1. Chesson, F. W., The Princes of India; their Rights and our Duties (London: William Tweedie, 1872), 21Google Scholar. Chesson was the son-in-law of prominent India reformer George Thompson and the secretary of the Aborigines’ Protection Society.

2. Dalhousie's scheme to unseat the Mughal emperor encountered stiff resistance from eighteen of the Company's directors. See John Hobhouse to James Broun-Ramsay, Marquess of Dalhousie, December 6, 1849, British Library (hereafter BL), Mss Eur F213/27, f. 241.

3. “Minute of the Governor-General of India, August 30, 1848,” in Papers Relating to the Question of the Disposal of the Sattara State, in consequence of the Death of the Late Raja (London: J. & H. Cox, 1849), 104Google Scholar.

4. John Dickinson, the son of a wealthy paper manufacturer, and Quaker MP John Bright helmed this London-based organization, which was eventually overshadowed by Dadabhai Naoroji's East India Association in the late 1860s.

5. Dickinson, John, “Last Words on an Imperial Policy,” in Last Counsels of an Unknown Counsellor, ed. Bell, T. Evans (London: Macmillan and Co., 1877), 182Google Scholar.

6. Bell, Thomas Evans, “Our Great Vassal Empire” (London: Trübner & Co., 1870), 54Google Scholar.

7. Bell, Thomas Evans, Retrospects and Prospects of Indian Policy (London: Trübner & Co., 1868), 335Google Scholar.

8. Fisher, Michael H., Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian Travellers and Settlers in Britain, 1600-1857 (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004), 243–98Google Scholar; Fisher, Michael H., “Being Indian in Britain during 1857,” in Mutiny at the Margins, vol. 2, ed. Bates, Crispin and Major, Andrea (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2013), 134–52Google Scholar; and Stubbings, Matthew, “Subverting Company Raj: Dispossessed Indian Princes’ Wealth and Loyalism in 1850s Britain,” Immigrants & Minorities 35 (2017): 108–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Metcalf, Thomas R., The Aftermath of the Revolt: India, 1857–1870 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964), 232Google Scholar.

10. Benton, Lauren, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Ibid., 244, 258.

12. Benton, Lauren and Ford, Lisa, Rage for Order: The British Empire and the Origins of International Law, 1800–1850 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Colonial India largely remains outside the scope of this study.

13. Ibid., 21.

14. Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 37, 50–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More recently, scholars have challenged the notion of a firm break between legal naturalism and positivism in the nineteenth century. See Sylvest, Casper, British Liberal Internationalism, 1880–1930 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pitts, Jennifer, Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018), 17, 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. In search of rules of conduct, some positivists were concerned that an excessively historicist understanding of international law would produce a “debilitating awareness of flux and contingency.” See Anghie, Imperialism, 51.

16. Ibid., 81.

17. Pitts, Boundaries of the International, 3.

18. Bell, Thomas Evans, “Is India a Conquered Country? And if So, What then?” Journal of the East India Association 4 (1870): 202Google Scholar.

19. Alexandrowicz, C. H., An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (London: Clarendon Press, 1967), 144Google Scholar.

20. Anghie, Imperialism, 22; and Pitts, Boundaries of the International, 9.

21. Hunter, Ian, “Global Justice and Regional Metaphysics: on the Critical History of the Law of Nature and Nations,” in Law and Politics in British Colonial Thought: Transpositions of Empire, ed. Dorsett, Shaunnagh and Hunter, Ian (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 12Google Scholar.

22. Mukherjee, Mithi, “Justice, War, and the Imperium: India and Britain in Edmund Burke's Prosecutorial Speeches in the Impeachment Trial of Warren Hastings,” Law and History Review 23 (2005): 617, 619CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. Pitts, Jennifer, “Empire and Legal Universalisms in the Eighteenth Century,” The American Historical Review 117 (2012): 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Ludlow, John Malcolm, Thoughts on the Policy of the Crown towards India (London: James Ridgway, 1859), 177Google Scholar.

