§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEhoped that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would state the reasons which had led him to answer on Thursday evening that, in his opinion, no amendment was necessary in this Bill to exclude from its operation commissions, writs, and similar documents, operating in this country only. Their Lordships would remember that after he himself had raised a question on this point, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) expressed an opinion that without an alteration in the Bill it would be scarcely possible to effect by Proclamation such a limitation in the use of the new title as the Government intended. The opinion so given by the noble and learned Lord was shared in by other noble Lords. As, then, sufficient doubt had been expressed by great legal authorities as to what was the true construction of the Bill and the introduction of a few simple words would remove it, perhaps the 1387 noble and learned Lord would state the reasons which induced him to think that such alteration was unnecessary. Without some such statement he thought their Lordships ought not to consent to the third reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if any argument to show that there was doubt could be put forward by the noble Earl or by his noble and learned Friend, he would be happy to give it his best attention and make such answer to it as he might think it ought to receive; but he thought he ought to know what he was called upon to answer before he attempted to reply.
§ EARL GRANVILLEobserved that surely the noble and learned Lord must have regarded the point raised as an important one, as he had taken time to consider it.
§ LORD SELBORNEsaid, he was most reluctant to question any legal opinion given by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack; he must, however, remind their Lordships that in the opinion he himself ventured to express on a former evening, on the point he was now about to bring under their notice, he did not stand alone. Moreover, one would have felt more confidence in the opinion given by his noble and learned Friend on Thursday evening if it had appeared that it had always been held by his noble and learned Friend. Their Lordships were aware that when the Bill was in "another place," it was stated that there were occasions on which the new title would require to be used in this country, however desirable it might be to minimize its use here. That announcement was made a considerable time before the Bill reached their Lordships' House. Accordingly when the Bill came to be debated in their Lordships' House, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was asked whether it would not be necessary that the altered style should be used in certain legal documents in this country; and on that occasion—and the question could scarcely have come upon him by surprise—he answered in the very words which had been used in "another place."
§ LORD SELBORNEHis noble and learned Friend might not have read those words, but he certainly referred to the statement, and said that in those classes of documents the altered 1388 style must be used. He hoped that in this case second thoughts might be best; but as his noble and learned Friend had just said that, before he expressed his reasons he should be happy to pay attention to anything that could be said in explanation of the point raised on a former occasion, he would put the case as it presented itself to his own mind, and as it had presented itself to the minds of others. He believed that up to the time of the Union with Scotland Parliament had not laid down any law as to the style of the Crown—it was in the power of the reigning Sovereign, without the authority of Parliament, to alter that style; and, in point of fact, in many successive reigns from the Conquest to the Union with Scotland that style was altered by different Sovereigns. The Union with Scotland made no difference in that respect, because there was not in that Act any express legislation with regard to the Royal style and title. But even in that state of things it was held by the Court of King's Bench, in the reign of Charles II., that in legal documents, such as writs—and what was applicable to them was applicable to other documents emanating from the Crown Office—the full style and title of the King for the time being should be used: and in 1676 a writ was held to be bad because the words "King of Scotland," which was then a part of the style of Charles II., were not in the writ. He did not say that if that question came before the Courts of Law there might not be room for canvassing it and challenging the doctrine thus laid down; but it was recognized, and cited as law, in a book of no inconsiderable authority—The Digest of Chief Baron Comyn. That was the law as laid down in the reign of Charles II.; and it would, he thought, be very imprudent, even if the point were regarded as doubtful, to act upon the supposition that it was not the law. With regard to the Royal style and title thus laid down as necessary to be inserted in certain legal instruments, legislation took place at the time of the Union with Ireland: and since that time the style of the Crown had been fixed by Act of Parliament. It was provided that, after the Union, the Royal style and title "appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies," to that one Imperial Crown, 1389 which was regarded by the statute as the Crown of the United Kingdom and all its Dependencies—should be settled by a Proclamation under the Great Seal; and King George III., on the 1st of January, 1801, issued a Proclamation by which he declared, in execution of that power, that the Royal style and title of the Imperial Kingdom and its Dependencies should run thus—substituting the name of her present Majesty—"Victoria by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith." That was the Royal style and title by Act of Parliament at the present moment—the Royal style of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies, India included. The Bill before the House, reciting that state of the law, proposed to give power to Her Majesty by her Royal Proclamation to make "such addition to the style and title at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies, as to Her Majesty may seem meet." Now the question he desired to put was, would that power be duly and properly executed by making an addition which would be limited by Proclamation, so that it would be used, not throughout the United Kingdom and its Dependencies, but in one particular Dependency of the United Kingdom? He did not think that any such thing could be held to be contemplated by the words he had mentioned. The addition was one which when once made would be, under the Act of Parliament, inseparably part and parcel of the style and title appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and of all its Dependencies, as much in the United Kingdom itself, and in every one of the Dependencies of the Crown, as in India. Now, if Her Majesty should be advised to issue a Proclamation in which it should be set forth that this style was not to be used on particular occasions, he apprehended that that might hold perfectly good as to all matters in which it was not necessary to use the full legal style and title of the Imperial Crown; but that it would be bad as to any matter concerning which it was necessary by law that the full style and title of the Imperial Crown should be used. His noble and learned Friend, for example, on a former occasion had referred to the fact that in 1390 the Proclamation of George III. there were some clauses as to the coinage of the Realm and stamps, the effect of which was