preceding the revolt of the army had seen the British dominions largely extend-ed by the absorption of the Native States. Oudh had been annexed because of the Kins:'s misrule. One after another the states of Satara, Jhansi and Nagpur had been treated as escheats. It is true that neither the doctrine of escheat nor the practice was new. But they had never been so logically or systematically en^ forced. The views of the Governor-General were well known. He believed that petty principahties, intervening within the British boundaries, might be made the means of annoyance to us, but Gould never be a source of strength. He expressed that advantage should be taken of every juot opportunity to get rid of them by annexing them when there were no direct heirs. He had apphed his principles to one of the largest states and had argued for them in the case of the oldest. No ruhng chief felt secure for the future, and there arose general fear.[1]
- ↑ Aitchison's Lord Lawrence pp. 134— J 3s,
