On Tuesday night Lord Selborne drew attention, in the House
of Lords, to this apparent violation of the pledge repeatedly given by the Ministers to localise the new title, so far as possible, in India, reading the emphatic words so often reiterated by different members of the Government in both Houses. Lord Cairns replied in a very lame speech, of which the two points insisted upon were,—first, that so far as his own declara- tions in the House of Lords had gone, they had been literally embodied in the Proclamation ; next, that to keep the use of the new title as much as possible out of the United Kingdom, was to localise it in India, since it could not by any conceivable possi- bility be an object to anybody in the Colonies to introduce the title there. Well, but will it be no object to officials, not in the Colonies, but at home, to comply with the express directions of the Proclamation in relation to the patents and appointments which are to operate in the Colonies? And why should Colonial authorities be so completely free from any desire or tempta- tion to comply with the terms of the Proclamation, so far as they conveniently can? Lord Cairns felt that he had no case, and was obliged to argue that no engagement about the Colonies was either asked or given, — whereupon Lord Hatherley pertinently remarked that an engagement to localise a title in India, was an engagement to keep it out of the Colonies. Does the Lord Chancellor seriously hold that the Prince of Wales is "localised in India" at the present time, simply be- cause he has not yet landed on the shores of the United King-
dom ? or does he consider that be himself is " localised " in the House of Lords whenever he happens to be " not at home ?"