that, until further directions should be given, the then existing coin should continue current under the old style of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and that any further coin to which the same die might be affixed should be perfectly good for the purposes of the circulation of the coinage; and in like manner as to stamps. Now, that, he had no doubt, was perfectly consistent with the Act of Union, and anything of the same nature would, of course, be perfectly within Her Majesty's power now; because he was not aware of any principle of law which required that the full style and title of the Crown should be expressed on the coinage or on any of those stamps. But, according to the authority which he had cited, it was laid down that in writs it was by law necessary that the full legal style and title of the Imperial Crown and its Dependencies should be used; and he apprehended, therefore, that, so far as instruments of that kind were concerned, the use of that title would be required. That was the nature of the difficulty which he felt in connection with the Bill, and he hoped their Lordships would excuse him if he had ventured to dwell upon it at such length.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could assure his noble and learned Friend that he was very much obliged to him for having stated so distinctly the difficulty which he felt; and it was with the view of obtaining such an explanation that he had asked the noble Earl who first spoke (Earl Granville) what was the precise nature of the point which he wished to raise. The attention of the Government had already been called by the noble Earl and others to this fact, that there were a great many formal official documents operating in this country—such as writs, commissions to magistrates and officers in the Army, charters and documents of that kind—in which the title of the Crown was recited; and the Government were asked whether it was their intention, after what had been stated in the other House of Parliament, that the style of the Crown in those documents should in future include the title to be assumed for India. The Government gave an undertaking on that point to which they were pledged, 1391 and which they were bound, to fulfil—and that was that there should be no change in the Royal style and title in such documents operating only in this country. If they should be unable to carry out that undertaking, he apprehended that the first consequence which would arise would be injury to the Government themselves. But what was the difficulty which occurred to the mind of his noble and learned Friend? The noble and learned Lord had adopted a hypothesis for himself as to the form in which the Proclamation under the Bill was to be issued, and upon that hypothesis he had founded the difficulty which he had just stated. He supposed the Proclamation would begin by enlarging the Royal style and title by the addition of certain words and by declaring that should be to all intents and purposes the Royal style and title as a whole. The noble and learned Lord then assumed that this having been once done by the Proclamation, nothing further could be done by the same means confining that peculiar style to particular documents and occasions. In support of that proposition he disinterred a case of very questionable authority, said to have been decided 200 years ago in the Court of Queen's Bench—of which he would say nothing more than that he thought his noble and learned Friend would have been the very last person to produce that fossil of law and hold it up to admiration at the present day. For his own part, he should be extremely sorry that the Government should issue a Proclamation depending upon the questions which were said to be raised in that case; although he did not agree with his noble and learned Friend that even if the Proclamation were to begin in the way which he supposed, and were then to define the occasions on which the Royal style and title were to be used, the results which he apprehended would follow. But it was quite possible—and that was sufficient for his purpose—to say that in the Proclamation issued under the present Bill which authorized Her Majesty to make—
Such addition to the style and titles at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its dependencies as to Her Majesty may seem meet,such addition should be confined to all documents other than those to which he 1392 had referred as operating in the United Kingdom. If that were done, the Proclamation could not operate beyond the words of it, and the difficulty suggested by his noble and learned Friend would not arise.
§ LORD HATHERLEYsaid, he believed that their Lordships were all desirous that this Bill should be passed in a form which could not hereafter be questioned, and at the present moment there could be no difficulty in making the intention of the Legislature so clear and plain that no question could arise in the future. Now, after listening to his noble and learned Friend—to whom he was in the habit of deferring—he was not satisfied with his explanation, or that the doubt that had existed had been cleared away. His noble and learned Friend treated very lightly the authority which had been referred to, but which, until overruled by their Lordships' House was law, as Lord Chief Baron Comyn considered it, and which had never been doubted by any subsequent authority or text writer.
THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that it was no doubt a valid decision, and he did not wish to controvert it.
§ LORD HATHERLEYunderstood that his noble and learned Friend had criticized the reference to "a case which was decided more than two centuries ago." He (Lord Hatherley) had formed an opinion that there was sufficient doubt in the case to justify those who wished to see this Bill perfectly safe from discussion hereafter in suggesting an Amendment on this occasion. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said the title would be localized except in those cases where it was necessary the full title should be used. That was not very satisfactory. He (Lord Hatherley) submitted that the Proclamation would make the addition part and parcel of the style and title of the Crown of Great Britain and her dependencies, and that the new style and title could not be localized in any way whatever. Half-a-dozen words inserted in the Bill would set the doubt beyond all question.
LORD DENMANsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not anticipate what Her Majesty's title in the Proclamation would be. He felt that he might use an illustration from the hunting field, for they were all too forward. He had been reminded of a scene in Leicester- 1393 shire where everyone had been hurrying on, and Sir Lawrence Palk exclaimed, "Let the fox come!" Even as early as March, 1800, the Irish Parliament had issued the Resolution as to a Proclamation respecting the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and had fixed the date of the following January for the issuing of the Proclamation. He had come up from Scotland at some inconvenience to consider the Earl of Shaftesbury's Motion, but found he could not vote on either side. He earnestly trusted that Her Majesty would take into consideration what had passed on this question in that and the other House of Parliament. The Act for transferring the dominions in the East Indies from the East India Company in 1856—merely contemplated a transfer to the Queen. And as the Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland only passed in November, he hoped that as much delay as to the Proclamation, might take place, as between November, 1800 and January, 1801.
§ Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.