with it the political status of the deceased Raja. The Court of Directors in England thus summed up the legal and constitutional bearings of the case. 'We are fully satisfied that by the general law and custom of India, a dependent principality like that of Sátára, cannot pass to an adopted heir without the consent of the Paramount Power; that we are under no pledge, direct or constructive, to give such consent; and that the general interests committed to our charge are best consulted by withholding it.'
Lord Dalhousie in this, as in every subsequent case of lapse, was not content with dealing with the question as merely one of expediency to the British Government. The question before him was whether it was for the good alike of the British rulers and of the people of the Native State, to reconstitute the intermediate government afresh in the hands of the adopted child. The previous Raja of Sátára but one had been an oppressor and was deposed. The brother by whom we superseded him in 1839 governed well. But Lord Dalhousie held that we had no right to subject the people of Sátára to the chances involved by again setting over them an irresponsible ruler.
'In my conscience,' he wrote, 'I believe we should ensure to the population of the State a perpetuity of that just and mild government which they have lately enjoyed; but which they will
