it follows that the territory of Sátára has lapsed by failure of heirs to the Power which bestowed it, and we desire that it be annexed to the British dominions.'
I have dwelt at some length on the annexation of Sátára. For it is not only the leading case, but it illustrates two very important features in the application of the doctrine of lapse. It shows that Lord Dalhousie, three months after his arrival in India, found his responsible advisers almost unanimous as to the necessity of enforcing that doctrine. It also shows that they were thus almost unanimous in a case which had claims to indulgence. The deceased Raja of Sátára was a good ruler. But the Government of India had, previous to Lord Dalhousie's arrival, laid down the principle in 1841, that even in such a favourable case it was inexpedient to reconstitute a subordinate native State by recognising a death-bed adoption of a successor.
The subsequent annexations which took place under Lord Dalhousie's rule must be treated with greater brevity. For they were cases in which no valid claim could be made on the basis of law, nor any special indulgence hoped for on the ground of past good government. One large piece of territory thus brought under direct British rule was Sambalpur — an extensive region of forests, valleys, and mountains on the South-western frontier of Lower Bengal. The childless Chief of this secluded
