
 WITH REMARKS ON THE 
 
 IVIYSORE QUESTION. 
 
 BY 
 
 VISHWANATH NARAYAN MANDLIK, 
 
 PLEADER IN H.M. HIGH COURT, BOMBAY. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SMITH, ELDER AND CO., 65, CORNHILL. 
 
 1866.
 
 • * 
 
 • • • -• 
 
 • • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • « » • 
 
 • (. • « t 
 
 • « • • • m 
 
 • • • 
 
 :•• • 
 
 . • »
 
 
 TO 
 
 CO 
 
 5 SIR GEORGE RUSSELL CLERK, K.C.B., K.S.L 
 
 >• 
 
 □c 
 
 QC 
 CQ 
 
 MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF INDIA, TWICE 
 
 (tOVERNOK of BOMBAY, AND KNOWN THEOrOHOUT INDIA AS THE 
 
 § THESE PAGES, 
 
 0:3 
 
 o 
 
 IN TOKEN OF PROFOUND RESPECT, 
 ARE, BY PERMISSION, INSCRIBED BY HIS OBEDIENT SERVANT* 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 1X^5* 
 
 3r>4bo
 
 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 I PROPOSE in the following pages to reply to the 
 observations of Sir Charles Jackson ^ and the Duke 
 of Argyll ^ on the question of annexation, as being 
 determined by what is technically called the law of 
 lapse. That a native of India should enter the lists 
 of political discussion against an ex-judge of the 
 highest Court in India, and against an English 
 Cabinet Minister and possible Governor- General of 
 this country, may at first sight appear strange, if 
 not presumptuous ; but it must be remembered 
 that natives of India are at the same time subjects 
 of the Queen of Great Britain ; of that Queen who / 
 in 1858 pledged her royal word to " respect the 
 rights, dignity and honour of Native Princes as our 
 cwTi," and to " hold ourselves to the natives of our 
 
 ' A Vindication of the Marquifi of Dalhouales Indian Adminis- J 
 tration, by Sir Charles Jackson, (Smith and Elder,) 18G5. 
 
 2 India under Dalliousie and Cannincj, by the Duke of Argyll, 
 (Lougmau aud Co.), 18G5. 
 
 1 
 
 /
 
 Z INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Indian territories by the same obligations of duty 
 which bind ns to all our other subjects ; and those 
 obligations, by the blessing of Almighty God, we 
 shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil." Now it 
 will surely be allowed to be the bounden duty of 
 her Majesty's Indian subjects to appreciate this 
 gracious promise, to try to remove all causes of 
 misunderstanding between the governors and the 
 governed, and to assist the good government of 
 this Empire to the best of their power and intelli- 
 gence. The distance between the British people 
 and the natives of India is still unfortunately very 
 great. The interest shown in our affairs by the 
 British Parhament is often wayward and spasmodic. 
 At one time we have measures enacted for us that 
 would do honour to any age or country ; at another 
 we are subjected to treatment incompatible with the 
 rights of f]-ee men. These sudden changes indicate 
 that the views and feelings of the natives of India 
 are not properly made known to British statesmen 
 in England, and hence fail to be appreciated. The 
 natural consequence is a dangerously fitful govern- 
 ment of this vast dependency, by men who have not 
 BufTicient data to go upon, and whose success, or 
 otherwise, must, therefore, be the result of chance.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 6 
 
 As in the department of natural science we collect 
 
 particular facts to enable ourselves to form general 
 
 conclusions, so in history and poHtics likewise, we 
 
 are led to the discovery of new measures by noting 
 
 down the results of old ones. The disturbances 
 
 which commenced in India in 1857, called 
 
 '* Mutinies " by some, and " Rcbelhon " by others, 
 
 are a warning to all the friends of progress, English 
 
 or Indian. There is no doubt a good deal in a 
 
 name, but we must not be led av/ay by words. As 
 
 a geologist treats the stratified and unstratified 
 
 rocks in their order of succession and gradual 
 
 formation, so has the historian of the world to 
 
 evolve the account of the different eras from the 
 
 facts at his disposal. It is the misfortune of India 
 
 that in all discussions connected with it, it is 
 
 necessary to begin with first principles. These so 
 
 often escape the memory of Indian statesmen, and 
 
 at such convenient times, that there is no evading 
 
 the tediousness of always recounting them in detail. 
 
 Like causes must produce like effects, and yet it 
 
 seems to be taken for granted by a certain section 
 
 of English politicians, that this rule does not hold 
 
 good in India. There is no doubt that the extreme 
 
 pliancy of the Indian mind, and the immense 
 
 1—2
 
 4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 depths of Indian forbearance and submission, 
 produce appearances which deceive a casual looker- 
 on into the belief that the placid exterior is the 
 true index to the entire views, feelings, and wishes 
 of the community. Those who are content to look 
 at the surface, of course see no further; yet they 
 may be led by this superficiality to build upon a 
 mine. 
 
 An Englishman regards his house as his castle. 
 An English annexationist is, we suppose, no ex- 
 ception. When he preaches the levelling policy 
 of annexation, and dilates on popular rights, the 
 good of the people, and such plausible stuff, he, of 
 course, imagines himself to be taking high ground. 
 But, wc ask, does he do to others as he wishes 
 others should do to him ? It is one thing to 
 introduce reforms at the expense of others, and 
 quite another thing to do so at the sacrifice of self. 
 Do the annexationists regard other people's rights 
 as they do their own ? Do they suppose that the 
 constitution of man is so changed in India, that 
 the very things which an Englishman hates and 
 despises, an Indian covets and admires ? Is the 
 instinct of self-preservation absent from a Hindu's 
 breast ? If a few unmeaning symbols bo clung to
 
 INTllODUCTION. 
 
 in England as sacred heirlooms, and transmitted 
 to posterity from century to century, as the pride 
 of families, do they suppose that Hindus so essen- 
 tially differ that they have no veneration for family 
 relics, ancestral descent, ancient honours, and, still 
 more, for Kingdoms, Principalities, castles, villages, 
 lands, and offices enjoyed through countless revo- 
 lutions, in a land where everything else has 
 changed ? 
 
 The Thomasoniau school in Bengal, as well as 
 the Goldsmid-Hart school in Bombay, proceed upon 
 the same benevolent intentions of "improving" 
 landlords "off the face of the earth ;"^ and the 
 hereditary interests connected with the land or with 
 the Government have had a tendency to become 
 more and more widely alienated from the ruling 
 power. Were the royal commission which Mr. Robert 
 Knight asked for in 1859 granted, and evidence of 
 competent witnesses examined on the spot, or, still 
 better, in England itself — if the natives of India 
 could be persuaded to go there — the revelations as 
 
 3 Vide Article I., entitled " Oucle," iu the Bombay Quarterly 
 Revieiv, No. XIV. (September, 1858), ascribed to tbe able pen of 
 the late Mr, Justice Kinloch Forbes. See Times of India, 
 September 4tb, 1865. 
 
 \/ 
 
 A
 
 6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 to the results of the annexation policy in its various 
 departments would, we are sure, be perfectly startUng. 
 One of the greatest misfortunes of the Indian 
 Government is the secrecy with which it works, 
 and the consequent ignorance of both the governors 
 and the governed. The Political and Secret Depart- 
 ments must, as things are at present constituted, 
 be kept distinct, and, to a certain extent, protected 
 from the rude gaze of the public. To a certain 
 extent, I say, for I hold that a Government of India 
 and England combined ought to be so strong in its 
 moral, as well as in its physical force, that it 
 ought to be able to live in the light of day 
 altogether. Secrecy is a mere matter of expediency, 
 and is not, we trust, to be regarded as the 7ie p/ws 
 2dtra of policy, beyond which statesmen are not to 
 look in governing the destinies of this mighty 
 Empire. Englishmen laugh at the Pope's asserting 
 the infallibility of the Vatican. Are they not con- 
 stituting themselves up as so many Avatars of the 
 Pope, when they, as a nation, will not acknowledge 
 their political mistakes, and frankly offer restitu- 
 tion ? Words are one thing and acts another. 
 When a cause is proved to be in the right, the 
 British Parliament must show practically that it
 
 INTliODUCTION. 7 
 
 will right the wronged. Were this pnhlicly done, 
 the moral effect of one such truthful act would he 
 equivalent to thousands of bayonets. Truth is 
 always truth, on the banks of the Ganges, as well 
 as on those of the Thames — as well in the Tuileries 
 as at the "Wliite House of Washington. It is, 
 therefore, a mistake for British statesmen to sup- 
 pose that the natives of India are so far different in 
 organization as to be incapable of appreciating and 
 being influenced by truth, social and political, 
 moral and religious. 
 
