ANNEXATION OF JHANSI. 215 



because '' the Eajah had died, and had de- 

 liberately abstained from adopting an heir;" 

 further, '' tliat his widow had adopted no suc- 

 cessor," and that therefore ''the State of Nag- 

 pore, conferred by the British Government, 

 in 1818, on the Eajah and his heirs, had re- 

 verted to the British Government on the death 

 of the Rajah without any heir." Lord Dal- 

 housie thus arrived at the conclusion that 

 "justice and custom and precedent left the 

 British Government unfettered to decide as 

 it thought best." It may be assumed from 

 this that if such adoption had taken place, 

 Lord Dalhousie would have recognised it. 

 If so, however, how comes it that His Lordship 

 refused to recognise the right of succession 

 in the case of the young Rajah of Jhansi, 

 who had been duly adopted by the late 

 Rajah [who died in November, 1853], in 

 the presence of the assistant political agent 

 at Jhansi and other functionaries, yet the 

 State of Jhansi shared the same fate as 

 Nagpore? It is true that the late Rajah 

 of Nagpore had neglected to adojDt an heir, 

 but, immediately after his death, the wishes 

 of the senior widoAV, Arna Poorna Bhaco, re- 

 garding tlie adoption of a successor, were 



