What Lord Dalhousie did was to uniformly apply the principle. The fundamental question was whether we should allow the government of a dependent State, in absence of natural heirs, to pass like mere private property to an adopted son. The Court of Directors had at one time permitted the adoption of a successor in special cases to a principality on failure of natural heirs. It declared however, in 1834, that such an 'indulgence should be the exception, not the rule, and should never be granted but as a special mark of favour and approbation.' As the evils of the old system of government by sham royalties further developed themselves, the Government of India determined in 1841 to enforce a more uniform policy. It unanimously laid down the principle, 'to persevere in the one clear and direct course of abandoning no just and honourable accession of territory or revenue, while all existing claims of right are at the same time scrupulously respected.'
What was this 'right'? By ancient law every Hindu is entitled on failure of male heirs of his body to adopt a son. Such an adoption was necessary for the discharge of the religious ceremonies upon which the welfare of the deceased parent depended in the future state. The adopted son, who is usually, although not necessarily, selected from among the junior relatives of the family, represents the spiritual persona of his