25. I am not disputing Vattel's advocacy of an economic balance of power rooted in the belief that interstate commerce contributed to a nation's self-perfection. Vattel sought to guarantee access to “necessities” at a “reasonable price”; if these conditions were not met, disadvantaged consumers would be justified in taking retaliatory action. See Nakhimovsky, Isaac, “Vattel's Theory of the International Order: Commerce and the Balance of Power in the Law of Nations,” History of European Ideas 33 (2007): 169–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Grotius, Hugo, Of the Rights of War and Peace, vol. 2 (London: D. Brown, 1715), 632Google Scholar. The Persians’ persecution of Christians on account of their religion constituted such an offense and warranted Roman sanctions.

27. de Vattel, Emmerich, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1797), 158Google Scholar.

28. Vattel affirmed the legitimacy of conventions with non-Christian powers, noting that “the law of nature alone regulates the treaties of nations: the difference of religion is a thing absolutely foreign to them.” See Vattel, The Law of Nations, 195. For a critical analysis of Vattel's universalism, see Pitts, Boundaries of the International, 68–91.

29. Vattel, The Law of Nations, 94.

30. Ibid., 203.

31. Bell, Thomas Evans, The Rajah and Principality of Mysore: with a Letter to the Right Hon. Lord Stanley, M.P. (London: Thomas Richards, 1865), 13Google Scholar.

32. Wheaton, Henry, Elements of International Law, 8th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1866), 30Google Scholar.

33. Bell, Retrospects, 314.

34. Wheaton had initially characterized semi-sovereignty as a self-contradictory “solecism in terms,” although this warning was removed in later editions.

35. Lorca, Arnulf Becker, Mestizo International Law: a Global Intellectual History, 1842–1933 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 131–32Google Scholar. Wheaton died in 1848, and the 6th edition of Elements (1855) was the last to feature his personal revisions.

36. Wheaton, Henry, History of the Law of Nations in Europe and America (New York: Gould, Banks, and Co., 1845), 555Google Scholar.

37. Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 38.

38. Peters, Richard, The Case of the Cherokee Nation Against the State of Georgia; Argued and Determined at the Supreme Court of the United States, January Term 1831 (Philadelphia: John Grigg, 1831), 197Google Scholar. Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokee, as a “domestic dependent nation,” lacked the legal standing to sue a state of the Union.

39. Some reformist commentators also looked to the American system as a template for a princely federation in India. See “The Foreign Policy of the Future,” Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce, September 1, 1859, 551.

40. Twiss, Travers, The Law of Nations Considered as Independent Political Communities (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1861), 35Google Scholar.

41. Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 36.

42. Ghose, Mano Mohun, Manipur. Did the Manipur Princes obtain a Fair Trial? (London: William Hutchinson & Co., 1891), 16Google Scholar.

43. Ibid, 24.

44. Queen Victoria doubted that the government's ploy to seize Tikendrajit in his own durbar was legally justifiable, and unsuccessfully urged Viceroy Lansdowne to commute his death sentence. Referencing Manipur, Lansdowne ruled that international law had no bearing on the relations between the Government of India and the native states. See John Parratt and Saroj Parratt, N. Arambam, Queen Empress vs. Tikendrajit Prince of Manipur: The Anglo-Manipuri Conflict of 1891 (New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, 1992), 168Google Scholar; and Benton and Ford, Rage for Order, 187.

45. Lee-Warner, William, The Protected Princes of India (London: Macmillan and Co, 1894), 380Google Scholar.

46. Echoing Mutiny chronicler John William Kaye, Dirks disparages this concept as a “rhetorical sham of Company political theory.” See Dirks, Nicholas B., Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 187Google Scholar.

47. Cohn, Bernard S., “Representing Authority in Victorian India,” in The Invention of Tradition, ed. Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 169–73Google Scholar.