 The kindness of nature brings about a state of 
 coma, in which the bleeding of a W'Ounded man 
 ceases for a time, and opportunity is given to tie 
 up the 'wounds, lest they re-open and the patient 
 die. In an ordinary patient this alternation of 
 bleeding and fainting goes on until the wounds 
 are effectually tied up or the man dies. Such, we 
 say, has been the state of wounded India; now 
 bleeding and anon insensible. We are thus at 
 present in a state of moral coma; and it is now 
 for skilful surgeons to apply the bandages and 
 stop the bleeding, and consequent exhaustion of 
 the country. Physical profligacy is, as we are all 
 aware, sooner or later visited with its sad conse-
 
 8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 quences. Do the annexationists suppose that moral 
 profligacy will, in the long run, not meet with 
 punishment ? Nature is constant to her laws. 
 Truth is truth, in all matters alike, whether moral 
 or pohtical, and can have but one result, for error 
 is manifold, but truth is only one. Anything that 
 induces the British nation to swerve for one moment 
 from the path of truth, should at all risks be dis- 
 carded. It is with a view to show a lapse from 
 truth, in treating of the questions discussed in the 
 following pages, that this pamphlet has been written 
 and presented to all who take an interest in the 
 welfare of India. 
 / After these pages were written, the papers 
 relating to Mysore, moved for by Sir Henry Rawlin- 
 son, were published. I rejoice to see such a powerful 
 minority of the Indian Council making a stand for 
 political truth, in opposition to the great current 
 A of annexationism. Sir G. Clerk, Sir F. Currie, 
 Sir H. Montgomery, Sir John Willoughby (with 
 whom I differ in some things), and Captain East- 
 wick have, by their fearless Minutes, proved their 
 title to a place in British Indian history, as the 
 friends of truth and justice. 
 
 Bombay, June 20(lu 1866.
 
 ADOPTION V, ANNEXATION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE LAW. 
 
 \/ 
 
 Before proceeding to consider the question of 
 lapse, I propose to state briefly the theory and 
 practice of adoption according to Hindu law. This 
 will enable the reader to judge whether the sanction 
 of the British Government to an adoption is re- 
 quired, either according to Hindu law or equity and 
 good conscience. 
 
 Adoption is the affiliation of a son to perform 
 the adopter's excquial rights, and to inherit his 
 property. Such a son is accounted in Hindu law 
 to be the equal of one born from a man's body. 
 In former times twelve kinds of sons were re- 
 cognized by Hindu law ; * of these, only two are 
 
 ^ Vyavahdra Mai/ukha, Chapter IV., Section IV,, 41 ; 
 Mitdkshani, Chapter I., Section XL; Smritichandrikd, Section V,, 
 3, 4 ; Manu, Chapter IX., 158-180.
 
 10 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 now allowed, namely, the Aiirasa,^ or the son born 
 to a man, and the Dattcika, or the son given. ^ 
 
 The ceremony of adoption consists of two parts, 
 the essential and the non-essential. An adoption is 
 invalidated by non-observance of the former, but 
 y/ not of the latter. The essential parts of the cere- 
 mony are the giving and receiving of the boy, and, 
 according to some authorities, the performance of a 
 Homam, or sacrifice to the sacred fire."* Where a 
 woman or S'udra is the adopter, the sacrifice is 
 performed on her or his behalf by the officiating 
 priest.^ This is all that is obligatory on the 
 parties ; the remaining ceremonies are optional. 
 
 « Aurasa : [From was, the breast] issue of the breast. 
 
 ' Vyarahdra Mayukha, Chapter IV., Section IV., 46 ; 
 Elpihnstone's India, p. 35, 3rcl edition ; I. Steange's Hindu 
 Law, p. 75, 3rd edition, and the authorities therein cited ; Siu W. 
 Jones's General Note to Mann, Vol. VII. p. 155, of Jones's 
 works by Teignmouth ; Elberling on Inheritance, p, G9 ; 
 Macnaughten's Principles of Hindu Law, pp. 17 and 18, 2nd 
 edition. 
 
 ■* T. L. Strange's Manual of Hindu Law, Para. lOG ; I. Sir 
 T. Strange's Hindu Lair, 93 — 97 ; Macnaughten's Principles 
 (f Hindu Law, p. G5 ; I. Morley's Digest, p. 19 & 20, Paras. 
 68, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77 ; Steele's Summary of Hindu Castes and 
 Customs, pp. 52 & 53. 
 
 5 Vyarahdra Mayukha, Chapter IV., Section V.,12, 13, 15; 
 Steele, p. 52.
 
 THE LAW. 11 
 
 They are, 1, the assembling of relatives and 
 friends ; 2, the giving intimation to the Rajah ; 3, / 
 the giving of a madJiuparka {i.e., prepared food, 
 consisting of honey, Hquid butter, and cm*ds) to the 
 Rajah and to the Brahmanas ; 4, feasts to relatives, 
 friends, and Brahmanas, &c. It will be observed 
 that the only place where the Rajah is mentioned is 
 in the second optional ceremony. This has now 
 been tortured into that of obtaining the consent of 
 the Rajah, and is made the foundation of the prac- 
 tice and theory of the law of lapse. I shall now /^ 
 proceed to inquire what this ceremony means, and 
 whether there is any reason to suppose that the 
 Rajah's consent was ever necessary in any case. 
 
 Manu is the oldest writer on Hindu law of 
 which adoption forms a part. It is stated in the 
 Veda itself that " whatever Manu pronounced is 
 a medicine [for the soul]."'' Let us now see what 
 Manu prescribes on the subject, Manu Chapter IX., 
 p. 168 :— 
 
 6 ••-^' 
 
 " ^^fftf^'TTr^"?:^TTr "^^^T?." See also Babu Pro- 
 
 SONO C00.MAK Tagoee's Preface to the Vitdda Ckinidmani , p, 
 LXXXIV.
 
 12 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 Translation (Sir Wm. Jones's Works, Vol. VIIL, 
 p. 28) : — " He whom his father or mother, with her 
 husband's assent, gives to another as his son, pro- 
 Tided the donee have no issue, if the boy be of the 
 same Gotra, and affectionately disposed, is con- 
 sidered as a son given ; the gift being confirmed by 
 pouring ivater." 
 
 The italicised portion is from Kullukabhatta's 
 comments. 
 
 Madana, another authority, thus comments on 
 the above text : — 
 
 "^ ^^Tn[ Tir? ^5 ftri^ ^^m, 
 
 Translation:'' — ** The disjunctive 'or' means, 
 that if the mother be not present, the father alone 
 may give him away ; and if the father be dead, the 
 mother the same ; but if both be ahve, then even 
 both." 
 
 This is the most ancient authority extant, and, 
 except the Ilomam, which follows the gift and the 
 acceptance, there is no obligatory ceremony laid 
 down in the law books. 
 
 ^ Stokes's Hindu Law Booh, p. 58.
 
 THE LAW. 13 
 
 S'aunaha, whose directions are observed by all 
 the followers of the Rig Veda,*" declares the mode 
 of adopting a son to consist of the giving and 
 receiving and the sacrifice. I quote the whole 
 passage below, as it will tend to elucidate the 
 subject.^ 
 
 8 See the Sanskdra Kaustuhha, leaf 48, p. 1. 
 
 9 Borradaile's VyavaMraMaiiuklia,Q\\^\}i&c\N., Section V., 
 8 : — S'aunoka thus declares the mode of adopting a son : — 
 " I, S'aunaka, now declare the best adoption : one having no 
 male issue or one whose male issue has died having fasted for a 
 son ; having given two pieces of cloth, a pair of earrings, a turban, 
 a ring for the forefinger, to a priest religiously disposed, a 
 follower of Vishnu and thoroughly read in the Vcdas : ha\'ing 
 venerated the king and virtuous Brahmanas by a Madhuparka ; 
 with a bunch of sixty-four stems entirely of the Kusa gi-ass and 
 fuel of the palas4 tree also : having collected these articles, 
 having earnestly invited kinsmen and relations ; ha\ang enter- 
 tained the kinsmen with food ; and especially Brahmanas : 
 having performed the rights commencing with that of placing the 
 consecrated fire and ending with that of purifying the liquid 
 butter ; having advanced before the giver, let him cause to be 
 asked thus, ' give the boy.' The giver being capable of the gift, 
 (should give) to him with the recitation of the five prayers, the 
 initial words of the first of which are Ye Yadmjena, &c. Having 
 taken him by both hands with recitation of the prayer commencing 
 ' Devasya tvd, &c.' having iuaudibly repeated the mystical invo- 
 cation Avgdd ange, &c. : having kissed the forehead of the child : 
 having adorned with clothes and so forth, the boy bearing the 
 reflection of a son : accompanied with dancing songs, and bene- 
 dictory words, having seated \\\m in the middle of the house :
 
 14 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 It will be observed that all the preparations 
 for the ceremony are completed, and that what is 
 called "venerating the King and the virtuous Brah- 
 manas " by S'aunaka, is thus a mere formality. 
 Besides, I may mention that the words, *' having 
 venerated the King and virtuous Brahmanas with a 
 Madhuparka," do not occur in the original Sanskrit 
 edition, nor in the authorized Marathi translation 
 published under the auspices of the Government of 
 Bombay. They must, therefore, have been found 
 by Mr. Borradaile in some modern cojiy, and 
 appear to be an innovation introduced by some 
 compiler from what he saw in the Dattaka-Mimansa 
 of Nanda Pandita. 
 
