the native princes and chiefs; and here, with the single exception of the mistake committed at Hyderabad—a mistake wholly beyond the prince's control—everything appears to have succeeded, even beyond expectation. It seems to be on all sides admitted that very much of this success is due to the prince himself, whose genial manners and natural courtesy will not soon be forgotten. The intercourse between the native chiefs, hitherto very rare, which the prince's visit has brought about, must have a good effect, in spite of some few heartburnings, at supposed slights which, in a matter full of difficulties appreciable only by those who have had to deal with them, human ingenuity could hardly have prevented. Absurd exaggeration has been showered on almost everything connected with the royal visit, but it stands out clear that the heir-apparent to the British throne has left the best possible impression on one of the most important classes of his Indian subjects, and that the strong tie of personal loyalty thus created is likely, if wisely cultivated, to be of exceeding value, and to contribute to the satisfactory solution of the difficulties which surround the relations between these feudatories and the paramount authority. With the position and treatment of the native states is intimately associated a name which will assuredly go down to posterity as the name of one of our greatest Indian rulers. Lord Dalhousie's proceedings regarding the native states have been little understood, and have been subjected to misrepresentation which he, unfortunately, did not live to refute, and which may yet for a long time remain unrefuted, as he has, with the consciousness of power remarkable throughout his career, relegated the publication of his private papers to a period comparatively remote. His treatment of the native states was consistent and intelligible. Their treatment since his death has been an ever-varying quantity defying analysis. We believe that Lord Dalhousie foresaw more clearly, and estimated more correctly, than any of his less gifted successors, the difficulties inseparable from the maintenance of native rule within British India. His untimely death took place just when his counsels were most required. The mutiny of 1857, with its attendant horrors and danger, had caused in England a scare of which the court of directors were the first, and Lord Dalhousie's territorial policy the next victims; and then was hastily introduced a radical change of which the future satisfactory working must have been simply taken for granted. It was the launch of the "Happy-go-lucky," which has since buffeted about until her straining appears to have convinced those responsible for her safety that something more is absolutely necessary. That there should be much groping in the dark under such circumstances is not surprising, for although everything points to the want of a sufficient system of dealing with the native feudatory states, the best intellects and the largest experience may well be taxed to devise one which shall, while gradually bringing the native rulers to our own administrative level, reconcile them to the absence of independent authority. Unquestionably difficult as is this problem, its satisfactory solution can only be rendered more unlikely than ever by ignoring the fact that between the aspirations of educated natives to an ever-increasing share in the administration of British territory, and the aspirations of educated natives who rule states within that territory, there must be a great and irreconcilable difference; and by hesitating to revise engagements framed under circumstances so utterly different from those now existing as to have become, in many respects, worse than useless. Of many questions which ought to have been thoroughly dealt with in 1857-58, we will refer to one of the least important—the right of coining exercised by many of the feudatory chiefs, and very recently formally recognized in the case of Baroda, of which State the coinage will now be a legal tender throughout the British-Indian empire. This must surely foster the illusions regarding independent sovereignty which it is so desirable to dispel.
To what extent a consideration of the important questions just referred to has influenced the decision that her Majesty shall henceforth take a title from India as well as from Great Britain and Ireland, is not apparent from the explanation hitherto afforded regarding a measure which has been allowed to assume an undesirable resemblance to those stage-effects which are not meant for, and will not bear, close inspection. No addition to the royal styles and titles was made when the direct government of India was eighteen years ago transferred to the crown, and this has now been described as an omission which the late loyal reception of the Prince of Wales in India affords a fitting opportunity for supplying. It is now also known that the omission was not accidental, but the deliberate act of the min-
