present century the principle had gradually hardened and set into a constitutional maxim, that the distinction between private property and political functions must be applied to cases of adoption in the dependent States. As to the legal validity of that maxim, and as to its acceptance by previous Governors-General; there can now be no doubt.
But between the acceptance of a constitutional principle and its consistent enforcement, there is usually a period of its uncertain application. That period had extended over many years before Lord Dalhousie's arrival in India. I have carefully read the official correspondence concerning the cases of adoption in Native States, from 1820 downwards. I find that two principles slowly emerge from the conflicting views contained in the records.
The first is that, in regard to the sovereign Native States of India, the British Government held it of the highest political importance that an orderly devolution of the succession should take place on the demise of each Prince. The Government of India accordingly directed its efforts to secure that an heir should be invariably forthcoming, whether by public declaration, or by testamentary provision, or by adoption. This anxiety is conspicuous on the death of Sindhia in 1826[1]: and
- ↑ Bengal Political Consultations, dated 6th October, 1826: Letter from the Deputy-Secretary to the Government of India, to the Assistant-Resident in charge of the Gwalior Residency, par. 2.