 The above ceremonial is that from the Mayiikha. 
 
 A more ancient, and also a more celebrated 
 authority, is Yadnyavalkya, with the comments of 
 Vidnyaneswara. The work is known as the Mitak- 
 shara, which is accounted good law throughout the 
 greater part of Hindustan. Let us see what it has to 
 
 having according to ordinance offered a burnt offering of milk 
 and curds (to each incantation) witli recitation of the mystical 
 invocation Vaslrd hridd, the portion of llig Veda commencin« 
 ' liihlnjtini, cipii',' and the five prayers of which tlic initial words 
 of tlic first are Sonio ilailal, (fee. lot him close the ceremony."
 
 THE LAW. 15 
 
 say : — Chapter I., Section XI., verse 13, runs thus : 
 — "The mode of accepting a son for adoption is 
 propounded by Vasishtha : * A person being about 
 to adopt a son, should take an unrcmote kinsman, 
 having convened his kindred, and announced his 
 intention to the King, and having offered a burnt 
 offering with recitation of the holy words in the 
 middle of his dwelling.' " ^° 
 
 As S'aunaka is the great lawgiver of the fol- 
 lowers of the Rig Veda, so is Baudhayana that of 
 the followers of the Taittin'ija, or the Black Yajur 
 Veda.^i The ceremony of adoption laid down by 
 S'aunaka and Baudhayana generally agrees mtli 
 that prescribed by Vasishtha (as above quoted), 
 with the exception of the Mantras [or sacred verses], 
 with which the sacrifice is enjoined to be performed. 
 These three are the principal Bisliis [or sages], 
 whose rules prevail on this subject at present. Let 
 us inquire what they have to say in regard to the 
 alleged sanction or consent of the king. Baud- 
 hayana and Vasishtha have laid down that after 
 the materials for the ceremonial have been pre- 
 
 '0 Colebrooke's Mitdksharn, pp. 310 & 311. 
 '1 Dailaka Mimdnsd, Section V., 42 ; Jhitaka Chdndrihd, 
 Section IT,, 16.
 
 16 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 pared, &c., &c., and after ^^ inviting and informing 
 the kinsmen before, or in the presence of the Baja," the 
 acceptance of the son should be made. The original 
 of wliich the above italicised passage is my version 
 is as follows : — 
 
 "^^^^T^^ ?:TiTpr^T^^ 
 
 or 
 
 " ^;5r ^j-^-q TT^Pr f%^^." 
 
 Colebrooke and Sutherland have translated the 
 passage thus : — " having convened his kindred and 
 announced his intention, or made a representation, 
 to the Raja," ^- 
 
 There is not much difference between their 
 translations and my own, as far as they affect the 
 decision of the question now at issue. Because 
 according to either version, as well as my own, it 
 will be perceived that only an announcement is 
 to be made or an intimation given to the Raja. No 
 sanction is required, and no rule for asking any- 
 body's permission has ever been laid down in any 
 Hindu law-book that is known in this country. 
 
 12 Colebrooke's Mitdkshard, Chapter I., Section XI., 13 ; 
 and Sutherland's Dattaka — Chandnkd, Section II., 11 — IG ; 
 and the same anther's version of tlie Vattdka — Mimdnsd, 
 Section V., 81 Sc 42.
 
 THE LAW. 17 
 
 y 
 
 Indeed, I cannot well conceive the grounds ou 
 which the monstrous assertion that the Sovereign's 
 sanction is required to render an adoption valid is 
 based. The Vedas and Sliastras lay it dow^n as an 
 obligatory duty on their followers that they shall 
 discharge their duty to their ancestors by begetting 
 a legitimate son, or, where that is impossible, by 
 adopting one.*^ No Sovereign in India has yet ,v^ 
 dared to invade the right which arises from the 
 above duty ; and whatever the East India Company 
 may have done before, I confidently trust that the 
 Queen's Proclamation will now be the palladium 
 of all our rights ; of the high as well as of the low ; 
 of the independent Princes in alliance with the 
 
 1' Taittiriifa (or the Black) Yrijnnrda, Aahtahn VI., 
 Prriprithaka III., Anuvdkd, 10 : — 
 
 ^{i-^: ^^'T ^5>^: ^^^T P?^^: i \^^\ ^\wr 
 
 TninsUttion : — "A Brahamami immediately on being born, is 
 produced a debtor in three obligations : to the holy saints, for the 
 practice of religious duties ; to the gods for the performance of 
 sacrifice : to his forefathers, for ofi"spring. Or he is absolved 
 from debt, who has a son." Also, Aitavfija Brdhmanam, 
 Book VII., Chapter III., 1 : pp. 100-2 of Dn. Hatjg's TratiKla- 
 tiim.
 
 18 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 British Indian Empire, of feudatories and of jah- 
 girdars, as well as of the meanest subjects of the 
 British Raj. 
 
 Not only is there no authority for holding the 
 position that the Sovereign's sanction is required ; 
 but, on the contrary, I will show further on, that the 
 announcement to the Rajah may be dispensed with, 
 and that the omission of this part of the ceremonial 
 does not invalidate any adoption. Before going to 
 that part of the subject, I will proceed to explain 
 why invitation to kinsmen, and announcement to 
 them, in the presence of the Rajah, are recommended 
 rather than commanded by the lawgivers. 
 
 Mitakshara, Chapter II. Section XL, treats of 
 what is called Dattdprdddnikam or subtraction of 
 gift, which is thus defined by Narada : — 
 
 Translation : — " When a man desires to recover 
 a thing, which was not duly given, it is called 
 subtraction of what has been given ; [and this is] a 
 title of administrative justice." ^* 
 
 !■* Vynivihrhri-Moyukliri, Chaiiiev IX., 1.
 
 THE LAW. 19 
 
 The italics arc mine. 
 
 To prevent nndidij given gifts, and consequent 
 litigation, Yaclnyavalkya lays down the following 
 rule : — 
 
 Translation : — " Acceptance [of a giftj ought to \/ 
 be open ; especially [that] of immovable property. 
 
 On this Vidnyaneswi'ira (author of the Mitak- 
 shara) remarks :^^ — 
 
 Translation: — "Acceptance [of a gift] ought to 
 be openly made to prevent [future] litigation ; 
 especially that of immovable property, the taking 
 of which ought to be only in an open manner. 
 Because, immovable property cannot be thus 
 
 15 Mitdkshard (Sanskrita Edition. Bombay, 18G3, leaf 71, 
 p. 1 :) Book II., Chapter XI., verse 2. 
 
 IG //,/,/. 
 
 2-2
 
 20 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 shown like gold, &c. [which is portable], and can be 
 produced [out of one's possession]." 
 
 Viramittrodaya, another authority, states : — 
 
 ^■^3lf?r^i iT^TT ft^^ ^^T ^firS^:— ^^^Tt ^^ 
 
 Translation : — " At the time of declaring what 
 is Deya {i.e. fit to be given), Yadnyavalkya speaks 
 of a particular rule about acceptance of gifts [thus] : 
 Acceptance [of a giftj ought to be open ; especially 
 that of immovable property; open, [that is] public 
 or in the presence of a number of people ; or, in 
 other words, in the presence of witnesses. About 
 the acceptance of a son, a special mode is [thus] 
 spoken of by Vasishtha : — The acceptor of a son, 
 having invited his kindred, and told them before (or 
 in the presence of) the King, and having performed 
 
 17 Soe Calcutta Edition of 1815, loaf 122, p. 2.
 
 THE LAW. 21 
 
 the sacrifice with the sacred texts called Vydrhiti^^ 
 should take an imremote kinsman " [in adoption]. 
 
 We see here very plainly the object of the 
 invitation and the announcement. However, to 
 proceed with our authorities. 
 
 The Sanski'ira Kaustubha by Anantadeva, a 
 work of considerable authority, states that Saunaka 
 is followed by the Eig-vedis and BaudliAyana by the 
 Yajurvedis. It then cites the particulars of the 
 ceremony, w^hich are generally the same as before. 
 As regards inviting the kindred and giving notice to 
 the King, it states thus : — 
 
 °\ 
 
 Translation. — " Inviting the Idndred, and, in the 
 midst, announcing before the King." 
 
 Further on, the same lawgiver amphfies upon 
 the expression ( (<R"Sf) ), Madhye, or in the midst, 
 used in the above passage : — 
 
 '^ The Vijarhitis here mentioned are four : — 
 
 '" Leaf 47, p. 2, of the editiou publibhctl at Bombay in 
 18G1. 
 
 -0 Ibid.
 
 22 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 Translation. — "In the midst; that is, in the 
 presence of the kindred, before the Rajah, the an- 
 nouncement [is to be made]; this is the object." 
 