48. As Bayly notes, the Mughal emperor was effectively the “‘king of kings’, rather than king of India.” He martialed resources through ceremonial exchanges and distributing royal honors, but quotidian attributes of sovereignty such as the collection of revenue lay with the local Hindu rajas. See Bayly, C. A., Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 13–14Google Scholar.

49. Fisher, Michael H., “The Imperial Coronation of 1819: Awadh, the British and the Mughals,” Modern Asian Studies 19 (1985): 253CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50. Bell, Thomas Evans, The Mysore Reversion, “An Exceptional Case,” 2nd ed. (London: Trübner and Co., 1866), 134Google Scholar.

51. Fisher, in contrast, has claimed that international law was primarily referenced to justify “the right of conquest by force of arms.” See Fisher, Michael H., “Introduction: the History and Historiography of Annexations,” in The Politics of the British Annexation of India, 1757–1857, ed. Fisher, Michael H. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993), 27Google Scholar.

52. Richard Cavendish to William Macnaghten, September 21, 1832, BL, IOR/F/4/1511/59553, f. 8.

53. William Macnaghten to Chief Secretary Swinton, October 2, 1832, BL, IOR/F/4/1511/59553, f. 6.

54. First Report from the Select Committee on Indian Territories (1853), 523.

55. “Letter from H. B. E. Frere,” in Papers Relating to the Disposal of the Sattara State, in Consequence of the Death of the Late Raja (London, 1849), 149–50Google Scholar.

56. Bapojee, Rungo, A Letter to the Right Honourable Sir John Cam Hobhouse (London, 1848), 9Google Scholar.

57. Dalhousie later acknowledged that this formative articulation of the doctrine of lapse was “scandalously expressed”; he had only meant to refer to the rare phenomenon of “incomplete” adoptions. See James Broun-Ramsay to John Hobhouse, February 9, 1850 and March 25, 1850, BL, Add MS 36477, ff. 163, 182.

58. “Minute by Sir G. R. Clerk,” in Papers Relating to the Disposal of the Sattara State, 81.

59. “1847. General Administration,” in Papers Relating to the Disposal of the Sattara State, 65.

60. John Briggs, “The Debate at the India House,” Daily News, April 28, 1849, 5. Briggs was treasurer of the BIS and a staunch defender of Pratap Singh.

61. “Dissent by the Hon. W. L. Melville,” in Papers Relating to the Question of the Disposal of the Sattara State, 172–75.

62. “East India House,” Morning Chronicle, April 18, 1850, 3.

63. Sullivan, John, Are We Bound by our Treaties? A Plea for the Princes of India (London: Effingham Wilson, 1853), 28Google Scholar.

64. Ibid., 57.

65. “East India House,” Morning Chronicle, April 18, 1850, 3.

66. “Debate at the India House,” February 8, 1843, BL, Mss Eur 932/282, f. 650.

67. When the Raja of Nagpur “abdicated very mal a propos” by dying without an heir in late 1853, Dalhousie rejected the notion of the “divine right of Rajahs” and predicted that the question of annexation would “turn on policy not on right.” See James Broun-Ramsay to F. Courtenay, January 4, 1854, BL, Mss Eur C204.

68. Bell credited Ranee Banka Baee with preventing local Brahmin notables from colluding in the Uprising.

69. “Memo 2,” Thomas Evans Bell to G. F. Edmonstone, September 14, 1858, BL, IOR L/PS/6/477 Coll 36/2, f. 265.

70. George Plowden to Cecil Beadon, February 16, 1859, BL, IOR L/PS/6/477 Coll 36/2, f. 286.

71. George Plowden to Thomas Evans Bell, February 15, 1859, BL, IOR L/PS/6/477 Coll 36/2, f. 289.

72. Metcalf, Thomas R., Ideologies of the Raj (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Victoria was anointed Empress of India at the Imperial Assemblage of 1877.

73. Dickinson, John, Dhar Not Restored; in Spite of the House of Commons, and of Public Opinion (London: P. S. King, 1864), 95Google Scholar.

