Page:History of India Vol 8.djvu/393

Rh princes, impairing their independence and retarding the natural development of stronger organizations. Nor did our interests seem to him to require that we should undertake the preservation of the smaller chiefships adjacent to our frontiers from absorption by the larger predatory states. It seems, on the contrary, to have been his view that the English protectorate should not extend beyond the actual limits of British possessions – a rule of political fortification that has never been practised in India; for England has always found it necessary to throw forward a kind of glacis in advance of her administrative border-line, so as to interpose a belt of protected states or tribes between British territory proper and the country of some turbulent or formidable neighbour.

Lord Cornwallis lost no time in declaring his intention of removing the "unfavourable and dangerous impression" that the British government contemplated establishing its control and authority over every state in India. He died, however, on October 5, 1805, within three months after his arrival, before he could do more than indicate this change of policy. But his views – which represented the reaction in England against Lord Wellesley's costly and masterful operations – so far prevailed that for the next ten years following his decease the experiment of isolation was fairly tried by the British government in India. Sir (George Barlow, whom the death of Cornwallis made Governor-General for a time, laid down the principle that a certain extent of dominion, local power, and revenue would be cheaply