 The Nirnaya-Sindhu, of Kamalakarabhatta, an- 
 other work of estabHshed reputation, also bears out 
 the view above stated.*^ 
 
 The commentator Krishnabhatta adds: — [''JJ 
 '3[T^ THJim^ 5r«5"T^*'" ^^ which means " [to] 
 the Rajah, which [by former writers] is said to 
 mean the village authority or protector." 
 
 From the above authorities it will be clearly 
 perceived that inviting the kinsmen, and announcing 
 to them the adoption in the presence of the Rajah is 
 mill the view of obtaining publicity and preventing 
 future disputes and litigation : a provision similar 
 in its intention to having witnesses at marriages. 
 That this is the proper interpretation of the above 
 passages is further borne out by other authorities. 
 Sir Thomas Strange, in his learned work on Hindu 
 law (already cited), states that, with a view to 
 certainty, " the law encourages, if it do not stipu- 
 
 2» It also states as before "^^•TT"^^ TT'^lf^'^T 
 
 •V . . *^ 
 
 ^^ " of which I have given my translation above : sec page iil. 
 
 -'^ Nirnaya-lSiiidhu, Parkkheda (or Section) III.
 
 THE LAW. 23 
 
 lato for, whatever is calculated to render it public 
 and solemn. Hence attendance of relations, with 
 notice to the local magistrate or ruling power of the 
 place, is expected, but maybe dispensed with." *^ 
 Further authorities for this position arc cited by 
 that learned judge, to whose works I must refer my 
 readers. 
 
 The word *' Rajah," as used in the above passages, 
 is explained to be the Gramaswami [i. e., the chief, 
 head, or lord of the village] by the Dattaka-Mimansa 
 of Nanda Pandita." 
 
 The Dattaka-Chandrika by Devanuda-Bhatta, 
 [Section II., 3 and 4], mentions that the King should 
 be venerated by Madhuparka. " If the King be at 
 a distance, the head man of a village should be in- 
 vited and thus venerated." 
 
 The commentator on the Nirnaya Sindhu also 
 explains "Rajah" to be the Gramadhisha, or lord 
 of the village." 
 
 That the invitation to relatives and announce- 
 ment before the Rajah are not indispensable cere- 
 monies, appears likewise from Steele's commentaries 
 
 2s Vol. I., Chapter IV., pp. 94, 95. 
 
 2* See Section V., 4, 5, and 6; Stokes, Hindu Law-books. 
 
 2^ See the passage referred to in Note 22. 
 
 h
 
 24 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 on the law and customs of Hindu castes within the 
 Dekhan provinces subject to the Presidency of 
 Bombay, published by order of the late Mountstuart 
 Elphinstone. ''It is enjoined," says he, "that 
 notice of an adoption should be given to the rela- 
 tions mthin the Sagotra Sapindu, and to the Rajah, 
 though no provision appears in case of their dis- 
 approbation, even in adoptions by widows." '^^ 
 
 Mr. Justice Strange, of the High Court of 
 Madras, also states: — "There should be attend- 
 ance of relations and notice to the ruling local 
 authority, and also sacrifice, oblation, and prayer; 
 but the non-observance of these formalities will not 
 invalidate an adoption ; saving as respects the 
 datta-homam, or sacrifice by fire." ^"^ 
 
 From the above exposition of the law on the 
 subject, it is clear that adoption consists in the gift 
 and acceptance of the adopted. A sacrifice follows the 
 adoption ; but when the adopted is of the same gotra 
 (clan) with the adopter, it may be dispensed with.*^^ 
 Nobody's consent or sanction is necessary. This 
 
 2fi Page 51. 
 
 27 Section 106, T. L. Strange's Manual oj Hindu Law, 
 2u(l Edition. 
 
 28 See authorities cited in Note 4.
 
 THE LAW. 25 
 
 statement to a Hindu wonlcl appear superfluous, 
 nay, almost bortlcring on the ridiculous. For the 
 Vcdas and the Shustras enjoin adoption as a sacred V* 
 duty. The love of transmitting one's name and 
 possessions to posterity is not wanting in the Hindu 
 breast. Tradition and history conspire to strengthen 
 the desire which the highest commands of religion 
 and self-interest have invoked. Hence, on the 
 failure of legitimate male issue, a Hindu, high or 
 low, a Rajah or a peasant, considers it his right, as 
 well as his duty, to perform an adoption for the 
 perpetuation of his family. ^ 
 
 The law in this respect is the same for all ; and 
 my remarks are applicable to all the Hindus in- 
 habiting this vast country, and professing their 
 allegiance to the Vedas, the Shastras, and the later 
 law-books binding on my co-religionists. Whether 
 a man is a Rajpoot, holding sway over an allied 
 Principality in Rajpootana, or a Maratha, owning 
 a Raj in Malwa ; whether he is a Chief, holding a 
 dependent jaghir in the Southern Maratha country, 
 or a titular Prince like the Rajah of Tanjore ; whether 
 he is a talookdar in Oude, or a Khote in Southern 
 Konkan ; whether he is a zemindar in Buudelcund, 
 or a patil in the Deccan, it matters nothing. The
 
 /\ 
 
 26 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 Hindu law which I have above stated is the same 
 for all. The right of a Hindu to adopt is absolute. 
 ^ To say that he can adopt a son to perform his 
 funeral rights, but that such son cannot inherit that 
 man's worldly possessions, is a mere mockery. It 
 is making a distinction without a difference. It is 
 nothing less than adding insult to injury. In the 
 case of many of the native Rajahs, such as the 
 Gaikwar, Sindia, Holkar, the princes of Eajpootana, 
 and similar Powers in alliance with the British 
 Government, there is no pretence for British in- 
 terference with adoptions. There is no authority 
 in Hindu law, or any other law applicable to the 
 subject, requiring such Princes to ask the consent 
 of a stronger friendly Power, which has bomid 
 itself by solemn treaties not to interfere with their 
 affairs, and has acknowledged them to be the rulers 
 of their own territories. Their case seems to me 
 to be the strongest of all, as I shall show at greater 
 length hereafter. 
 
 I therefore repeat, that a Hindu's right to 
 adopt a son under the rules laid down in the 
 Shastras is absolute. Indeed, no Sovereign entitled 
 to the name has ever yet thought of disturbing this 
 right, except the late East India Company, and
 
 THE LAW. 27 
 
 its Governors and Governors-General. The lament- V 
 able accounts of the tyranny and misrule prevailing 
 under the last of the Peshwas, the infamous Baji Rao, 
 show that he would, and did, confiscate jaghirs and 
 other private property, for reasons which I should 
 be ashamed to commit to paper. And if, as Mr. . 
 Knight says,"'-^ precedents like these are to be treated 
 as law, there is no reason for attempting to argue 
 on any subject. For it would amount to this, that 
 anything might be proved by anything. Sir Charles 
 Jackson (at page 9) quotes Steele, in support of the 
 position that " Enamdars and Wuttundars " should 
 have the consent of the Sirkar or Government for 
 adoption. But he forgets the law, as it is ex- 
 pounded on the pages following, viz., that " an 
 adoption concluded agreeably to the Shastras is not 
 annullable." And that, according to that and other 
 authorities, whatever may be the moral effect of 
 the omission to take such consent, the so-called 
 consent is not essential to the validity of an adop- 
 tion, especially when the adoptee is of the same 
 gotra [i.e., clan]. If, instead of the vague expres- 
 
 ^9 See The Innm Commiasion unmasked, by Robert Knigut, 
 Editor of the Bombay Times, page 28.
 
 28 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 } sion, " the law which requires the sanction of the 
 ^ government," Sir Charles Jackson had quoted the 
 authorities which support him, I should have been 
 better able to meet each and every one of his pro- 
 v'^ positions. But during the course of the last fifteen 
 years of inquiry and research, I have failed to dis- 
 ^ cover even the remnant of any such law. The 
 authority of such persons as Captain CoTv^er and 
 Mr. Hart is of no value. The proceedings of the 
 Enam Commission, which their misapplied talents 
 supported, have received their due treatment fi'om 
 Mr. Knight's pen. I wish I could forget the mis- 
 deeds of this Commission easily ; but this I know, 
 that any one of them, if attempted in Europe, 
 would have ruined the reputation of any English 
 statesman. 
 
 I wish natives of India had had the moral 
 courage to lay unvarnished accounts of their griev- 
 ances perseveringly before their rulers ; for had these 
 been freely ventilated, and impartially inquired into, 
 the mutiny and rebellion would never have occurred.
 
 ( '21) ) 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 TIIK DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 
 
 In the last chapter, I attempted to show what were 
 the necessary parts of an adoption ; and I then 
 explained more particularly that the consent of the 
 King was not required by Hindu law to make the 
 adoption legal. 
 
 I may mention that in regard to adoption, as 
 
 well as in reference to all the essential duties 
 
 enjoined by Hindu law upon its followers, there is 
 
 no distinction between nobleman and gentleman. 
 