74. Reformers suspected that Henry Marion Durand, the acting Resident at Indore, exaggerated Holkar's disloyalty to distract from his mismanagement of the chaotic situation. Holkar also earned the disfavor of Calcutta authorities for supporting the restoration of Dhar. See Last Counsels of an Unknown Counsellor, 106–7, 137–47.

75. “The Principality of Dhar,” Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce, July 16, 1859, 455.

76. “Editorial,” Times of India, August 17, 1865, 2; Review of Mr. John Dickinson's “Dhar Not Restored,” from the Calcutta “Englishman,” July 7, 1864 (Calcutta: Englishman Press, 1864), 17Google Scholar.

77. Vattel, The Law of Nations, 229.

78. Ludlow, Thoughts on the Policy of the Crown, 44.

79. Bell, Retrospects, 318.

80. John Hobhouse to Henry Hardinge, August 7, 1847, BL, Mss Eur F213/22, f. 26.

81. Henry Hardinge to John Hobhouse, October 4, 1847, BL, Mss Eur F213/22, f. 182.

82. Fisher, Michael H., Indirect Rule in India: Residents and the Residency System, 1764–1858 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991), 382Google Scholar.

83. Lee-Warner, William, The Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie, vol. 2 (London: Macmillan and Co, 1904), 310Google Scholar.

84. Bell, Retrospects, 63.

85. Governor-General Hardinge suggested that the Company might suspend its treaty with the nizam to prevent a financial meltdown, noting that it was “ridiculous to permit our ally to be getting into debt, to maintain nearly sixty thousand men.” See Henry Hardinge to John Hobhouse, June 23, 1847, BL, Mss Eur F213/22, f. 48.

86. Lee-Warner, The Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie, 114.

87. Quoted in Regani, Sarojini, Nizam-British Relations, 1724–1857 (Hyderabad: Swaarajya Printing Works, 1963), 281Google Scholar.

88. Tupper, Charles Lewis, Our Indian Protectorate (London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1893), 77Google Scholar. Ultimately, the CoD pressured Dalhousie to maintain British troops in Awadh and offer the nawab a new treaty; Wajid Ali Shah declined to jointly administer his state, and was deposed.

89. George Thompson to Amelia Chesson, September 19, 1856, John Rylands Library, REAS2/2, f. 58.

90. “Agents of the King of Oude,” Daily News, November 19, 1857, 4.

91. Lucas, Samuel, Dacoittee in Excelsis; or, The Spoilation of Oude, by the East India Company (London: J. R. Taylor, 1857), v, 196Google Scholar. Famed archaeologist and MP Austen Henry Layard also regarded the justice of the Awadh annexation as a matter for “those best versed in the law of nations,” referring his readers to the “professional opinion of Dr. Travers Twiss.” See Layard, Austen Henry, “The Indian Rebellion, its Causes and Results,” Quarterly Review 104 (1858): 262Google Scholar.

92. Ludlow was an associate of Dickinson's and the nephew of Francis Carnac Brown, the former secretary of the BIS.

93. Ludlow, John Malcolm, The War in Oude (Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1858), 20Google Scholar.

94. Ibid., 54–56. Ludlow believed that the Company should set up a “Hindoo confederacy” in the region rather than dealing with “an effete and do-nothing royal race of Mussulmans.”

95. Whig statesman Charles Wood took the bait: Indians, he warned, looked “upon the Governor General as the king of kings” and would misconstrue the imposition of metropolitan oversight over his actions as a sign of weakness. See Charles Wood, Speech to House of Commons, May 17, 1858, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, 3rd ser., vol. 150 (1858), col. 784.

96. Cairns, Hugh, Speech of the Solicitor General, delivered in the House of Commons, May 14 1858, in Opposition to Mr. Cardwell's Motion (London: I. R. Taylor, 1858), 9Google Scholar. Ellenborough's defenders in the London press denounced the confiscation of proprietary rights as an aberration that had not occurred in the recent annexations of Sind and Punjab. See G. B. M., “Our Policy in India,” Daily News, May 12, 1858, 5.

