carried little weight in the political balance; and the chief concern of the British government was to prevent their premature dissolution. By this time Oudh had fallen entirely under the British protectorate; a system which, while it upholds the native dynasty, is necessarily incompatible with the independent sovereignty of the prince; for the military defence of the country is undertaken by the protecting power, and the ruler binds himself by a subsidiary treaty to defray the expenses of an army which he does not command.
Moreover, no Asiatic dynasty can endure which does not produce a succession of able men, tried and selected by proof of individual capacity to rule. But the system of protectorates, which maintains hereditary right and does not permit an incapable heir to be set aside by energetic usurpers, cannot fail to seat on the throne, sooner or later, a prince who has no natural right to be there. The decline of governing ability was already visible in Oudh, which was falling into internal confusion and financial straits. Security from internal revolt and foreign attack bred indolence and irresponsibility; mismanagement of the revenue increased the burden of the subsidy; and the maladministration that was partly the consequence of the protective system became a reason for continuing it. Similar symptoms showed themselves later in Haidarabad, when that state also passed under the British protectorate.
The history of these complicated transactions serves mainly to illustrate the extraordinary and ever-recurring difficulties which have beset the British govern-