 The law for all is alike. The Sovereign as well as 
 
 the subject are under its equal sw\ay. When the 
 
 annexationists, therefore, treat the cases of private V 
 
 individuals and Princes as distinct ; nay more, when 
 
 they propose to treat one man {i.e. a Prince) in two 
 
 ways, in such a matter as adoption, allowing his 
 
 sou to succeed to personal, but not to territorial 
 
 property, they are bound to show their authority
 
 30 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 for so doing. As above stated, I say the Hindu 
 law contemplates nobody's restraint upon the 
 adopter, who is just as free to adopt, according to 
 the Shastras, as he is free to marry. The Para- 
 mount State might, with as much propriety, prohibit 
 a man's maiTying in order to prevent his beget- 
 ting an heir to his Principality or estate, as forbid 
 him to adopt. 
 
 Sir Charles Jackson (p. 5) asserts *' when the 
 Hindu is a Prince holding his Principality subor- 
 dinate to, or as a gift from, a Paramount State, it 
 is a condition of succession to the Principality, that 
 the adoption be made with the consent of such 
 Paramount State." '' His private property," says 
 he, "will pass to the adopted son, whether the 
 Paramount State has, or has not, consented to the 
 adoption ; but in the absence of such consent, the 
 Principality reverts to the Paramount State." 
 
 This is the cardinal doctrine of the Dalhousie 
 school. This is the foundation of the so-called 
 doctrine of lapse. Sir Charles Jackson is careful 
 not to give his authorities. Is not the supposition 
 natural that he has none to give ? The law which 
 is given in the above extract is, according to his 
 own statement (see p. 5), an •' exception " to the
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 31 
 
 ^'general ilile " of Hiiiclii law. The onus, there- 
 fore, lies upon him to show his authorities for this 
 exceptional position. 
 
 Sir Charles Jackson has taken the cases of / 
 Sattara, Nagpore, Jhansi, and Sumbulpore. It is 
 not my puqiose at present to treat of these States, 
 which have been already absorbed. I wish to take 
 my stand upon the general position assumed by the 
 annexationist school in regard to adoption, and 
 prove that in law and practice it is untenable. 
 Sir Charles Jackson cites (p. 10) Sir George Clerk 
 as an authority in his favour. Sir George, he says, / 
 "opposed the annexation of Sattara, yet felt com- 
 pelled to admit that the sanction of the Paramount 
 State is by custom required to render ' an adoption 
 to a Principality valid. In the time of our prede- 
 cessors this was a source of profit to the treasury.''^. 
 Unfortunately for the advocate of Lord Dalhousie, 
 Sir George has spoken out his sentiments in 
 unmistakeable terms. In his dissent from the last 
 despatch of Sir Charles Wood, disallowing the 
 Mysore adoption, he clearly enunciates his views 
 thus: — *' This new doctrine regarding adoption is 
 so novel and unjust, so opposed to all custom and 
 religions in India, and so utterly inconsistent with
 
 32 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 the course of administration as previous^ exercised 
 during the paramountry of Hindoos, Mahumme- 
 dans and ourselves, that I can only conceive it to be 
 the result of wild counsel prompting an indiscrimi - 
 nate gratification of a selfish policy which it is 
 endeavoured to veil under a plea of expediency. 
 
 "A fact well known to those of us who have 
 been much in the way of observing the circum- 
 stances of adoptions of heirs to Chiefships, and to 
 those who have made researches with a view to 
 elucidate the subject, as Sir Henry Lawrence in the 
 Kerowlee case in 1853, and Lord Canning on the 
 general question in 1860, is that, if guided by the 
 custom of the country ami the practice of all our pre- 
 decessors, our concern in adoptions consists only in 
 adjusting the rival pretensions of tiuo or more such 
 heirs ; a precaution which we and our predecessors 
 have made it our duty to exercise in the interests of 
 the peaceable public generally. Hence our sanction 
 may in one sense be said to be necessary ; for, natu- 
 rally, a record of it is always sought by the rightful 
 or by the successful claimant. Hence it is, too, that 
 the confirmation has never been refused. Hence it is 
 that I NEVER found an instance on the old records at 
 Delhi, and that T ncrcr hnew one occurring within my
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 33 
 
 experience of our own times, of any chief ship, either 
 Eaj or Sardarree, great or small, being lield to have 
 escheated, excepting for felonij to the Paramount State. 
 At length tlie Calcutta Government led of ivith that 
 flagrant instance of the barefaced appropriation of 
 Sattara." ' The italics are mine. y^ 
 
 What, then, is the " custom " Sir Charles Jack- 
 son alludes to ? The custom is for the big State 
 or Paramount Power to adjust "the rival preten- 
 sions of two or more heirs." This is the testimony 
 of Sir George Clerk, a veteran political, twice yA 
 Governor of Bombay, and at one time the able 
 Resident at Delhi, the very source whence all in- 
 formation on such points was to be had. Does y\^ 
 not this coincide with the object of inviting the 
 Eajah or "head of the village" to })e present 
 at the ceremony, as described in the preceding 
 chapter ?'■' It is to secure publicity and prevent 
 future disputes, that the invitation is made, not 
 because the adoption would be invalid. 
 
 However, to proceed with our authorities. The 
 States of Rajputauci are the oldest Hindu States in 
 India. They are independent States, acting in 
 
 1 Papers relatimj to Mt/sore, pp. 71 aiifl 72. 
 
 2 See page 18, ami the following. 
 
 8
 
 34 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 subordinate co-operation with the British Govern- 
 ment.^ Their Kajahs are Sovereign Princes who 
 reign supreme within their dominions. They gene- 
 rally pay a certain sum to the British Government, 
 which on its part undertakes to protect them from 
 , external enemies. The British Government is 
 bound by treaties not to interfere in their internal 
 
 ^i "' affairs ; and unless some future Mangles calls them 
 merely '' deeds of gift " and personal contracts, and 
 considers perpettdty as an eastern expression for a 
 long period (say of fifty or ninety-nine years), these 
 States must subsist as long as the sun and moon 
 
 /v shine on them and the British Empire. The law or 
 custom in regard to adoption in these States is thus 
 stated by Colonel Tod : * — 
 
 *' Adoption : — The hereditary principle, which 
 perpetuates in these States their virtues and vices, is 
 also the grand preservative of their political exist- 
 ence and national manners : it is an imperishable 
 principle, which resists time and innovation : it is 
 this which made the laws of the Modes and 
 
 ' See Aitchieson's Treatises, vol. iv, j»p. 10, 84, 45, G5, 72, 
 and following. 
 
 * Annals and Avtiquitirs of Bajaslhan, l)y Lifint.-Colonel 
 James Tod, vol. i., p. 190.
 
 V 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 35 
 
 Persians, as well as those of Rajpoots, unalterable. 
 A Chief of Mcwar, hkc his Sovereign, never dies : 
 he disappears to be regenerated. • Le roi est mort, 
 vive le roi,' is a phrase, the precise virtue of which 
 is there well understood. Neither the crown nor 
 the greater fiefs are ever without heu's. Adoption 
 is the preservative of honours and titles ; the great 
 fiefs of Rajasthan can never become extinct." 
 
 If a Chief or a Prince dies without making an 
 adoption, the case is also well provided for. Colonel 
 Tod says^ that "on sudden lapses, the wife is 
 allowed the privilege, in conjunction with those 
 interested in the fief, of nomination, though the 
 case is seldom left unprovided for : there is always 
 a presumptive heir to the smallest subinfeudation 
 of these estates. The wife of the deceased is the 
 guardian of the minority of the adopted." 
 
 The idea that a Rajput Prince '* never dies," and 
 that " he disappears to be regenerated," is one which 
 is derived from Hindu law, and is held fast, 
 religiously and pohtically, by the whole of India. It 
 has its root in the notion of posthumous existence — 
 the doctrine that a man is born again in his son. 
 
 5 Tod's Annals, vol. i., p. 191. 
 
 3—2
 
 36 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 The sacred Vedas themselves mculcate it. The 
 Aitareya Briihmanam states this very clearly,^ and is 
 identical with the high principle " in the pure 
 Eoman jurisprudence," which according to Mr. 
 Maine is " that a man lives on in his heir — the 
 elimination, if we may so speak, of the fact of 
 death."^ 
 
 "Among the Hindus," says Mr. Maine, "the 
 right to inherit a dead man's property is exactly co- 
 extensive with the duty of performing his obsequies. 
 If the rites are not properly performed, or not 
 performed by the proper person, no relation is con- 
 sidered as established between the deceased and 
 anybody surviving him ; the law of succession does 
 not apply, and nobody can inherit the property. 
 Every great event in the life of a Hindu seems to be 
 regarded as leading up to, and bearing upon these 
 
 6 Haug's Translation, Book YII., Chapter III., 6 and 7, 
 p. 4G1. G. " The husband enters the wife (in the shape of 
 seed), and when the seed is changed to an embryo, he makes her 
 a mother, from whom, after having been regenerated in her, he is 
 bom in the tenth month. 7. His wife is only then a real wife 
 {Jfiljci from jan to be born) when he is born in her again. The 
 seed which is placed in her, she developes to a being and sets 
 it forth." 
 