97. Vattel, The Law of Nations, 388.

98. “Our Relation to the Princes of India,” Westminster Review 69 (1858): 469Google Scholar. See also “Response of I. T. Prichard,” in Bell, “Is India a Conquered Country?” 211.

99. Karl Marx, Untitled, New-York Daily Tribune, May 28, 1858, 4. Marx also challenged Dalhousie's dismissal of the 1837 treaty.

100. “The Carnatic and Tanjore Incubus on the Revenues of the Deccan,” Friend of India, April 2, 1840, 210.

101. Hickey, William, The Tanjore Mahratta Principality in Southern India: the Land of the Chola; the Eden of the South, 2nd ed. (Madras: C. Foster and Co., 1874), 160Google Scholar.

102. Madras Native Association, Report of the Proceedings at the Presentation of an Address to John Bruce Norton (Madras: Scottish Press, 1860), 4, 44Google Scholar.

103. Srinivasachari, C. S., “The Nawabs of the Carnatic,” in The Politics of the British Annexation of India, 1757–1857, ed. Fisher, Michael H. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993), 115Google Scholar.

104. Times of India, August 17, 1861, 2.

105. Moodelliar, C. Poorooshottum, The Carnatic Case in a Nutshell (London: 1861), 4Google Scholar.

106. East India, 1860. Copies of Letters from the Governor General of India and from the Madras Government, in the Months of October, November, and December 1855 (HC, 219), 12–13.

107. East India, 1861. Papers Relating to the Nawaubs of the Carnatic (HC, 283), 134.

108. Vattel declared that “there would be no stability in the affairs of men, and especially in those of nations, if long possession, accompanied by the silence of the persons concerned, did not produce a degree of right.” See Vattel, The Law of Nations, 96.

109. East India, 1861. Papers Relating to the Nawaubs of the Carnatic, 141.

110. Bell, Thomas Evans, “A Privy Council for India,” Journal of the East India Association 9 (1876): 295Google Scholar. Through his agitation, Azeem Jah secured a ₤30,000 annuity, a permanent endowment for his family, a large grant for debt repayment, and even a new title as “Prince of Arcot” in 1867.

111. As editor of the Madras Athenaeum, Norton introduced contributor Thomas Evans Bell to John Dickinson in the early 1860s. Norton himself served as the Tanjore ranees’ metropolitan agent. See Madras Native Association to John Bruce Norton, February 1860, BL, Mss Eur 422.

112. Norton, John Bruce, The Rebellion in India: How to Prevent Another (London: Richardson Brothers, 1857), 105Google Scholar.

113. Twiss, The Law of Nations Considered, 328.

114. Bell, Retrospects, 261.

115. Patrick Smollett, Speech to House of Commons, June 13, 1864, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, 3rd ser., vol. 175 (1864), col. 1651.

116. “Notices of Books,” in The Contemporary Review, vol. 10 (London: Strahan & Co., 1869), 467Google Scholar.

117. Bell was never an official agent for Mysore, but the royal family periodically expressed their gratitude for his support. Following his death in 1887, the maharaja approved a ₤100 annuity for his daughter, Tina, and provided a dowry of ₤200 upon her marriage in 1898. See Patel, Dinyar and Mehrotra, S. R., eds., Dadabhai Naoroji: Selected Private Papers (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2016), 45, 51Google Scholar

118. Bell, Thomas Evans, The Empire in India: Letters from Madras and other Places (London: Trübner and Co., 1864), 105Google Scholar; Grotius, Of the Rights of War and Peace, 86.

119. Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 268.

120. Bell, Empire in India, 359.

121. Durand, Henry Marion, “Indian Treaties,” Calcutta Review 40 (1864): 388Google Scholar.

122. Ibid., 406.

123. Tupper, Our Indian Protectorate, 80.

124. Aitchison, C. U., ed., A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, vol. 8 (Calcutta: Foreign Office Press, 1892), 433Google Scholar.

