adoptive father and succeeds to his property. But this theory did not apply to the political functions of the deceased. Those functions could only pass to an adopted son with the express sanction of the Sovereign Power.
'Are crowns and empire,
The government and safety of mankind,
Trifles of such light moment, to be left
Like some rich toy, a ring, or fancy'd gem,
Like pledge of parting friends? Can kings do thus.
And give away a people for a legacy[1]?'
'When the Hindu is a prince,' writes the most eminent legal authority on the question[2], 'holding his principality subordinate 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 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.'
The legal right of the sovereign power to withhold its consent to adoptions for the purpose of transmitting a subordinate principality was acknowledged. But the expediency of so doing was