 "> Maine's Ancient Law, p. 190.
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 37 
 
 solemnities. If lie marries, it is to have cliiklren 
 who may celebrate them after his death ; if he has 
 no children, he lies under the strongest obligation 
 to adopt them from another famil}^ with a view to 
 the fmieral cake, the water, and the solemn 
 sacrifice. "** 
 
 Indeed we are told by Colonel Tod that " the 
 laws of Rajpootana, political and religious, admit of 
 no interregnum, and the funeral pyre must be lit by 
 an adopted child, if there be no natural issue." 
 
 The law and practice as they existed in Central 
 India are similar to the above. One remarkable 
 example is given by Sir John Malcolm,^ from 
 
 ^ RIaine's Ancient Law, p. 191. 
 
 9 Malcolm's Central India, vol. ii., p. 62, note: — " Zaliiu 
 Siugli, the regent of Kotah, on an impression that a compUxiut 
 had been made to me by the relative of a deceased small renter 
 in the district of Baroda, wrote on the 8th July, 1820, to his 
 agent with me, as follows : — ' Tell the General, if the complaint 
 is made, that the usage of this country, when a man dies without 
 children, is to give his estate to his wife, who enjoys it for her 
 natural life. It goes after that to the sons whom she has 
 regularly adopted. In failure of such heir, to the nephew of tho 
 deceased ; and on their failure to the nearest relation.' 
 
 " I asked the Vakeel, if, by the usage of Kotah, the Government 
 had no right to the property of a man who died without children. 
 His reply was, ' None beyond expressing a desire, that part of 
 the property, if large, should be expended for charitable purposes.' " 
 
 .*i^4t
 
 38 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 which we perceive with what feehngs the right 
 of adoption was regarded ; and which proves that 
 there could be no lapse in the Rajput States. 
 
 Three other instances of adoption under different 
 circumstances are given by Malcolm/" in none of 
 which the doctrine of lapse or the right of escheat 
 was thought of, or enforced by any Paramount 
 Power, Mahomedan, Hindu, or British. 
 
 Captain James Grant Duff notices several cases 
 of adoption by native Princes according to Hindu 
 law and the custom of the country." No one at 
 that time thought of aiming at the *' just " 
 accessions of territory, of which Sir Charles Jackson 
 and the Dulse of Argyll are the advocates. 
 
 The Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstonc, after 
 enumerating the different kinds of sons mentioned 
 by Manu, says,i2 "that the whole of these sons, 
 except the son of a man's body, and his adopted 
 sons, are entirely repudiated by the Hindu law of 
 the present day." 
 
 The same eminent statesman thus writes, in 
 
 " Central India, vol. i., pp. 109, IGO, 284. 
 1^ Amongst others, sec his History of the Mardthds, vol. ii., 
 p. 337 ; vol. iii., pp. 27, 28, 821. 
 
 '8 Elphinstone $ History of India, 3rd edition, p. 35, note 87.
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 39 
 
 1850 : '■« — " There is no native State to which the 
 recognition of its succession by the British Govern- 
 ment was not of the highest importance ; but none ^ 
 of them, I conceive, ever imagined that that Govern- 
 ment had a right to regulate the succession as 
 feudal lord, or had any pretensions to the territory, 
 as an escheat, on the failure of heirs to the reigning 
 family." Again he says, ** Our relations with the /^ 
 principal states (the Nizam, the Peshwa, Sindia, 
 &c.,) were those of independent, equal Powers, 
 and we possessed no right to interfere in their 
 succession, except such as was derived from our 
 treaties with them." 
 
 Again, Sir Charles [afterwards Lord] Metcalfe, 
 in his celebrated Minute on adoption, states his 
 opinion as follows:^* — ''Those who are Sovereign 
 Princes in their own right and the Hindu rehgion, 
 have, by Hmdu law, a right to adopt, to the ex- 
 . elusion of collateral heirs, or of the supposed rever- 
 sionary right of the Paramount Power ; the latter, in 
 
 13 Memoirs of the Hon. Moxmtstuart Elphinstone, by Sir 
 Edwabd Colebrook, Bart, M.P. See Journal of the Royal 
 Asiatic Society' of Great Britain and Ireland, volume xviii., 
 p. 820. 
 
 1* Selections from the Papers of Lord Metcalfe, by John W. 
 Kaye, pp. 318 and 310.
 
 40 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 fact, in such cases, having no real existence, except 
 in the case of absolute want of heirs, and even 
 A then the right is only assumed in virtue of power, 
 for it would probably be more consistent with right 
 that the people of the State so situated should elect 
 a Sovereign for themselves. 
 
 *' In the case, therefore, of Hindu Sovereign 
 Princes, I should say that, on failure of heirs male 
 V of the body, they have a right to adopt, to the 
 exclusion of collateral heirs, and that the British 
 .>. Government is bound to acknowledge the adoption, 
 provided that it be regular, and not in violation of 
 Hindu law. The present Maha Kao of Kotah was 
 adopted, and his case affords an instance in wliich 
 the right of adoption in a tributary and protected 
 State was fully discussed and admitted by the British 
 Government as the Paramount Power." 
 
 I will not weary my readers with further autho- 
 / rities. The Parliamentary Papers of 1850, respecting 
 the Sindia, Holkar, and Dliar successions, are full 
 of similar evidence as to the usage as regards suc- 
 cession by adoption in native States in alliance with 
 the British Government. The opinions and state- 
 ments of Major Stewart and Mr. Sutherland, 
 llesidents at Gwalior ; of Mr. Martin, Sir C. M.
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 41 
 
 Wade, Mr. Bax, and Sir R. Hamilton, Residents 
 at Indore ; of Sir John Low, and of the Govern- 
 ment of India itself, up to the Sattara annexation, 
 have all been consonant to Hindu law, and the 
 usage of the country. The last witness I shall 
 therefore cite is the late Earl Canning. 
 
 In his despatches of the 30th of April, 18G0, 
 Lord Canning whites, " I believe there is no ex- 
 ample, whether in Rajpootana or elsewhere, of a 
 Hindu State lapsing to the Paramount Power by 
 reason of that Power withholding its assent to an 
 adoption;" and again, ''We have not shown, as ''^ 
 far as I can find, a single instance in which adop- 
 tion by a Sovereign Prince has been invalidated by 
 a refusal of assent from the Paramount Power." ^^ 
 The evidence of Captain Shepherd and Sir H. Law- 
 rence, quoted by Mr. Eastwick in the same Mysore 
 Papers (pp. 74, 75) , points also in the same direc- 
 tion. And, in regard to the first case, namely, that 
 of Sattara, dwelt upon by Sir C. Jackson and the 
 Duke of Argyll, I refer them to the speech of 
 Mr. Sullivan at a meeting of the Court of Pro- 
 prietors on that question, and a letter of Mr. 
 
 1^ Pojwrs relating to Mysore, p. 74.
 
 42 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 Elpliinstone to Sir E. Colebrooke, now published 
 for the first time in the Journal of tlie Royal 
 Asiatic Society.^^ 
 
 Mr. Willoughby's reasoning in defence of the 
 Sattara annexation receives the coup de grace from 
 this high authority, and the whole web of what Sir 
 Charles Jackson calls " Lord Dalhousie's ' text- 
 book on adoption ' " (p. 12), is torn into shreds. 
 Mr. Elpliinstone says,*^ — '* Mr. Willoughby, and 
 those who adopt his reasoning, proceed to argue 
 that some dependent chiefs are subject to this rule, 
 and, tlierefore, the Rajah is subject to it. They 
 instance many inamdars, jageerdars, &c., but can 
 they show any Prince, who had been acknowledged 
 as a Sovereign, to whom the rule had been applied 
 at the time of the treaty ? Can they deny that 
 there are now many Sovereign Princes under limi- 
 tations similar to those on the Kajah, over whom 
 such a right has never been used or pretended to ? 
 Nobody will say in Parliament that the adoption by 
 Scindia, the Nizam, the King of Oude, &c., would 
 not be legal without our confirmation, or that a son 
 so adopted could not be an heir in the usual sense 
 
 ifi Vol. xviii., pp. 318 and 311). 
 17 JhuL, p. 318.
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 43 
 
 of the term ; nor will anybody allege, that on the 
 extmction of the famihes of those Princes, their 
 dominions will devolve on us as an escheat. The 
 claims founded on the general usage, therefore, fall 
 to the ground." 
 
 I give this rather long extract unwillingly ; but 
 it is difficult to condense Mr. Elphiustone's preg- 
 nant sentences ; and the '* text-book on adoption " 
 has been so largely used by the annexationists, that 
 I felt myself bound to let the pubHc have the other 
 side of the question. 
 