125. William Bentinck to S. R. Lushington, September 6, 1831, Bodleian Library, John Briggs Papers, MSS.Eng.hist.C334, f. 6. Ironically, Bentinck pointed to Satara as a “very successful model” for a native government.

126. Bell, The Mysore Reversion, 22.

127. “From the Morning Standard, November 22, 1865,” in Opinions of the Press on the Annexation of Mysore (London: John Camden Hotten, 1866), 49Google Scholar.

128. Samuel Laing, Speech to House of Commons, May 24, 1867, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, 3rd ser, vol. 187 (1867), col. 1052.

129. Krishnaraja Wadiyar III to John Lawrence, July 4, 1866, BL, MSS Mysore R/2/1/165.

130. Wadiyar's debts were estimated at 40 lakhs in 1864. Ikegame further suggests that the maharajah accumulated 12 lakhs of debt in the period between 1864 and 1868. Even on a fixed income, Wadiyar continued to bestow inams and support a palace staff of nearly 10,000. See Ikegame, Aya, Princely India Re-imagined: A Historical Anthropology of Mysore from 1799 to the Present (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), 24–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

131. Krishnaraja Wadiyar to John Lawrence, July 1866, BL, MSS Mysore R/2/1/165.

132. Canning may have been influenced by Dalhousie's 1856 minute, in which he signaled his intent of annexing Mysore upon Krishnaraja's death. See Bell, The Rajah and Principality, 29.

133. Bell, Thomas Evans, The Bengal Reversion, Another “Exceptional Case” (London: Trübner & Co., 1872), 6Google Scholar.

134. “Indian Annexation,” Examiner, April 1, 1865, 195.

135. John Lawrence to Krishnaraja Wadiyar, May 5, 1865, BL, MSS Mysore R/2/1/164.

136. “From the Morning Standard, January 4, 1866,” in Opinions of the Press on the Annexation of Mysore, 51.

137. “An Exceptional Case,” Madras Times, February 17, 1865.

138. Krishnaraja Wadiyar to John Lawrence, January 25, 1865, BL, MSS Mysore R/2/1/164.

139. Henry Rawlinson, Speech to House of Commons, May 24, 1867, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, 3rd ser., vol. 187 (1867), col. 1046.

140. Krishnaraja Wadiyar to John Lawrence, January 25, 1865, BL, MSS Mysore R/2/1/164.

141. John Lawrence to Sir Charles Wood, May 5, 1865, East India. 1867. Copies of Correspondence between the Maharajah of Mysore and the Government of India (HC 112), 57.

142. “Dissent of Sir George Clerk, July 24, 1865,” in Copies of Correspondence between the Maharajah of Mysore and the Government of India, 72.

143. “Dissent of Mr. Eastwick, July 25, 1865,” in Copies of Correspondence between the Maharajah of Mysore and the Government of India, 80.

144. “Petition presented to the House of Commons on Friday August 10, 1866, by J. S. Mill, Esq., M.P. for Westminster,” in Opinions of the Press on the Annexation of Mysore, 4.

145. Goodlad, Lauren, The Victorian Geopolitical Aesthetic: Realism, Sovereignty, and Transnational Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Morley's article in the Fortnightly Review drew heavily on the reformers’ petition that established the permanence of the Mysore treaties by invoking “the great authorities on International Law.” Signatories included Briggs, Dickinson, Ludlow, Bell, and Chesson.

146. “The Proposed Mysore Crime – III,” Friend of India, June 15, 1865, 685.

147. “The Mysore Blue-Book,” Friend of India, May 24, 1866, 606.

148. Samuel Laing, Speech to House of Commons, May 24, 1867, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, 3rd ser., vol. 187 (1867), col. 1055.

