The neutral policy adopted in England was founded upon a misconception, and it was held that India could be divided off into two sections — British and native — in the concerns of each of which the other was not to interfere. But it was forgotten that the two portions were indissolubly connected by ancient tradition and by geographical position, and Lord Minto was forced to show, in April, 1810, that the plan of preserving, or rather restoring, the balance of power — which it was supposed had been disturbed by territorial expansion — was an impossible proposition.
He declared that in India 'War, rapine, and conquest constitute an avowed principle of action, a just and legitimate pursuit, and the chief source of public glory, sanctioned and even recommended by the ordinances of religion, and prosecuted without the semblance or pretext of justice, with a savage disregard of every obligation of humanity and public faith, and restrained alone by the power of resistance.' After giving examples, he proceeded: 'It is unnecessary to refer to the testimony of specific facts, with a view to demonstrate the self-evident proposition, that the permanent existence of a balance of power is incompatible with reciprocal views of conquest and ambition;' and he wound up with 'this undeniable conclusion, that no extent of concession, or territorial restitution on our part, would have the effect of establishing any real and effectual balance of power in India, or forbearance on the part