 I could easily give more evidence, if needed, 
 but I forbear. I now ask the reader, whether Sir 
 Charles Jackson is right in saying that the Para- 
 mount Power can go on absorbing the States of its 
 allies in the way he advocates, according to law 
 and usage as they prevail in Hindustan ? 
 
 That the British Government in India is now 
 stronger than it was a century ago is nothing to 
 the purpose. I am certain it will not wilfully use 
 its strength for wrong. It will never, I trust, leave 
 the path of truth and justice. These, when pointed 
 out, must be its guides. Her Gracious Majesty has 
 intimated to us, in the memorable Proclamation of 
 1858, how she desires to rule over us, and in what
 
 44 ADOPTION r. ANNEXATION. 
 
 manner her Government will treat her allies the 
 Princes of India ; and I would beg of her respon- 
 sible advisers to do as they would be done by. I 
 grieve to see that the wisdom of the Proclamation 
 issued by Lord Derby's Cabinet is questioned by a 
 man so right-aiming in other matters as the 
 Duke.^*^ That document has been w^orth more than 
 the 70,000 British bayonets now in India. It is 
 a tower of strength to both countries ; and any 
 statesman who makes light of it is unconsciously 
 sapping Indian faith in the honour of Great Britain. 
 
 To proceed. — The annexationists must bear in 
 mind that " a weak Power does not surrender its 
 independence and right to self-government by asso- 
 ciating with a stronger, and receiving its protection. 
 This," says Chancellor Kent, '*is the settled doc- 
 trine of the law of nations. "^^ 
 
 When the Princes of India sought the protection 
 of the British power, did they do so with the view 
 of annihilating themselves ? These Kajalis entered 
 into treaties of perpetual amity and friendship, and 
 trusted to the word, the faith, the honour of 
 
 ^^ India viulcr Dalhousie and Canniny, by the Duke of 
 Argyll, pp. 105 and 106. 
 
 •'J Kint on Aniriiraii f.air, vol. iii., p. 511.
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 45 
 
 England. Do perpetual amity and friendship mean 
 perpetual jealousy, permanent dread of being 
 levelled to the dust, agreeably to the Mangles' 
 theory ? I am sure that those who are not blinded 
 by a superstitious belief in their own crotchets will 
 give only one reply. The Hindu law, the usage of 
 the country, are clearly in favour of the Princes. 
 Suppose, for a moment, they were neither favour- 
 able to nor against them. Are there no treaties ? 
 If there are, are these not acknowledgments of the 
 sovereignty of these Princes by the British Govern- 
 ment ? That sovereignty may be qualified or un- 
 qualified ; the authority of the Sovereign may 
 extend over five miles or over 50,000 miles — in the 
 eye of the law it is the same. If the Principality 
 is a sovereignty, the succession to its throne can 
 only be regulated by its own internal laws. There 
 cannot be the slightest pretence for a strong allied 
 Power to step in and impose restrictions on the 
 choice of a successor, except in conformity with 
 the law of that State or in accordance with some 
 treaty engagement. Any other kind of interference 
 is illegal and unjust, and is merely the effect of 
 brute force. An ally, although powerful, is only 
 an ally. To talk of Scindia, the Nizam, and such
 
 46 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 others as feudatories, as though they were Earls 
 and Dukes, is to institute comparisons between 
 things which differ from one another as the night 
 does from the day. There is no doubt that the 
 British, being the strongest Power, is able to dic- 
 tate in many cases to her weaker neighbours. In 
 the case of successions, it is first consulted, because 
 its countenance settles the question in favour of 
 some candidate, who is sure of his seat on the 
 throne ; and all fear of internal dissensions is re- 
 moved. But where is the argument for annexing 
 States in such circumstances ? As Mr. Ludlow has 
 so tersely put it, if, from the power of consenting ^ 
 to adoptions, you deduce the power of refusing 
 them, and of confiscating the States so circum- 
 stanced, the same doctrine "would authorize the 
 appropriation of partnership interests by copar- 
 ceners of shares in a public company by boards of 
 directors, of the fortunes of wards by their guar- 
 dians, of the fee-simple by a tenant for life : '"■^" I 
 would add, of deposits by bankers, of our children's ^ 
 goods by our neighbours, and of disputed property 
 by the judges adjudicating the claims to it of rival 
 
 20 Thoughts on the Policy/ of the Croioi tnn-<inls India, by 
 J. ^r. LuDiiOw, Esq., Barrister-at-l.aw, j). 110.
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 47 
 
 suitors. And yet, what does the argument of the 
 annexationists amount to, if not to this ? 
 
 Again, it is the boast of the Enghsh law that 
 the Sovereign never dies.^^ You talk of the demise 
 of the crown. Is not the self-same principle of 
 equal force in India ? In Rajpootana, we find that 
 the law admits of no interregnum. What else is it 
 but the principle " rex nunquam moritur " ex- 
 pressed in a different form ? The law of nations 
 and the safety of the Indian Princes demand that 
 this principle should be jealously guarded. Whilst 
 on this subject I must confess my astonishment at 
 a passage from Mr. Halliday's Minute quoted by 
 Mr. Ludlow : — " Colonel Low," says Mr. (now Sir 
 Frederick) Halliday, " announces a doctrine regard- 
 ing succession to a Hindoo Principality, which, 
 except as regards Bajpoot States, I never heard of 
 before, which I am satisfied no Hindoo lawyer ever 
 heard of, and which would make it impossible that // 
 any Hindoo succession should ever fail." 
 
 This betrays the cloven foot of annexation. Why 
 should Mr. Halliday wish it to fail ? And how can 
 such wish be reconciled with her Majesty's gracious 
 Proclamation ? 
 
 *' Beoom's Lefial Maxima, p. 51.
 
 48 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 " We desire no extension of our present terri- 
 torial possessions; and while we will permit no 
 aggressions upon our dominions or our rights to be 
 attempted, we shall sanction no encroachments on 
 those of others ; we shall respect the rights, dignity, 
 and honour of native Princes as our own." 
 
 There is no shuffling here. The words are 
 clear and capable of only one interpretation ; and 
 that is that there shall be no more annexations 
 under colour of a law or usage of escheat, tvUich in 
 reality has never existed. 
 
 To recapitulate what has been advanced in the 
 preceding pages : — The Hindu law authorizes its 
 followers to adopt a son in a certain mode ; this 
 power of adoption in a Hindu is both a right and a 
 duty ; nobody can legally take away this right (the 
 Paramount Power itself not excepted). In the case 
 of Sovereign Princes, law and usage have settled 
 the mode of succession ; and their relations with the 
 British Government have been founded on treaties 
 which must be observed. Were none of these safe- 
 guards in existence, the law of nations would come 
 to the rescue, and determine by the customs of each 
 particular State how its succession ought to be 
 regulated. If, in the face of these facts, the lord
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE. 49 
 
 paramountry of Great Britain is still to be paraded 
 before the native public and the Princes of Hindustan, 
 as a pretext for spoliation, I say in the words of a 
 great Indian statesman, the late Mr. Tucker, ** 
 " True, we wield the power of the sword, and our 
 political supremacy is everywhere acknowledged ; 
 but we do not possess, and never can possess, 
 the power to violate treaties — the power to do 
 wrong and to commit injustice — the power to 
 dominate over those who cannot resist us, while 
 we hesitate to enforce it in our relations with those 
 States who enjoy, with a larger territory, a greater 
 degree of independence." 
 
 I shall now pass on to a few general reflections 
 on the subject treated of, in its relation to the 
 future of the British Empire in India. 
 
 22 Tucker's Indian Gorrmwcut, by J. W. Kaye, p. 251.
 
 60 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 I BELIEVE I have now shown the untenableness of 
 the doctrine of lapse, which has no foundation in 
 the customs of this country. Sir Charles Jackson, 
 after a large amount of special pleading on this 
 question, winds up his book by a carefully-worded 
 eulogy of Lord Dalhousie, and the Duke of Argyll 
 argues that his policy has been the *' salvation of 
 India." ^ 
 
 When the advocate has a bad case, his best 
 policy is said to be to abuse the attorney on the 
 other side. Sir Charles seems, mutatis mutandis, 
 to be following this practice by branding all the 
 hostile criticism as the " clamour of paid advocacy." ^ 
 Admitting the great abilities and varied talents of 
 Lord Dalhousie, is it pretended by his admirers that 
 
 ^ India under Dalhousie and Canning, p. 68. 
 
 " Lord Dalliouaies Indian Administration, p. 172.
 