149. “Dissent by Sir. E. Perry, concurred in by Mr. Mangles,” East India. 1867. Copy of the Minutes of the Members of the Council of India, and of other Papers or Proceedings Relative to the Despatch Conveying the Instructions of the Secretary of State for India to the Government of India, Respecting the Claims of the Maharajah of Mysore (HC, 271), 13.

150. Vattel prohibited any nation from transferring a portion of its population to a foreign power unless “indispensably obliged to it by the strongest reasons founded on the public safety.” See Vattel, The Law of Nations, 6. Colonial officers in the early 1830s also cited this finding to challenge Wadiyar's allocation of state property in grants to “unworthy persons” of his kin. See Ikegame, Princely India Re-imagined, 21.

151. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Viscount Cranborne, Speech to House of Commons, May 24, 1867, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, 3rd series, vol. 187 (1867), col. 1073.

152. Cranborne dismissed the notion that native public opinion should have any bearing on the restoration of the cotton-rich Berar districts to the Nizam of Hyderabad. See Ray, Bharati, Hyderabad and British Paramountcy, 1858–1883 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988), 121–22Google Scholar.

153. “Minute of Mr. R. D. Mangles,” in Copies of Correspondence between the Maharajah of Mysore and the Government of India, 87; and “The Mysore Blue-Book,” Friend of India, 606.

154. Brumpton, Paul R., Security and Progress: Lord Salisbury at the India Office (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), 33Google Scholar.

155. Stafford Northcote to John Lawrence, March 26, 1867, BL, Mss Eur F90/28, f. 13.

156. Stafford Northcote to John Lawrence, April 20, 1867, BL, Mss Eur F90/28, f. 68.

157. Stafford Northcote, “Paper recorded by the Secretary of State,” in East India. 1867. Copy of the Minutes of the Members of the Council of India, 6.

158. Stafford Northcote to John Lawrence, May 23, 1867, BL, Mss Eur F90/28, f. 98.

159. Briggs, John, India & Europe Compared (London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1857), 249Google Scholar.

160. Maine served as law member of the Viceroy's Council from 1863 to 1869.

161. Sir Duff, M. E. Grant, Henry Maine: a Brief Memoir of his Life (London: John Murray, 1892), 324Google Scholar.

162. Benton, Lauren, “From International Law to Imperial Constitutions: The Problem of Quasi-Sovereignty, 1870–1900,” Law and History Review 26 (2008): 604CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

163. Lee-Warner, The Protected Princes, 49.

164. Copland, Ian, The British Raj and the Indian Princes: Paramountcy in Western India, 1857–1930 (London: Sangam Books, 1982), 107Google Scholar.

165. The Law Reports. Indian Appeals: being Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies, vol. 3 (London: William Clowes and Sons, 1876), 118–23Google Scholar.

166. Ibid., 149.

167. Abstract of the Proceedings of the Council of the Governor General, Assembled for the Purpose of Making Laws and Regulations. 1876, vol. 15 (Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government, 1877), 364Google Scholar.

168. Ibid., 369.

169. Bell, “Is India a Conquered Country?” 202.

170. Tayler, William, “Publicity the Guarantee for Justice; or, ‘the Silent Chamber’ at Whitehall,” Journal of the East India Association 7 (1873): 58, 63Google Scholar.

171. Bell, “A Privy Council for India,” 296–99.

172. Ludlow, Thoughts on the Policy of the Crown, 176; Norton, The Rebellion in India, 147.

173. Prichard, Iltudus, “On the Relations between the Native States and the British Government,” Journal of the East India Association 4 (1870): 48Google Scholar.

174. “Meeting for the Further Discussion of Mr. Iltudus Prichard's Paper ‘On the Relations between the Native States and the British Government,’” Journal of the East India Association 4 (1870): 168–72Google Scholar.

175. Bell, “A Privy Council for India,” 321.

176. Bell, “Is India a Conquered Country?” 206.

177. Lorca, Mestizo International Law, 19.