 GENERAL OBSERVATIOXS. 51 
 
 he was more than a man ? Is not a defence per fas 
 et nefas damagin<]j to the defended ? We Hindus are 
 regarded as idolaters ; though I might say some of us 
 are better in that respect than some of our Enghsh 
 fellow-subjects, and, with the education which we 
 are thankfully receiving from the British Govern- 
 ment, our materialism is fast wearing away. I 
 regret to see, however, that Great Britain is retro- 
 grading rather than improving. Her sons, hke the 
 two authors now before me, will not acknowledge 
 the blunders of her statesmen, but set them before 
 us as models of perfection. Is this not asserting 
 the doctrine of infallibility ? Lord Dalhousie, like 
 other men, was liable to error, and his errors as a 
 public man are common property, to be used as 
 warnings from whence we may extract edification 
 and improvement. 
 
 The dissatisfaction caused by the policy of 
 " confiscation "' was far and wide-spread over the 
 length and breadth of Hindustan. There were men 
 in all parts of the country who were filled with alarm 
 at what was passing around them. Statesmen in 
 England lifted up their voice in defence of the right, 
 
 ■^ Tucker's Tndiun Gorermiwnt, p. 250. 
 
 4—2
 
 62 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 but in vain. I will only quote one instance, from a 
 work published in 1853 by one of our neighbours 
 in Ceylon, Mr. John Capper, late editor of the 
 Ceylon Examiner. The passage is characteristic. 
 Mr. Capper says :* — 
 
 ** I cannot, I must confess, agree with those 
 advocates of universal Indian annexation, who 
 persist in attributing all our failures in these cases 
 to stopping short of the complete subjugation of 
 every independent State. Their advice is precisely 
 that of the great quack vegetarian, when told by a 
 patient that his pills were inefficacious, although his 
 instructions had been most rigidly observed. The 
 vendor of pills declared that the sick man could not 
 have taken enough of them ; to which the other 
 replied, that he had swallowed the largest dose 
 prescribed in any case, viz., a whole boxful. 
 ' But,' asked the impudent quack, * did you 
 swallow the box also ? ' The patient was stag- 
 gered, and declared that such a proceeding had not 
 occurred to him. * Ah ! ' rejoined the bold vege- 
 tarian, ' I thought not. Go home and try the 
 
 * The Three Presidencien of India, by John Capper, F.R.A.S., 
 lato editor of the Ceylnn Examiurr, 1803, pp. 270-1.
 
 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 63 
 
 box.' Even thus our India quacks would have the 
 State try the native ' box,' regardless of the conse- 
 quences." 
 
 '' The loss of revenue, however, is not the only 
 disadvantage we labour under in regard to our 
 intimate connection with the native States. There 
 is the loss of reputation to be taken into account ; a 
 loss which, although not as yet apparent in tliis 
 country, has long been matter of notoriety in India, 
 and cannot any longer be hidden even here. It will 
 reflect everlasting disgrace upon the British name 
 that the most solemn engagements, the most formal 
 treaties with many native Princes, some of whom 
 had long proved themselves our staunch and 
 unfailing aUies, should have been utterly disre- 
 garded, and cast aside to suit the political or 
 pecuniary purpose of the day; that reputation 
 should have been weighed in the balance against 
 rupees, and made to kick the beam ; that the good 
 faith of a Christian country should have been 
 thought as nothing when placed against a few 
 hundred miles of Indian territory." 
 
 How could such a state of things end otherwise 
 than it did, when everybody found himself being fast 
 reduced to one common level : — Princes and Chiefs
 
 54 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 by disinheritance and annexation ; Zemindars by 
 tenant-right set up against them ; Inamdars and 
 Wattandars by resumption-Commissions; the priest- 
 hood by their temples thrown over as heirlooms 
 to litigation, and by missionary assaults from with- 
 out, and legislative blows from within, the pale of 
 the Government ? What wonder that general distrust 
 and discontent should prevail ? The greased cart- 
 ridges were but the last spark. There can be no 
 y doubt that dissatisfaction had spread far and wide, 
 and whatever official reports may say, the great 
 rebellion of 1857 was a religious-political rising 
 commenced by the army, but having much of the 
 popular element in it, as the history of its rise," 
 ,y\ progress, and end conclusively shows. I tried to 
 ^ solve the question of the chuppatties which were said 
 to be circulated in 1857-8. No one in these parts 
 has been able to unravel the mystery. It is clear, 
 however, that they were a sign of distress, which 
 each village carried beyond its limits, lest by keeping 
 them some calamity might befall its inhabitants. 
 Such superstitious observances are in different forms 
 found to prevail when pestilence or some such 
 y calamity l)cfalls the land. 
 
 . The Duke of Argyll says, " The entire armies
 
 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 55 
 
 of Bombay and of Madras escaped the plague."* 
 Perhaps his Grace is not aware that two whole 
 regiments, the 21st and 27th, were struck off the 
 strength of the Bombay army as being affected 
 with this very plague. 
 
 Again, the Duke says^ that " the infection of the 
 mutiny never reached the Presidencies of Madras or 
 of Bombay." He is misinformed. The whole of 
 the southern Maratha country was more or less 
 disaffected. The rebellion at Nargoond and Shola- 
 pore was the direct result of refusal of leave to 
 adopt. The confiscation of the chiefships of Sonee, 
 Tasgaum, Kagwud, Shedbal, Chincharee, and 
 Nipanee, on the ground of escheat by the so-called 
 law of lapse, furnish sufficient explanation of the con- 
 flagration which only General Le Grand Jacob's popu- 
 larity and ability prevented from spreading. The exe- 
 cutions at Sattara, Kolapore, Bclgaum, Kurrachee, 
 and divers other places, also tell the same tale. 
 These facts are patent to the whole world. If, in 
 spite of all that has happened, Cabinet Ministers 
 will arise to defend a policy exploded by the 
 
 5 Lulin under Dalhoiisit' and Cunning, p. 92. 
 
 6 Ihid, p. 118.
 
 56 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 unanswerable logic of facts, and disowned by the 
 Queen's Government in 1858, then indeed our 
 niillennium is very far off indeed. 
 
 A glorious opportunity now awaits the British 
 Parliament to show practically that it will right the 
 wronged. I allude to the case of the Maharajah 
 of Mysore, which I see is to be brought before the 
 British nation. The Maharajah's cause, or in other 
 words that of British faith, is warmly and judiciously 
 advocated by five members of the Indian Council. 
 But natives of India are grieved to see a person like 
 Mr. Mangles employing ai'guments as puerile as 
 they are unjust. Whoever heard a treaty such as 
 that of Mysore called a " deed of gift ? " ^ Still more 
 strange is it to read that the w^ords " shall be 
 binding upon the contracting parties as long as the 
 sun and moon shall endure, do not imply perpetuity 
 to Indian minds." The Indian mind is shocked at 
 such sophistry in high quarters. As to policy, I 
 say for the safety both of India and England — for 
 our welfare is intimately connected with that of 
 Great Britain — that political honesty and fair dealing 
 is the best policy. I would request members of 
 
 7 Mysore Pajicrs, p. 84.
 
 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 67 
 
 Parliament to fling away mere '* ephemeral political 
 expediency " (to use Mr. Mangles' own expression), 
 and look well and deeply into the past and the 
 future. Weigh the words of Sir G. Clerk, Sir F. 
 Currie, Mr. Eastwick, and the other dissenting 
 members. You are now looking at the events of 
 1805 from the stand-point of 1866. Take note that 
 your conduct will be watched by the people of India. 
 Do justice even if the heavens fall. ** The good of 
 the people," which the annexationists talk of to 
 excuse their injustice to the Princes of India, is a 
 mere stock pretence, and this is well shown by Sir F. 
 Currie and others. Has '' the good of the people " 
 been considered when "ephemeral political expe- 
 diency" pointed the other w^ay ?^ and have not 
 people been handed over bodily to alien rulers 
 when it suited the interests of the British Govern- 
 ment ? 
 
 The Maharajah of Mysore is a Sovereign under 
 a specific treaty. If he breaks it, let him by all 
 means be punished in accordance ivith that treaty. 
 But, for the British nation to permit mere land- 
 hunger to turn itself from the scrupulous obser- 
 
 8 Mtjuore Piipcrx, p. 24.
 
 58 ADOPTION V. ANNEXATION. 
 
 vance of treaties, is like a descent from the spiritual 
 to the material — a lapse from monotheism into 
 idolatry, which must in time corrupt the governors 
 and the governed, to the certain ruin both of 
 India and England. 
 
 THE END.
 
 ,x-rj^^^tf^-\:fm 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped helow 
 
 mm. fl^'^^IP 
 
 HB7 1967 
 
 Form L-0 
 aom-l/41(1122) 
 
 .AL.WtJSHII^ 
 
 LOS iLNGKLKB 
 lAKY
 
 i 
 
 4Q98 Visvanatka 
 V82a Nsirayaiia 
 
 Mandalika • 
 
 - Moption versus 
 annexation. 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 520 571 
 
 JX 
 
 4098 
 V82a
 
 
 
 
 l»6<* 
 
 ■•>v^- 
 
 ■fe:^.<~. 
 
 ■'>? 
 
 
 'Vi,Ai**i>tMf 
 
 !^.V.